squared v rounded stock

[jdkerstetter]

:hmm: You guys seem to be familiar with this member.

I'll have to go back and read his old post.

Sounds as though there may have been some entertaining moments.

J.D.

 

[David W.]

I have to go with everyone else, shut down your computer and go to a museum.

 

[jdkerstetter]

OK. Read enough. "Ideas for a new product"... the $50 gun kit? Wow! I don't know what else to say....(this is me speachless).... :shake:

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Zonie]

Matty

To a degree you are correct.

There are some areas of many original stocks that have flat areas. There are also many areas on those same guns that are curved, rounded, hollowed and have many shapes that can't be lumped into a easily described box.

There are constant changes happening and the blending of these shapes demonstrates the skill of the gunmaker.

While it's fine to notice specific features and their locations don't forget to look at the overall shapes.

It may sound somewhat poetic but with the well made longrifles the whole is greater than the sum of the individual forms.

 

[illuveatar]

So Mike, you were about the same age as Matty when you started. I think it's fair to say that you and everyone else in the forum had dumb questions and misconceptions at one time or another. I'm also just beginning to build and am learning a lot from the folks who are willing to explain things, but I haven't learned much at all from headslap emoticons.

Maybe I'm seeing things you guys aren't but it seems that there are a few flat planes on the Isaac Haines and Christian Oerter guns. Those same guns also have a great deal of artistry worked into them. How many guns did Isaac Haines build ? several hundred ? each one being slightly different too I suspect. It's not surprising that a few of them had elements that most people would claim are not correct for the style.

I'm of the opinion that most of the boxed looking guns were built by someone who was either unskilled or in too much of a rush to take the time to make the gun look good. Gunsmiths were pressed for time back then as they are now I suppose.

If old farmer Jones needed a gun to ward off beasts or bag game he would have preferred a simple gun quickly rather than waiting several weeks or months for the gunsmith to embellish the hell out of it.

 

[mattybock]

words of one of the very few gents who knows what he's talking about. :bow:

and now back to the original question;
Do flat areas present any specific problems with use?
The only thing I can think of that might be a problem would be nicks and knocks being more visible and prominent on the peaks and rises.
and while I'm on it, do you have any experience with flat butts. If so, care to share your findings?

 

[Mike Brooks]

Sigh........ :shake:

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

You would be well served by doing some honest research on this subject, you might even discover something useful.

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

Maybe I'm seeing things you guys aren't but it seems that there are a few flat planes on the Isaac Haines and Christian Oerter guns. Those same guns also have a great deal of artistry worked into them. How many guns did Isaac Haines build ? several hundred ? each one being slightly different too I suspect. It's not surprising that a few of them had elements that most people would claim are not correct for the style.

I'm of the opinion that most of the boxed looking guns were built by someone who was either unskilled or in too much of a rush to take the time to make the gun look good. Gunsmiths were pressed for time back then as they are now I suppose.

Your not even close at all, get some books, do some research.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Maybe I'm seeing things you guys aren't but it seems that there are a few flat planes on the Isaac Haines and Christian Oerter guns. Those same guns also have a great deal of artistry worked into them. How many guns did Isaac Haines build ? several hundred ? each one being slightly different too I suspect. It's not surprising that a few of them had elements that most people would claim are not correct for the style.

I'm of the opinion that most of the boxed looking guns were built by someone who was either unskilled or in too much of a rush to take the time to make the gun look good. Gunsmiths were pressed for time back then as they are now I suppose.

Your not even close at all, get some books, do some research.

Agreed, or, better yet, work to get out of the two dimensional world of the book and computer monitor (especially the later) and try the three dimensional world of the real thing. Once you handled the real thing mattybock, maybe you'll be able to translate what you are seeing on your computer into reality.

Guys, did we ever explore the possibility that someone is yanking someone else's chain? :shake:

 

[Elnathan]

words of one of the very few gents who knows what he's talking about. :bow:

and now back to the original question;
Do flat areas present any specific problems with use?
The only thing I can think of that might be a problem would be nicks and knocks being more visible and prominent on the peaks and rises.
and while I'm on it, do you have any experience with flat butts. If so, care to share your findings?

