doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com laser engraving poll...

Why the choice between quantity and sparsity, ie between extensive laser and minimal hand engraving?

Basic to all engraving is good design and layout. That is the basic part of the training course in Italy since it is the major factor in the outcome.

A well laid out design exploits the shape of the gun it decorates, and that is the clue to good work, a round action needs different layout from a sidelock and so on. A kitsch lay out with lotsa gold will not be uplifted even by the best hand work.

As for preference, I prefer no engraving or a WELL done border around naked steel.

Today�s laser engraving is the modern equal of pressed checkering from the �70�s. Functional, but only passingly attractive to most and far cheaper to do than hand engraving. Difference is that I could convert that pressed checkering crap into cut checkering but I can�t do the same for the laser engraving.

Disagree, Jon. The pressed-in "checkering" from the 60's and 70's was absolute abuse to a gunstock that provided neither function or aesthetics. In comparison, today's machine engraving is worlds ahead of that crap. And you could not re-checker over the pressed-in imitation. Now if you're referring to laser-cut checkering that appeared in the early 80's, yes, it could be re-cut.
JR

I was told years ago that the game scenes on the Beretta Silver Pigeon II was and is done by EDM, not laser.
JR

Just about word for word what I was thinking.

John I recut many a Remington 1100 pressed checkering panel. At least a hundred of them. Hated that plastic finish Remington used back then also. Would have been a much easier task without that RKW finish or whatever they called it. It was a finish best used on bowling pins. Thick, nasty stuff.

Did my own 1100�s first . Then just about every other 1100 at several clubs I shot at. Back in those days we had a lot of trap shooters and the funny thing was that trap MC stocks were all much fancier wood than the B grade Skeet stocks. The regular a Skeet A grade wood was so bland it might as well been beech. They all had that glumly, thick plastic finish on them. First pass you have to clean out your cutters every inch or two.

If someone wants to be an artist, engrave a plaque and hang it on the wall. I wish that they would leave shotguns alone. I prefer no engraving at all.

Jon,
Can you please explain to me and others here how you "re-cut" the reverse, mashed-unto-the-wood pressed-in "checkering"? There are no grooves to follow, so what is the process you use?
JR

You use a single line cutter to convert the dimple lines into grooves. Once you get your master line started it goes fairly well. I cut it, the master line only, to almost full depth. I then would go over every other line in the panel one at a time, free handed to get as much RKW out of the way as possible. Then starting from my master line I would use a checkering head with one smooth row and one regular row cutter. The real problem is not converting the dimples into lines, but the never to be damned enough RKW finish is the worst problem. It clogs up the cutter almost every inch or so. You have to stop and clean it out all the time when you make your first pass. That is why I found the single line cutter was good to break the surface and then switch to regular cutters. Then back to a single row cutter to even things up if needed. This way does lower the checkering panel surface a little unless you are real careful around the edges. Or just put a nice mulled border on it after you are done.

Remington stocks were not very good looking with that pressed in mess. With enough time and a little effort, you can convert them to a decent checkering job unless they were pressed in too much in one area. I had a few stocks they must have either not been aligned right when they were pressed, or the wood was much softer in one area that another. Old 1100 stocks are every where. Take an old one and try it. But you will come to hate that RKW finish as much as I did.

I did one 1100, following instructions written by Carmichael, IIRC. That one was enough for me. But, it did improve the looks of it immensely.

SRH