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

American guns, for all of the romance we tend to associate with them, were and are almost entirely made in a batch process. The guns from our Golden Era (1890s thru the 1930s)were mass-produced in a process that had enough human interaction to at least ensure some art and balance went into the final product. Post WW-II guns were generally shown even less interaction with skilled workers and the final product reflects that fact. There are exceptions, but most were fairly pedestrian. English guns have a different history. More later.

Lloyd,
Old topic around here. There isn't a gun around that didn't have machines involved in it's manufacturing process.

When someone says 'it's a hand-made gun' they either have no idea or are just using a vernacular for a gun that is hand fitted and finished on a lot of the surfaces.

For example:
How do you make a barrel without a lathe?
How do you drill a hole without a drillpress or mill (and yes, I've seen and used handpowered drill presses. They are still machines regardless of how they are powered)?
How do you make a screw (pin, to some of you) without a lathe?

Machines came before guns. Machines allowed for the making of guns. Without machines, guns would not exist. The "all hand-made gun" is a myth. At least any gun that we'd want to use for sporting purpose.

I know what you are getting at in your post but somewhere I have a picture of a Purdey gunmaker (late 19th or early 20th century) drilling the striker holes in the face of a Purdey action using a breast drill. IMO that is getting very close to qualifing as "hand made".

On the other hand, Holland (since Henry) has been making a point of using the most advanced technology available. Not all hands are created equal, and not all machines too. An obvious case for "buy the gun, not the mfg method" IMO.

How did the barrels get bored? How were they honed? How did they make the strikers and the plugs that screw into the breachface?

Any well fitting thread in a gun was made with a tap that was made on a lathe. Likewise, the screw that goes in the threaded hole is made on a lathe. Any axles are made on a lathe (anything that holds the work and turns is a form of a lathe)

Some definitions I plucked from Websters:

A machine may be further defined as a device consisting of two or more parts that transmit or modify force and motion in order to do work. The five simple machines are the lever, the wedge, the wheel and axle, the pulley, and the screw; all complex machines are combinations of these basic devices.

e (1) : an assemblage of parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy one to another in a predetermined manner (2) : an instrument (as a lever) designed to transmit or modify the application of power, force, or motion

"English guns have a different history". Regarding the use of machines? Hmmmm. Christopher G. Bonehill "Belmont Interchangeable". BSA. Midland. W&C Scott. H&H. Purdey. Greener. All of them used machines in the manufacture of their guns, all of them. The myth that some poor sap sat at a bench with 75 pound chunks of steel and hammered and filed it down into parts to assemble a gun is ridiculous. It simply did not happen like that.

Mr. Chuck is right. Unfortunately Chuck, it doesn't matter. People are going to believe what they want regardless of what's real and what's a myth.

Read what WW Greener had to say about machine made guns in "the gun and its development" to get a period perspective on it.

I would alter the description to hand built rather than hand made .The deciding factor come in the degree of and quality of machining . A modern Beretta or Browning has parts that are so well and accurately made that they can be assembled with only the smallest of adjustments to the regulation of ejectors for example . Another post regarding Webley guns are a good example of being hand built ,all the parts were machined but with sufficient material left to allow parts to be individual filed up and fitted ,I can not remember how many man hours were involved but it would have been around 50 for a 700 not counting machining time . The gun trade has always used machinery or mechanical devices in some form or another , . It is a fact that many production methods and tooling developed from gun trade practices ,guns especially military weapons being one of the first mass produced pieces of mechanical apparatus .

Well, a crude form of rifleing machine was used to rifle the hand forged barrels (as well as something for boring) on German Jaegers as well as Pennsylvania & Kentucky rifles yet most people would consider these to be "hand made" rifles so the term "hand made" is difficult to define.

The point is that a lot of the work on "most" high quality English guns until recently was done with hand tools & there is lots of documentation around to support this so if you don't beleive what I'm writing, please do a little reading on the subject.

Yes, some machines were involved but it is amazing to me how much work was done with files, chisels, hand drills, scrapers & simple plate type thread cutting dies for screws up through the 1960 period.

To me, the end result is what matters & I don't care how much hand work is involved as long as the quality of worknanship is there as well as good design & materials.

A good entirely machine made guns is for sure better than a poor quality gun with lots of hand work but you can't deny the hand work & skills that went into the making of high quality English 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

Lloyd - all the early American machine made SxS's didn't have draw bolts through the stocks. At least my Remingtons and Parkers don't. Their stocks aren't thick. And for handling - I think they all balance and shoot just fine. The parts for the above mentioned may have been mass produced, but they were all hand fitted to each gun made. IMHO, the parts being " rough finish mass produced " allowed the local gunsmith to order a part and with a little hand fitting could make it work. All the " machine made " parts did was allow the gun to be made more economically. Paul

Will be seeing Robert Dollimore next week, he is still busy as always last I spoke to him.

GDU.

Mr. Harm: You're right. Most of the better American guns (pre-WWII) didn't. Probably why they are now considered "classic". Almost all of the more modern guns utilize drawbolts as a means of controlling costs. Some are even made without a human hand ever touching them, start to finish. CNC controlled machine work and lazer engraved. Even the checkering is done by computer-controlled lazers.

Maybe the better difference would be mass produced for the hardware store shelf with a standard LOP, DAH, DAC, cast on, cast off, as opposed to HAND fitted to the specific customer and his build and his shooting style.

The image of Jim Rogers graciously provided by cc/dt



Many others from Irongate Wharf here
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/20113938

Local airport fellow has a nice collection of Warbirds. Both Spitfires and P51's He says the largely hand fitted Rolls Royce Merlin Engine was built under license by Packard on American assembly lines for the P 51 Mustang.

Story he tells is the Brits said mass production would not work. Now most say the Packard Built engine was much better than the Roller.

Boats

The Packard engine probably didn't have Lucas ignition.

Having owned several vintage British cars and motorcycles in my youth, I got to know old Lucas, the Prince of Darkness very well!
Steve