Your original question is unanswerable, since it is based on an incorrect proposition. They aren't flat - they are subtle or not so subtle curves. Haines was a Lancaster smith, and like a lot of smiths in those areas often left a pronounced "break" where the top of the comb meets the sides of the buttstock. Right at the butt the radius of the comb is pretty shallow, so it does look like it is flat at first glance, but in reality it is a slight curve. The Oerter piece is the same way - a slight curve. Here is another picture of the gun which may make things a bit clearer: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vb_Yo_EL...AAAhIA/KXyGUupnk-c/s1600/DSCN3027_page_66.jpg
Notice that on both the Haines and the Oerter the radius of the comb gets steeper as it approaces the nose of the comb.
The third gun is a not-very-good repro (notice that the lock is about fifty years out of date), and is not flat either - it is shiny and what looks like a corner is merely a trick of the light.

What books do you have on early guns, if I may ask?

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

Guys, did we ever explore the possibility that someone is yanking someone else's chain? :shake:

This could very well be the case.

Especially when the poster is questioning the work of a gunsmith that was instrumental in defining a regional style
:slap:

 

[jdkerstetter]

You have a point....no stupid questions? :thumbsup:

However, in this case the OP has fustrated allot of knowledgable people who have tried to help.

Perhaps you've read his past posts?

While others are attempting to help him they get fustrated as he won't help himself by doing things as simple as learning the basic "language" of the longrifle.

This is not grade school. In order to learn you first have to put forth a little effort and at least prime yourself with basic knowledge.

Akin to going to an hobby car site and asking "How do I tune-up my car?" Somebody replies, "First disconnect the battery" and the OP says "Where's the battery?"....fustrating. :cursing:

Now that being said....it's OK not to know where the battery is. But you should at least put forth the effort and go outside and try to find it yourself before posting, "Where's the battery?"

OP needs to go out and find some [strike]batteries[/strike]...er, guns. :wink:

....and being gracious goes a long way toward receiving free advise too.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[illuveatar]

I thought this forum was a place to do research and learn. I'm not going to argue over the semantics of a flat or slightly curved toe. I don't have access to any original longarms, but I do have access to many knowledgeable folks here on this forum. It makes for a difficult learning environment when those who don't know are berated for our misunderstandings rather than explained the facts.

Perhaps you guys could suggest some good books to read on the subject of stock shaping. Someone else on the forum suggested abebooks.com as a good source for out-of-print books.

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

I thought this forum was a place to do research and learn.

I do have access to many knowledgeable folks here on this forum.

It makes for a difficult learning environment when those who don't know are berated for our misunderstandings rather than explained the facts.

This forum is just another facet in the whole approach to research, not the end all.

Some folks on this forum are far more knowledgeable about architecture than others.

As far as getting information out of the more learned individuals, its alot about respect, they put their time in, bought the books, handled the originals, and did the research.

If you can read past the guys trying to de-rail this thread , there is some very good information presented here.

 

[jdkerstetter]

I agree that nobody should be berated for their lack of knowledge. But also stand by my point that the one seeking knowledge has to do their part....it's a two way street.

Books:

"The Gunsmiths of Grenville County" Peter Alexander, out of print, rumored to be re-released this summer.

"The Art of Building the Pennsylvania Longrifle" Chuck Dixon

"Recreating the American Longrifle" by William Buchelle, George Shumway, and Peter Alexander

And anything from Shumway Publishing http://www.shumwaypublisher.com/

There are others too. If one can not afford to purchase these there is always the inter-library loan program.

Hope this helps. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[mattybock]

one book source seems to be the single best - Foxfire, book number 5.
These college kids went into the Appalachians in an effort to record old knowledge before it was to be lost forever.
In this book the gunsmiths who had passed the trade from the colonial era detail the process of building the rifle from pig iron to varnish.
It also goes in depth about tempering springs in molten lead.

Foxfire has a website where the books are to be had, but your local library might had the entire set ( although only this book deals with gunsmithing).

btw, pay heavy users of emoticons no mind. it's easier to use the little picture than to express a clear thought.

 

[mattybock]

as far as colonial or muzzeloader centric books, Foxfire volume 5 is about it.
The rest of the books deal with modern guns and not a single one of them deals with stock work, save for one, but it's approach is literally "put the steel blank into the duplicating machine".

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

If I was to express my clear thoughts about the content of your posts I would likely be banned from this forum for life, I am sure that there are many others that feel the same way.

:blah:

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

as far as colonial or muzzeloader centric books, Foxfire volume 5 is about it.
The rest of the books deal with modern guns and not a single one of them deals with stock work, save for one, but it's approach is literally "put the steel blank into the duplicating machine".

Your so cute, bless your heart

:grin: