platypus gun? I show, you tell...

[George]

One of the recurring themes of discussion on the forum is the fact that most of our modern-made guns don't conform to the requirements of those interested in HC/PC. A recent term for this type of gun is the 'platypus', a gun made with mismatched... wrong school... parts or incorrect architecture, and "there's no pratical use for a platypus". Reading through all the many, many different takes on this problem, it seems to be being said that platypus guns were made in the day, but aren't allowed, today. I find this pretty confusing, so I thought I'd offer those interested in and knowledgeable about such things a chance to demonstrate what they mean.

Would you be willing to analyze my gun? It was made back in the days before we learned all the neat stuff we know these days, back when, it is said, the old boys just built whatever they pleased, and they didn't really know what was right. Is it a platypus? If so, why, if not, why not?

This gun was built by a local builder whom I never knew. I bought it used in 1973. It is a .40 caliber rifle, barrel is straight, 13/16" x 42", twist 1:66. Weight is just shy of 8 pounds. The stock is of maple and straight, there is no cast. Drop at comb is 1 3/4", at heel is 3 3/4". The buttstock is 1 1/4" thick, heel to toe is 4 1/4". Overall length is 57", LOP 13". The lock-sideplate panels taper 1.52" to 1.4", wrist is 1.3" wide x 1.25" high. The lock is a Siler 5 1/4" x 15/16" fastened with two lock bolts. Trigger is double-set, single phase. The barrel is held with 3 keys. The patch box release is set into the brass inlay on the bottom of the buttstock. Furniture is brass, barrel escutcheons, cheekpiece inlay and thumbpiece are silver. Most of the brass and silver has engraving. There is no carving, but fairly extensive use of silver wire inlay.

For those with only a passing interest in this thread, here are a few photos just to show what the gun looks like in general. For those interested in offering your opinions on the gun, a link to an album of more detailed photos is at the bottom.

http://s881.photobucket.com/albums/ac20/Spence_2010/Thompson/?albumview=slideshow

It's something to do until squirrel season opens. :haha:

Spence

 

[Mike Brooks]

It,s a very well made gun, incredible actually when you consider it was built in 1973!. I can't identify a school, but there are many originals that can't be identified either. The only thing that could improve it would be a swamped barrel, but they were incredibly rare in '73.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Thanks for posting the link to the slide show. Great pictures.

Considering you bought this used in '73 this rifle could easily go back to the '60's.

When you consider what this builder had to work with, limited reference material, limited parts, etc., he did a fantastic job.

We are truely blessed to work in the age we work in now.

I won't try to nail it down to a particular school either without going to the books, none jumps out at me. There also comes a point when allot of rifles can't be assigned to a certain school. A look the Western Pennsylvania Longrifle book, which contains guns from the late flint and early percussion period, we see that many builders in a given area were practicing many different styles. This seems typical of the Federal Period.

The patchbox is particulary good work. 5 knuckle lid, hinge slightly bent to conform to stock. Period engraving. Release mechanism fit well into toeplate.

Lock and side plate flow nicely into wrist and forestock. Lower forestock nicely rounded. Good hieght through the breech area and wrist.

All the surfaces that are supposed to curve do so nicely. Inletting througout is good. Engraving and wirework is tasteful. Overall nice work.

It is not without it's warts but they are overshadowed by it's attributes. If I were to build one like it someday I would do some things different, as would anybody, but I would hope I could pull off some things as well as this builder did.

You have here what I feel is a nice 1960/70's interpretation of an Federal Period longrifle. I would be proud to own it and I'm sure you are as you have held onto it for so long.

ff I checked out your web-site after you hit me with the :bull: on Mattybuck's post (still would like to know what that was all about). Anyway, the little I have read so far is informative and well written....you sure seem to enjoy what you're doing and it comes through in your writing. I will be back to read more.

Keep up the good work. Sincerely, J.D.

