doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Machine-made verses handmade guns.

Jan. 2 1897 Sporting Life
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1897/VOL_28_NO_15/SL2815017.pdf
Charles Grimm defeats Doc Carver in Chicago for the �Cast Iron Metal�
Grimm used a 12-bore L. C. Smith gun, 7 3/4 pounds, 3 3/4 drams Schultze, l 1/4 ounce No. 7 shot, in U. M. C. Trap shell.
Carver used a 12-bore Cashmore gun, 8 pounds weight, 4 drams of Carver powder, 1 1/4 oz. No. 7 shot, in U. M. C. Trap shells.

Letter from Carver re: J. �147� L. Winston, �The Wizard of the West�, St. Louis representing Austin Powder Co. Jan. 30 1897
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1897/VOL_28_NO_19/SL2819018.pdf
Dr. W. F. Carver wrote a funny letter in a Chicago journal last week, in which he states that Winston could not kill good birds because he had a cheap American machine made gun, and if "147" had used the same kind of imported gun that he did the matches would have been closer. Will Dr. W. F. Carver kindly explain why Charles Grimm, using the same kind of machine made gun (L. C. Smith) as Winston did, managed to kill 98 out of 100 live birds and take the "Cast Iron Medal" away from him? In this match Grimm used the American machine made L. C. Smith gun, while Carver used an imported gun that he advertises free when he gets a chance. Now if Carver�s gun is so much better than Grimm�s why did he not kill more birds? or was it because the cashless gun was only good on hard, fast zig-zig screamers, and not adapted for soft easy duffer birds? The �Evil Spirit� had better think again.

And the 'ol boys were shooting some boomers

If you ever have an hour to kill on-line, the Wallace Gusler movie "The Gunsmith of Williamsburg" (on you YouTube) is pretty fascinating. At a very young age, he produced nearly all by hand and period tools and methods (some, machines by definition) incredible 18th century style Virginia rifles right in the tourist shop of Colonial Williamsburg. I would call his rifles as close to hand made as possible and this was in the era of the lathe.

Read pages 283 to 288 of WW Greener�s book.
He refers to it as "the use of machinery in gun-making" and "machine-made sporting guns" to differentiate,using the US as an example.
Graeme Greener refers to "hand made" and "guns mostly machine made but hand finished and assembled".
As stated other than the Khyber pass no guns have been made without the use of some machinery.

i have to wonder what determines handmade versus machine made or is it determined on the cosmetic apperance of the guns itself. i think for instance take the fox model B sxs if they had done a few changes to the appearance of the gun it would have been a completely differant gun at no cost to the manufacturer. for instance no serial# on the frame body, no stamped checkering, no phillip screw on the top rib,a curved trigger guard. an option of a straight stock,no history of savage arms and guage stamped on the barrels it belongs on the water table. it offered everthing from single trigger to automatic ejectors. it could have competed with many well made guns with a little attention and possibly even been in the same catagory as the lc smith for not being hand made, i think it was an opporpunity lost. i guess the so called hand made english and european guns will forever fascinate us and those fortunate enough to afford them will praise there superioity and handling grace as being hand made. but im sure those of us that hunt with the fox or smith or stevens never give the thought as whether its hand made or not. just my thoughts on the subject.

Chuck H.: My apologies. I'm fairly new here and didn't realize that this subject had already been hashed-over in the past.

In a recent post, the matter of wrist thickness and shape was discussed and whether the draw bolt in machine-made guns dictated what the shape would have to be, and/or how thin the wrist needed to be in order to be stable. Another comparison I wanted to get more information on, was the difference of weights and contours between mono-block tube sets and hand struck tubes (either dovetailed or chopper lump). I guess for me the final question would be this: can a machine-made gun be built to handle as well as a hand-finished gun (hand-finished in the sense that more human time is captured in one, as compared to the other)?

I'm not really interested in the cost (although human time is usually what drives the end cost of a gun), but more in what drives how a gun feels (ie. mounts and swings). That dirty word again "balance".

I already know that some non-double guns handle very well, an example would be an early sub-gauge Model 12. Why is that so?

"--- handling grace as being hand made."

Good "way with words," pod. By now, I'd think most on this board would understand that "balance" or, to quote pod, "handling grace" to suit a current owner would be as much an accident of good fortune as for the stock to properly fit. Certainly,oth stock fit and handling can be modified to fit a current owner --- for either a machine made or hand fit gun.

IMO, the mystique of the "hand made gun" stems from the true superiority of a closely hand fitted gun to an ill fitted gun, whether hand or machine. Currently, machines can make parts that fit closely "enough" to make a very, very robust gun. Aerospace materials and machining have seriously surpassed the strengths and fits needed for mere guns. The "goodness" of any gun depends on the materials it is made of and the properness of fit, whether done by a talented machine or gunmaker. BTW, there are formalized classes of part fit (see Machinery Handbook or similar) ranging from "sloppy" (running fits where there is likely to be a lot of foreign material) to press fit (a bearing race onto a shaft). The class used depends on the materials and operations. Gunmakers of old learned how the fit should feel for the various parts and fitted them to this feel.

DDA

It's alright Lloyd, this is what we do... LOL.

Brittany Man, The Photo you speak of"Purdey Action Filer is of Jim Rogers, I was standing with my Gaffer' Bill O'Brien who took the photo. I used the "pic" in my Shotgun Technicana Book. Last Jan. Bob Dollimore Former Ejectorman @ JP&S. Now living in New Zealand, sent me a couple of photos of Jim Rogers's Hand-Drill with the leather thong thats in the picture.I could add quite a lot on the subject of "Hand made, (Built) guns and DB rifles.....I'm looking for the "Right Person" to give all the old Gunmaking tools that Myself and all the"Dead Buggers who left with me boxes of their Stuff,maybe some Younger'person might want to try their hand at some "Hand-Made" Gun-Parts......C/C trevallion.

Handmade guns, as I construe the term, hold the allure, for me, of the skill and effort put forth by the men (and women) who, painstakingly, made and fitted certain parts with no small amount of labor. If, when, I pay a princely sum for a gun that was, to a large degree handmade I will count my funds as having been well spent not completely because of the quality of the gun itself, but in a large part in appreciation of the lifetimes of work that the artisans put in the trade, paying their dues, and acquiring skills few can imagine today.

Having done a bit myself, in the building of m/l rifles, I appreciate filing more than a little. Men like Wallace Gusler, John Bivins and the House brothers, Herschel and Frank, whetted my appreciation for this almost lost art many years ago.

SRH

It is my understanding that the current Fabbris are about as close to 100% machine made as is possible with the state of the art production technology. Fabbri doesn't seem to have any problem finding people ready to pop a $200K for a "machine made" gun.

have a day

Dr.WtS