HC or doing your own thing?

Have read many posts from mostly beginning builders who for whatever reason "do their own thing" and when mentioning that fact, are applauded by other posters. The resultant
MLers from "doing your own thing" display a conglomeration of both components ,architecture and embellishments. But....in the scheme of things does it really matter? Then the quetion arises....matters to whom?

My LRs and Hawkens are mainly generically HC and are recognizable as whatever "style or school" I intended them to be. Of course, there's a little research req'd to achieve such a MLer.

One of the big advantages of a parts set {kit} is that mostly the "kit" will yield a fairly HC MLer although some "kits" are more HC than others.

As far as value......whether a MLer is HC or not? In lower priced MLers, generally it doesn't seem to matter much, but w/ "higher end" MLers, it does matter because these buyers are more knowledgeable.

What's the preferred "way" to go.....HC or "doing your own thing"? An individual's option......Fred

flehto said:

An individual's option......

Click to expand...

It is up to the individual, their needs, and their money.

I found the perfect solution for anyone criticizing my choices. If they hate it so much, they can buy me a proper replacement. If not, they're just flapping their lips.

So far no one has felt so strongly they bought me the right replacement. :rotf:

Well, within the various schools there seems to be wide variance in things like patch boxes, inlays, carving, engraving, and to some extent, even architecture.

If you look at the Bethlehem school for instance (the school with which I am most familiar), Nicholas Hawk did things substantially differently from John Moll, yet both are regarded as top makers of the period and school.

I tend to think that if you START with the basic architecture (and appropriate parts) with one period maker, and then make a slight modification to it then you are still "in school" and making a HC gun. But putting heavy baroque raised carving on a late period Chambersburg would be out of place. If you out slightly modified rococco carving on a mid period Lancaster you wouldn't be too far out there in goofy goofy land. It won't be a "bench copy" of an existing gun, but I'n not too sure that most (John Armstrong would be an exception) made gun after gun after gun the same way throughout their careers. Most painters and other artists don't go in to production of the same pieces, so period gun makers didn't either. They're sort of on the line between tradesmen, and artists.

At the end of the day, it's all in the eye of the beholder, and it's the execution that seems to matter the most. You build beautiful rifles, and with terrific architecture and execution of all the fittings. Most importantly, they're rifles that YOU like. And, you are willing to share your depth of experience here with others, and that's a gift we are all lucky to have.

Keep doing what you are doing Fred! :hatsoff:

Ahhhh...Fred you KNOW my comments~ but we'll ask Tomtom~
Tomtom said that if a person wants to build to sell to a rich collector, follow a maker in the proper school, AND have a decent finish, otherwise, buyers aren't impressed, and you won't get super high dollars~
On the other paw, a functioning, slim, artistic gun will be liked by many, hunters, shooters, traders etc...and will be accepted, but will be priced and sold accordingly.Working man's guns....working mans prices!

Tomtom likes to build better and better, but some schools makes him have a hairball effect, so he stays away from them! He said we will start on KY rifles soon, from Shelby's books, Shelby has already traced and dimentioned one Barrens rifle and sent me the stuff(Tomtom can't read)....so, yes, Marc n Tomtom will follow these 'schools' closely, because we both like the looks of the rifles.......

but what does he know....he's just a :youcrazy: kat.......
:wink:

I wonder how many of the original artisans knew they were making guns according to a specific "school". It's only the people who analyzed and scrutinized these guns years later who 'decided' that they fit a certain "school".
I'm sure they just built the guns that their customers wanted and the customers had no access to other styles of different regions to compare them.

In other words, the customers with the $$$ called the shots ... same as today.

Fred, while I am working my way towards "near bench copy" I'm not sure that I will ever get there or want to get there.