 

[kaintuck]

I LIKE KENTUCKY'S.....and being born there...it makes me a expert :blah:
so what I make...IS a kentuck rifle.....and now that I live in Tennessee.....I can build a authintic Tenn rifle too! :thumbsup:

now IF i was to copy something...and say it was a berks co rifle.....then it would have to be a EXACT copy to be acceptable :shocked2:

but since this is my hobby....something that will be fun.... :hmm: :surrender:
then we have F U N.....I shore do enjoy all these comments too!! :rotf: :rotf:

and P.S.....I think Paris hilton is a cutie!!!! :youcrazy:

 

[stormcrow]

The conclusions of my analysis are that this is a beautiful piece, regardless of when made
or from what school it was derived. Thanks for sharing the photos.

 

[Elnathan]

I don't know enough about Federal Period guns to be able to identify a "platypus," so I won't try. As far as architecture goes, judging by the pictures in Kindig's book, I can see only two things which bother me. The first is that the buttplate is very thick at the rear, which is out of place for a Federal period rifle (I think some later guns had buttplates like that - some Fur Trade era trade rifles?)The other is that the cheekpiece appears to be convex instead of concave and remains distinct from the rest of the stock until it reaches the buttplate, whereas the originals faded into the stock about halfway up.


BTW, I love your website. As a matter of fact, I was going through some papers today and found a copy of "A Squirrel Stew Receipt" that I printed out ten years ago!

 

[trent/OH]

Very pretty. Tastefully decorated without over-doing it. The patina looks great! Unfortunately, the lock is on the wrong side of the stock, but that's a personal thing.

Were there no marks or scratchings in the patchbox or under the barrel or on the bottom of the barrel (no puns about scratching the bottom of the barrel) that would indicate the date or builder?

 

BTW, I love your website. As a matter of fact, I was going through some papers today and found a copy of "A Squirrel Stew Receipt" that I printed out ten years ago!

You got a receipt when you bought the stew? :wink:

 

[hounddog]

Well boys, any time that feller getd tired of it just let me know, I would be proud to own it. I dont get real hung up on pc correctness my guns are not exactly pc but they are close enough that I can go just anywhere and my gun will pass muster. Kaintuck, I agree that Paris Hilton is a cutie, BUT she is a little flat butted for my taste, she needs to fill it out a little he haw picky hounddog

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

Its nice, looks well made.

 

[Elnathan]

As for original "platypus" guns, there are certainly a large number of original guns that do not fit into the usual schools. Some of these are obviously professionally made weapons that either have no distinctive architectural or decorative features or, alternatively, that are simply too unique for us to identify with the limited surviving sample. Others can be rather awkward, often using recycled parts and stocked by non-professionals. The only original flintlock rifle I have ever handled was a parts gun made with a a very long small-caliber smoothbore barrel, a rear sight, and a Brown Bess lock a couple sizes too large for the rest of the gun. An odd gun, but it handled beautifully and the forestock seemed almost paper thin.

However, going by pictures in books and on the web you can easily tell the difference these amateur-made originals and less-than-stellar examples from today. I think that the difference is that the 18th century amateurs were working off the memory of guns they had handled and had experience in whittling in 3D, whereas a modern beginner is working off of 2D pictures, has woodworking experience (if any) working from pre-cut boards, and furthermore has the influence of modern weapons. The result is that while the 18th century pieces can have poor lines in profile, they don't tend to have problems with getting things rounded, don't have overly-wide lock panels, and don't tend to have too-thick webs between the barrel and ramrod-hole and between the ramrod-hole and the bottom of the forearm. In contrast, because we are used to seeing guns primarly as pictures, do a little better with getting the profiles looking good, but tend to make guns that are too high and narrow, overbuilt, and slab-sided. We are a lot more used to cutting shapes out of boards than whittling things from a stick, I think, and it gives us wrong instincts. That is my impression, anyhow, based on my own mistakes and the pictures (!) I have seen. Others who have handled more originals may know more.

