Best architectual features

Somewhere in the grand scheme of things even the platypus has a niche! I like them. :idunno:
Robby

ApprenticeBuilder said:

I am building a platypus and will post pics by the end of the month before the engraving and carving.

Click to expand...

:rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

Brother, you kill me!!! J.D.

Robby said:

Somewhere in the grand scheme of things even the platypus has a niche! I like them. :idunno:
Robby

Click to expand...

I like 'em too but the judges at Dixon's won't. :grin:

"Needs to see more original marsupial mammals" :rotf:

Enjoy, J.D.

I think the next time someone elses gun gets criticized for its architecture, we shoulds send them a link to this thread.

That way, they can see for themselves how subjective this is... :wink:

gizamo said:

I think the next time someone elses gun gets criticized for its architecture, we shoulds send them a link to this thread.

That way, they can see for themselves how subjective this is... :wink:

Click to expand...

The simple fact is that it is very difficult to talk about firearms architecture without specific examples. It is even harder to come up with specific rules that are universally applicable. It is like trying to describe what makes a pretty girl's face pretty - there is going to be an exception to every rule and there is going to be different verdicts concerning any particular example, yet when you come right down to it most folks will recognize good proportions and lines when they see them. Just because something is subjective and difficult to describe doesn't mean it isn't real...

Having said that, I am disappointed that people aren't trying a little harder to come up with some universal rules. The initial idea was a good one.

The idea of asking what architectural features make a good gun is kind of like asking how much does a car cost?

The desired architectural features that make a great looking gun, depend primarily on the school or style of gun being built.

i.e. Lancaster, straight square lines in the buttstock vs. Lehigh with not a straight line any where.

Like stated previously, it's the proportions, and how all those shapes that work together to make up the proper architecture for that style of gun.
I know I'm going to start a war here, but some of the top builder's in the nation totally believe the in Golden Mean proportions, and use it religiously. Allen Martin for example.

Dan Phariss gave a good answer, I think. It's tough to point out certain characteristics and say for sure they make the cake; they do have to work together. There are some styles I think are butt ugly but others love them. It's subjective, a matter of taste. When you see a good looking rifle, regardless of style, and like it, There has to be something about the whole and not always something you can put to print. I like Lancasters and Southern rifles. The lines just stir my aesthetics even when there might be an anomaly in the total picture. I guess it's simply called taste.

Dane said:

I know I'm going to start a war here, but some of the top builder's in the nation totally believe the in Golden Mean proportions, and use it religiously. Allen Martin for example.

Click to expand...

Dane, Love your work. :hatsoff:

Not trying to start a war either, just wondering why you picked Allen Martin?

I searched the current ALR, (the archives are down right now), looked at both his old and new websites and googled Allen Martin Golden Mean and the only hit I had was this post.

I'm a neighbor of his and am over there a bit going over work of his or his of mine and have never heard him mention it. Is it something I should ask him about?

Thanks, J.D.

Golden Mean Cont:

Dane, ALR archives are up and the only Allen Martin golden mean reference was by you about the dividers a few yeas ago....(remember the "shop tools" post?)....so, you guys must have discussed it off line at some point.

I know the "golden mean" stirs up allot of arguements over there too....well used to, now mostly just laughs.

I'll have to get Allen's take on it next time I'm over there....or should I avoid it? :grin:

Keep up the good work. J.D.

I have a pair that I copied from his. He had it on his table @ Dixon's, and we talked about it for some time.
Love the guy, love his work, but no dividers are EVER going to make my work compare with his. The man is a genius, and one heck of a nice guy.

Dane said:

The desired architectural features that make a great looking gun, depend primarily on the school or style of gun being built.

i.e. Lancaster, straight square lines in the buttstock vs. Lehigh with not a straight line any where.

Click to expand...

I think Dane has the answer here. If we asked Allen Martin what architectural features make a good Lehigh, we'd be get a real education. If we asked Bill Shipman the same question about Lancasters, we would again get more than a few general statements. (I have not heard either of these gentlemen answer this question, but mention them here because of my respect for their work.). Mixing features, knowingly or unknowingly, from these two styles is where the platypus comes in.

BTW, Gary Brumfield used to deal with "Regional Styles" at the Bowling Green Seminar.
Regards,
Pletch

I like a gun that fits me. That has sights that I can use. A single trigger with a light pull. .54 caliber or larger. Light enough to hold on target for a while but heavy enough not to kick the stuffing out of me. Flintlock of course. Patchbox is optional. Historically correct for the period between the 1750's and 1790's. Rifled or smoothbore is acceptable.

Other than that I'm easy.

Many Klatch

Mixing features, knowingly or unknowingly, from these two styles is where the platypus comes in.

Click to expand...

I would spose that as long as a particular build is not stated as being a 'Lancaster' or 'Lehigh' etc. I really have no problems with the fantasy or platypus gun, provided the chosin elements work together somewhat, sometimes its fun to step back and interpolate.

You are onto something there. Anyone who's spent any time doing their research on Early American guns will agree that there are plenty of "platypus" out there....guns that cross school/region lines.


Some of them are well executed and some are not. But as you said, the elements have to work together....some do, some don't.

It's like Justice Potter said, "I can't define obscenity but I know it when i see it".

J.D.

Intersting no doubt, I would lie to post a thought that just due to the fact that there are some "platypus" guns from the past that is not a carte blanc excuse for the mentality of "you can do what you want and still be correct" or bring the many finely made high art fantasy guns into the realm of being period representitive pieces IMHO.

But, in the same respect you don't have to do a bench copy of a known gun for it to be HC/PC.

A gun build today that still fits the architectual archetype can still be HC/PC. IMHO.

J.D.

tg said:

due to the fact that there are some "platypus" guns from the past that is not a carte blanc excuse for the mentality of "you can do what you want and still be correct" or bring the many finely made high art fantasy guns into the realm of being period representitive pieces IMHO.

Click to expand...

Oh no, would never even begin to think that way.

On the other hand a rifle can be a complete fantasy product and still have correct architecture, slender wrist in relation to lock and barrel size, slim upper and lower forearm etc.

To no one in particular.
"Best architectual features"? Does that mean visually, shootability, they are not always the same. I think most fantasy guns or woulda, coulda been guns, have more to do with the embellishments like wire or inlays, patchbox, or even engraving of a style and quality that did not exist in the time frame that the gun is suppose to represent. Yes, I am guilty of those infractions. :redface:
Achitectural details can vary quite a bit within any given school and to me it only looses the historical correctness when it is so far out of the school represented, that it should be labeled to a different school all together. As long as all the elements flow together and the hardware isn't too far away from the geographic area represented by the maker its good to go in my book. And sometimes even T/G and B/P may be wrong for the generalized school, but can be documented. Not expressing myself too well, turkey hunting and lack of sleep, but I hope you get the gist of what I mean.
Robby

I agree with the above posts, just at times this type of exchage drifts into the coulda woulda thing and I cannot imagine anyone purposefull building of buying a gun that was not executed properly today or in the past, I saw a post somwhere on this thread saying that the next time someone questions the architecture of a gun to look at the platypuses of the past, just can't buy into that mindset, and as mentioned it is not just the architectrure but the sum of the parts that make a gun and the vast majority of us form folks would not really have much of an idea about what was or wasn't good architecture in the various schools/time periods so this particular thread has a very small following who will really grasp it well I believe.

I like the platypus analogy. To my eye that is the perfect description of the Perdersoli Pennsylvania rifle. Good architecture pretty much means that no one particular feature just jumps out and grabs your eye. It all works together.