Post by artificer on Nov 17, 2022 8:26:01 GMT -7
Spence,
I can't document this, but I have come to believe we owe a lot to the customers of 17th and 18th century guns and more so than we might think. In Britain and on the continent, many customers were at least well to do, if not rich, or they would not have had a need to acquire firearms. Gunsmiths who vied for their patronage, had to figure out ways to make guns as "user friendly" to fit their customers and operate the guns, as well as make them as esthetically pleasing as possible. Of course the gunsmiths who were most successful at these things, made the most money of any gunsmiths.
The subdivision of labor in British and European gunmaking also probably had a lot to do with it. Instead of gunsmiths making entire guns, the making of guns was broken down into at least 12 to about 20 different sub-trades. This kept prices lower and volume more possible, but each sub-trade worker probably knew more about what he worked on than gunsmiths who made entire guns. Gun Stockers for example, were more likely to more quickly learn how to make a gun stock that fit individual customers as closely as possible. Barrel Finishers probably would not have known the best ways to make barrels from their work alone, but feedback from customers to the head gunsmith would have shown them the best ways to make barrels for use.
Each gunsmith apprentice was required to make an entire gun. I'm assuming some of the knowledge and experience was handed down from the specialty sub-trade workers to the apprentice, though of course it would have taken years for him to meet their level of skill.
I realize it is often a bad thing to take modern methods and try to reverse engineer them back to our period, but I do think modern high end gunmakers are still making guns by using excellent sub-trade workers, as was done in our time period. I think we can learn a lot from them.
At the 1980 World International Muzzleloading Championships, held at Quantico, Va; one of my fellow volunteer workers had recently purchased a used Holland and Holland over under shotgun at a very good price of around $16,000.00, if I recall correctly. He allowed me to examine it and the craftsmanship was nothing short of superb. I remarked how well it came to my shoulder. The owner replied he had never run across a gun that fit him so well and was part of the reason he went out of his price range to buy the gun. He brought the gun solely because he heard some Holland and Holland representatives were coming to the shoot.
Holland and Holland did send one Vice President and one of their senior gun makers. When the owner showed the gun to them, they asked if there was any way they could watch him shoot a few rounds of trap or skeet, without interrupting the competition. Long story short, it was worked out for the owner to do so after competition was done for the day.
The Holland and Holland folks got on each side of the owner alternately as he shot and scrupulously studied him and the gun. After 5 rounds, they had seen enough and in typical British restraint, the VP made the statement/question to the owner of, "That gun was not made for you, was it?" When the owner said it hadn't been, the VP remarked, "I thought so. The gun doesn't fit you as well it might." (I was SUPER impressed a VP had that kind of knowledge.) The VP asked for a few moments and then spoke with the other representative to the side. The VP then informed the owner that they could correct the gun to properly fit him and it would cost around $1,800.00 plus shipping and insurance to and back from the UK. When the owner agreed, the second representative got the owner to shoulder the gun a few times and made some notes.
Fortunately for me, the owner was an NSSA shooter, so I keep track of the rest of the story. The gun had come back prior to the NSSA Spring Nationals the following year. When I inquired of the work, the owner didn't have the gun, but said he could not imagine the stock fitting him better before he sent it. When he got it back, he could barely tell anything had been done to the gun before he shot it. However, after he shot it, the owner said it handled almost like it was magic and was more than well worth what he paid for the work.
The Holland and Holland folks continue the finest of British Gunmaking traditions going back to our period. Just as they knew how to really fit a stock to a person, I imagine the higher end British and Continental Gunmakers did in our period.
Gus
I can't document this, but I have come to believe we owe a lot to the customers of 17th and 18th century guns and more so than we might think. In Britain and on the continent, many customers were at least well to do, if not rich, or they would not have had a need to acquire firearms. Gunsmiths who vied for their patronage, had to figure out ways to make guns as "user friendly" to fit their customers and operate the guns, as well as make them as esthetically pleasing as possible. Of course the gunsmiths who were most successful at these things, made the most money of any gunsmiths.
The subdivision of labor in British and European gunmaking also probably had a lot to do with it. Instead of gunsmiths making entire guns, the making of guns was broken down into at least 12 to about 20 different sub-trades. This kept prices lower and volume more possible, but each sub-trade worker probably knew more about what he worked on than gunsmiths who made entire guns. Gun Stockers for example, were more likely to more quickly learn how to make a gun stock that fit individual customers as closely as possible. Barrel Finishers probably would not have known the best ways to make barrels from their work alone, but feedback from customers to the head gunsmith would have shown them the best ways to make barrels for use.
Each gunsmith apprentice was required to make an entire gun. I'm assuming some of the knowledge and experience was handed down from the specialty sub-trade workers to the apprentice, though of course it would have taken years for him to meet their level of skill.
I realize it is often a bad thing to take modern methods and try to reverse engineer them back to our period, but I do think modern high end gunmakers are still making guns by using excellent sub-trade workers, as was done in our time period. I think we can learn a lot from them.
At the 1980 World International Muzzleloading Championships, held at Quantico, Va; one of my fellow volunteer workers had recently purchased a used Holland and Holland over under shotgun at a very good price of around $16,000.00, if I recall correctly. He allowed me to examine it and the craftsmanship was nothing short of superb. I remarked how well it came to my shoulder. The owner replied he had never run across a gun that fit him so well and was part of the reason he went out of his price range to buy the gun. He brought the gun solely because he heard some Holland and Holland representatives were coming to the shoot.
Holland and Holland did send one Vice President and one of their senior gun makers. When the owner showed the gun to them, they asked if there was any way they could watch him shoot a few rounds of trap or skeet, without interrupting the competition. Long story short, it was worked out for the owner to do so after competition was done for the day.
The Holland and Holland folks got on each side of the owner alternately as he shot and scrupulously studied him and the gun. After 5 rounds, they had seen enough and in typical British restraint, the VP made the statement/question to the owner of, "That gun was not made for you, was it?" When the owner said it hadn't been, the VP remarked, "I thought so. The gun doesn't fit you as well it might." (I was SUPER impressed a VP had that kind of knowledge.) The VP asked for a few moments and then spoke with the other representative to the side. The VP then informed the owner that they could correct the gun to properly fit him and it would cost around $1,800.00 plus shipping and insurance to and back from the UK. When the owner agreed, the second representative got the owner to shoulder the gun a few times and made some notes.
Fortunately for me, the owner was an NSSA shooter, so I keep track of the rest of the story. The gun had come back prior to the NSSA Spring Nationals the following year. When I inquired of the work, the owner didn't have the gun, but said he could not imagine the stock fitting him better before he sent it. When he got it back, he could barely tell anything had been done to the gun before he shot it. However, after he shot it, the owner said it handled almost like it was magic and was more than well worth what he paid for the work.
The Holland and Holland folks continue the finest of British Gunmaking traditions going back to our period. Just as they knew how to really fit a stock to a person, I imagine the higher end British and Continental Gunmakers did in our period.
Gus