 

[Elnathan]

BTW, I love your website. As a matter of fact, I was going through some papers today and found a copy of "A Squirrel Stew Receipt" that I printed out ten years ago!

You got a receipt when you bought the stew? :wink:

That is the title: http://home.insightbb.com/~bspen/squirrel.html

 

[mattybock]

i can tell you this much. I don't know about schools. What I do know is that a long time back people traded knowledge and moved around a bit. Guns evolved and changed and gained and lost decoration. For some reason people like their labels and put them on gun making, which is just as much an art as painting. If you can find a maker's mark, that'll be your best bet to learning a bit about it, but other than that, enjoy the gun fro what it is - pretty and your own.

Now as for that whole 'no use for a platypus' business. I own a zoo that'll give that poor platypus a nice home if you don't want it.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Elnathan,

That's a pretty insightful....the building in a 3-D perspective vs. the 2-D. Makes whole lot of sense. The early builder never would have been influenced by pictures in the first place. We've been brainwashed!!!

Only thing I would point out is that back in the day men apprenticed their boys out to the trades and they learned their trade. They weren't so much building from memory as were learning on the job, one step at a time.

Good stuff :hatsoff: , J.D.

 

[Elnathan]

Only thing I would point out is that back in the day men apprenticed their boys out to the trades and they learned their trade. They weren't so much building from memory as were learning on the job, one step at a time.

Thanks. I meant the amateurs may have been working from memory, or another gun. The professionals had training and practice, and if still being trained had an expert around to critique their work. Sorry that if I wasn't clear.

 

[jdkerstetter]

No big deal. It didn't detract from the overall idea of your post. Seriously....good stuff!!!

You're way ahead just realizing we've been brainwashed from the beginning and that's the first step in learning how to "see" what's really there. :thumbsup:

Books, pictures, heck mirrors for that matter were a rare commodity for the average early American....practically their whole word was 3-D so of course they processed information differently!

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[hanshi]

First off the work is well done and certainly good enough to stand with the better rifles made today. The guy who built it obviously knew what he was doing. The overall impression is of an attractive, well made rifle I wouldn't mind having in my cabinet.

It doesn't look like anything I've seen before. It is not HC/PC but does somewhat resemble a SMR in general appearance. Of course the lock is wrong for a SMR/Tn gun. A platypus, yes, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with a platypus; some of the finest rifles today are Platypi/usses?? If you like the rifle and it shoots well just call it a "pet".

 

[George]

Were there no marks or scratchings in the patchbox or under the barrel or on the bottom of the barrel (no puns about scratching the bottom of the barrel) that would indicate the date or builder?

I mislead you. I meant that I had never met the man, personally. His name was J. D. Thompson, and was well known in our local area. This is one of his early guns. I'm told he made quite a few guns, and his Jaegers were admired.

Spence

 

[George]

When you consider what this builder had to work with, limited reference material, limited parts, etc., he did a fantastic job.

That's frequently said, but I'm not sure it's all that accurate. We had Joe Kindig, Ned Roberts, Henry Kauffman, Merrill Lindsey, William Buchele, among others. There has been a lot of scholarship since that time, the old material has been reinterpreted and new material turned up, but those weren't exactly the days of the one room schoolhouse. Those men's work is still considered foundational in many respects, I believe.

When the opportunity to buy this gun came along I had already spent several years absorbing the lore of those men, and I had in my head a fair understanding of what the longrifle was all about, at least in general terms. I hadn't been able to afford a gun up to that point, but I certainly could afford books, and I did. Those who were building guns at that time weren't as handicapped as recent hobbyists imagine.

Spence

 

[nchawkeye]

How does she shoot???

I've got a 1-48 on my .40 made by Bob Watts, love taking her out squirrel hunting...Just curious about the 1-66...My lightest load is 25grs FFF but she shoots just as well when I get up to 60-70grs, just hits a bit high...

Also, mine has a Douglas barrel, do you know what she has???