John Bivens suggested that contemporary builders could be grouped into 1 of 4 categories:

#1 is Documentary recreation. These are guns made exactly as the old ones were “mistakes and all”. These are the ones that sell to the most dedicated of the re-enactors

#2 is interpretive recreation. .These guns are made in the style of an old school or even a single maker, but mix details from one gun to another. An example might be to look at 4 different JP Beck guns and make a gun that has carving from one with a patch box from another and so on. A student of Beck’s work would see the new rifle as a “Beck style rifle” but not a copy of a specific Beck rifle. The area of building opens up quite a lot when we start talking about areas (Like Lancaster) instead of makers (like Beck or berry or any other one you may like)

#3 is New School. These are guns made in the style of the guns made long ago, but in the art form that the modern builder likes. In other words this would be the rifle a builder would make if he were to be transported back in time and have to compete for his place in the market in 1790 or 1800. He would not copy anyone but would try to make guns that other smiths of the era. would want to copy.

New School is the category that proves the real Golden Age of the American Long rifle is now, not 200 years ago.

#4 is Modern. This category includes such things as plastic, in-lines, smokeless powder and so on.
------------------------------

I consider myself a "type 2" builder and more specifically a type 2 that builds inspired by a single builder instead of the school. Somehow building a Fordney rifle(Lancaster) and sticking a Dickert patchbox(Lancaster) on it is just "wrong".

But making a collage of 6 or 7 Christian Hawken rifles might capture his "career" as an example and "I" am ok with that.

I guess it comes down to "what is the builders goal".

T/C, Traditons etc have already proved that guys will drop between 500 and 1000 bucks on "A RIFLE" even if it only "passingly" looks like something that is HC.

However, I have yet to see, up in the 3, 5+ thousand dollar range something that was just "thrown together" with furniture that came from the seconds box.

You could fasten a barrel into a groove cut in a 2X4, inlet a lock and trigger and have a "hunting rifle".

If you want a "Beck", in "my opinion", it should at least look like it "could have" come from his shop (minimally).

What really bugs me is when someone says I want a Dickert, but I want a capbox, iron furniture, no nose cap, less drop, and "oh ya", make it look like a working mans rifle.

If that's what you want that is fine, but call it a "barn gun" or something else - don't "pretend" it's a Dickert (or call it that), just "because".

Patocazador said:

I wonder how many of the original artisans knew they were making guns according to a specific "school". It's only the people who analyzed and scrutinized these guns years later who 'decided' that they fit a certain "school".

I'm sure they just built the guns that their customers wanted and the customers had no access to other styles of different regions to compare them.

In other words, the customers with the $$$ called the shots ... same as today.

Click to expand...

Yes. :thumbsup:

Depends on the use. For my deer hunting gun, I don't care about schools or styles. I want a plain jane utilitarian gun without alot of brass or silver inlays. Something made to shoot straight and not to care so much if a branch rubs against it. For that reason I have a plain iron mounted poor boy. Same for target work. A target rifle doesn't shoot any better because it has a swamped barrel or silver engraved patchbox.

On the other hand, if I want a rifle made to look like my GGGGF Jacob Angstadt's products. Then follow the school.

Right now I am attempting a build of a specialized odd gun from Europe. Thank heavens for photographs and photometrics for me to get close to the dimensions and shape. I am sure the folks in Europe will say I have "Americanized" it to the point of ugly, no matter how hard I try. If I could get a 3 dimensional program hooked to a CNC stock carver/shaper, I would do that. Expense has me doing it the old fashioned way.

Claude said:

Patocazador said:

I wonder how many of the original artisans knew they were making guns according to a specific "school". It's only the people who analyzed and scrutinized these guns years later who 'decided' that they fit a certain "school".

I'm sure they just built the guns that their customers wanted and the customers had no access to other styles of different regions to compare them.

In other words, the customers with the $$$ called the shots ... same as today.

Click to expand...

Yes. :thumbsup:

Click to expand...

I think that's only partially true.

Yes, the customer has some say in the "options" or "upgrades" but not the general style/structure of the product.

You can get a Vette with leather interior but not 4 doors.

You can buy a modern Weatherby rifle with a plainer or fancier stock but you don't get to pick the barrel diameter etc.

Much the same way back when. The average Joe/Jane farmer, mountain man, whoever, probably didn't know from squat about breech placement or barrel wall thickness or rifling etc - they relied on the gunsmith to figure all that out.

They were concerned with/without a patch box, cheek piece, some carving, engraving, inlay work - and all that would be partially dictated by what "bubba" has.

We are creatures of habit and it's no mistake or black magic that thousands of T/C Hawkens are out there now. Bob saw what Bill had and wanted one.

And if he didn't like the T/C (Dickert) he bought the Lyman (Beck) or Traditions (Armstrong) offering.

Southern Mountain rifles or Late Lancaster's look like they do because that's the way they were built by the various smiths working in the area.

They copied the style that was prevalent and sold. Even today if you look at all the compact cars on the market, if you removed the brand markings you would be somewhat hard pressed to distinguish one from the other unless you start looking close.

So no, maybe they didn't know they were building in the Lancaster school style, but they knew they were building in the style of Dickert, and everyone wanted a Dickert so they mimic'd him.

And that was just "good business practice" - no voodoo involved...

I mostly disagree w/ your post.....if the customer were the determinant factor as to what the builder should build, we wouldn't have
"schools" or styles. Possibly the customer did have a very minor influence as to what got built, but nothing more. Perhaps embellishments?

There were dominant builders in various areas and they trained apprentices who for the most part built guns "like their masters" and when these apprentices became "masters" themselves, their apprentices built what they wanted.

The evolution of the PA LR certainly happened, but just what the "procedure of change" was, is a mystery to me. The European builders who first came to America no doubt built European style guns and through various influences this
"style" slowly evolved into later "styles" which looked far different than the European style.

Along the path of evolution, certain areas produced LRs from different builders that had more things in common than disimilarities. In our quest for simplicity and order.....we've established "schools" which included guns w/ some common characteristics from builders who mainly resided in that certain area.

I think the "schools" are valid and welcome and do serve a purpose of classification. Sure there are differences in guns w/in a "school" but there are also many similarities.

This is a little "off topic", but possibly pertinent.....Fred

I'd like for a rifle to be HC but I find the subject somewhat confusing. :surrender:
Ex: I recently researched Jaeger rifles and found much variation. Looking at photos on the 'net I found great variety in stock detail, trigger guards, triggers, some w/ brass furniture, some iron, etc. Most examples I found had sliding wood patch boxes but some had one made of iron, some had no patch box at all.
The consistencies were the fairly short barrels and heavy butt stocks.
Maybe not all these were truly HC but he only way I would know for sure if a rifle is HC would be for it to duplicate an existing antique.

myshootinstinks said:

I'd like for a rifle to be HC but I find the subject somewhat confusing. :surrender:
Ex: I recently researched Jaeger rifles and found much variation.

Click to expand...

I agree. It's probably just my complete inexperience and not having an eye for fine details, but when I researched Jaeger's I saw the same thing in pictures of originals...some almost sleek to just plain bulky...decorated to not, etc.

If I were to try to truly build an historically perfect rifle, I think I'd have to try to copy a single known specimen. But, since I have yet to even come close to acquiring those skills, it'll be a while before I have to worry about it. Until then, I'll try to do my best to create at least a viable general representation.

[/quote]

But, since I have yet to even come close to acquiring those skills, it'll be a while before I have to worry about it. .[/quote]

That makes two of us.

myshootinstinks said:

I'd like for a rifle to be HC but I find the subject somewhat confusing. :surrender:
Ex: I recently researched Jaeger rifles and found much variation. Looking at photos on the 'net I found great variety in stock detail, trigger guards, triggers, some w/ brass furniture, some iron, etc. Most examples I found had sliding wood patch boxes but some had one made of iron, some had no patch box at all.
The consistencies were the fairly short barrels and heavy butt stocks.
Maybe not all these were truly HC but he only way I would know for sure if a rifle is HC would be for it to duplicate an existing antique.

Click to expand...

