doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Help with Gunmaking Definition: "Hand-Made"

Goals or Objectives?
You can talk yourself silly trying to make a CLEAR distinction between the two.
This discussion seems to be very much in that same vein.
Good luck with the mental gymnastics.

Vic,you are talking yourself into a conniption. The term hand made,though inaccurate scientificaly,speaks to everyone's idea of fine craft.
Mike's right you can pull something working so hard. You are too good a wordsmith to crap up the poetry of the phrase trying to be "accurate".

"hand sculpted" might be a useful phrase. When fences and other frame features are shaped, often it involved/involves chisiles and other tools, in addition to files.

Here is a pretty good example, for the life of me I do not know how they did it in 1909, but even today there is a lot of handwork in shaping this action

Always an interesting topic.

Even arguably one of the "best" guns in the world, F. Rizzini-which is made with state-of-art Swiss CNC equipment-has a huge amount of hand work required before the in-the-white forend iron will adhere to the action bar without barrels. Granted, changes in technology are lessening the amount of hand-work needed every day. Still, I think hand-made is just that, no small amount of hand-hours applied before the final result. Now if you see the piece-paid workers at Beretta spending 30 seconds or less de-burring and testing a gun before throwing it back on the rack, you will see the definition of "not-made-by-hand".

Best,

C.

This is indeed a tough nut to crack. Even in the m/l genre these terms are used very cautiously, and with supporting evidence if used properly.

Many years ago I was in Gunmaker's Hall at The NMLRA Nationals in Friendship, IN with a rifle I had completed the previous year. I had bought the barrel stock wood, lock, trigger, etc. and built the rifle, using those parts. I was asked about it by another visitor and casually said I had built it from scratch, not meaning to mislead, but rather to distinguish it from an over-the-counter pre-inletted kit. One of the top builders of museum quality m/l rifles heard me and rather sarcastically commented, "Oh?, made the screws and all, eh?". I was very embarrassed and tried to explain what I meant. His comment was meant to put me in my place, and did so effectively.

Since that day, I have used the term hand-built for any gun made using parts that were outsourced, and not made in-house. As Jerry said above, there are very few men alive who have the expertise and who build guns making every piece from scratch. The House family, I believe, has even gone so far as smelting iron ore to get the iron to build the barrels. This is truly HAND-MADE.

SRH

Many good points here.
Another thing to think about in the 'hand-built' definition is the craftsman that works on one gun, start-to-finish, and then starts on the next (taking into account the use of apprentices and a few specialists) as opposed to the production-run parts that we are used to.
When I was working as a Model Maker, you could tell the difference between the parts that we made, compared to those that came out of the production line later. The level of care and the pride in our work stood out.

Sounds like the quick take is 'hand fit & finished to a very high level', e.g., any of the older FN O/U's were hand fit and most quite well .. start pulling the butt stocks off & you see the other part of the def when you realize that from the pigeon grades up they are REALLY 'finished', arguably more so internally than externally.

How many people understand that is open for debate.

Absence of file marks/polish/fit was and in many cases still is the result of tedium, great care & skill. It applies to wood to metal fit as much as the metal work itself and in its highest practice seeks perfection or an absence of flaws from both execution and aesthetic. Machinery has in many cases aided the artist or craftsman, but does not replace him.

Thanks for the op to put my two cents in. Luck in your quest.

I think it may be relatively simple to answer your query Vic.
If you make the majority of parts for a gun using hand tools and a lathe and manually controlled milling machine. Then you assemble those parts and file and fit as necessary I think that would be classed as hand made.
If you spent a little time filing and fitting machine made components until they functioned correctly as an assembly that would be hand finished.
If you assembled machine made parts into a functional assembly that would be called American 'Best'.
Sorry couldn't resist that.
British is Best

Then you're admitting, Salopian, the Americans had far better quality control than their older cousins across the sea. Americans developed the ability to machine to much closer tolerances than the Brits at a much earlier time. The old country clung to old ways like an old man covets his familiar tweed coat. Need I remind you it was English gun manufacturers who made the pilgrimage to America to study and learn how to machine made interchangable parts, which Sam Colt had perfected many years prior.

I have several fine American made doubles that are well over 120 years old that have digested untold thousands of rounds of lord know what type of ammunition that are still smack on face and functioning perfectly....and have never had a screw turned for repair or cleaning. How many Brit guns can make the same claim? I believe your makers strongly suggest their products be returned to them annually for cleaning and repair. Is there something wrong with this picture? (Well, you threw down the gantlet .....Heh, heh)

P.S. However, I do love my Scotts...but then again, they led the English makes into the machine age....why, they even supplied the majority of English "makers" with barrelled actions in the white or finished the whole thing for them, including whatever makers name applied upon it the buyer desired.