If the jaeger rifles you saw were originals they were historical. Of course they vary. Just as a Lehigh rifle is different from a Bean Tennessee rifle. Why would one expect jaegers built across several centuries and many countries and price range to all be similar?

There is much confusion and varying meaning to the term HC by different persons. Galamb's post above describing John Bivins' breakdown of the major classes of longrifles being made today is more useful for me.

I always work within an historical school and time period, usually basing my work on one or two specific originals. Just my preference.

I've built guns I thought were hc at the time of building them, only to find out later I missed the boat. I think it wrong to make an exact copy of one gun but, that's me.I think a 'school' is a better bet. But even maker varied their guns. A Hawkin may be the classic iron mounted plains gun, or a full stock heavy but genraly southern gun, or a brass mounted, or brass and silver heavy gun, or a light Midwestern light rifle in the form of an ohio or Michigan gun.
The fact remins that our 'schools' or types or even our idea of what a hawkin or bean or beck or hines should look like are modern constructs.
How should you go?Make an exact copy and you have a copy of one one-of-a-kind gun. Try to do a 'school'or type you end up with something that didn't exist back then. Some years ago I saw hawkin plans based on average measurement of 10 hawkin rifles. If you built that you ended up with a gun that the Hawkins never built. If you copy the Bridger or Carson Hawkin you end up with a gun only carrired by Carson or Bridger....Whats the most hc way to go?

I personally think Bivins' breakdown helps in distinguishing various intents. Doing one's "own thing" is fine with me if it rocks your boat. It does sometimes get used as a catch-all for lack of planning, study, skill, practice, ability, etc.

This is an interesting discussion Fred! I will add just one more category to the John Biven's list furnished by galamb. That would simply be to build a rifle of a particular period using only the parts that you have at hand. This is something that I have done a couple of times. Being somewhat of a pack-rat, I have accumulated many parts found in various places and bought or traded for if I found the item interested me. From there I put rifle's together with these parts, using what I know about the styles of several early makers. One such rifle was built totally around an early patchbox that I had acquired. Seeing that most of what I build is for my own use and pleasure, I have only myself to please. When trying to figure out just who determined what a longrifle would look like 200-250 years ago, the customer or the builder? I have concluded that it was surely the gunsmith 98% of everything with the customer's 2% pertaining to only the personal dimensions like LOP, overall weight, barrel length, fancy carving\inlays as per how much the customer would pay etc. If you shopped in Chambersburg, you'd get a Chambersburg rifle. In Lancaster....ditto. The architecture of each area and builder made those choices for you.

The bottom line is this, no matter what you do some are not going to like it. A lot of people hated Jesus. That should tell you something. Life is better when you get over trying to please everybody. Do your own thing and do it as best you are able and you will have the approval of those who count. The others don't matter much.
PS. If every muzzle loader was historically correct it would be extremely boring.

galamb said:

Claude said:

Patocazador said:

I wonder how many of the original artisans knew they were making guns according to a specific "school". It's only the people who analyzed and scrutinized these guns years later who 'decided' that they fit a certain "school".

I'm sure they just built the guns that their customers wanted and the customers had no access to other styles of different regions to compare them.

In other words, the customers with the $$$ called the shots ... same as today.

Click to expand...

Yes. :thumbsup:

Click to expand...

I think that's only partially true.

Yes, the customer has some say in the "options" or "upgrades" but not the general style/structure of the product.

You can get a Vette with leather interior but not 4 doors.

Click to expand...

I thought that was assumed? :wink:

Hi Jerry....you're an exceptional builder who can "pull off many ideas", but most of us can't do that.

As w/ many pursuits, there are some guidelines that should be observed....otherwise "weird"
would be an apt adjective. You certainly observe such guidelines.....having seen your work. But because of your artistic talent you can "stretch" these guidelines and still stay w/in them.

Sometimes more is needed than "pleasing one's self"....an acceptance by one's peers has a certain satisfaction otherwise where's the "yardstick"? In other words, why even post a pic of a build on this site if all that mattered was one's own opinion?.....Fred