Vapo's posts on checkering have started me pondering a bit about what is good or bad "taste" in rifles. Why shouldn't we be able to make guns in whatever style we want if it floats our boat, but if so why do some styles almost make me cring?

I was looking at some older pre-war (WW-I) English double rifles and admired the lovely lines and thought of how they still seem perfect on a gun made today. I thought of how the California Weatherby style has somewhat faded and we don't see too many new rifles with glossy inlays and white line spacers.

I'm thinking that it may come down between the difference between "expression" and "art". Expression is going to show the moods and current tastes when it's made, whereas true functional art is just as useful and practical now as a hundred years ago.

I think "Glitzy" rifles are a form of expression and the pure "Classic" form of a rifle is functional art. I think an H&H Double or a Biesen 270 are going to be just as nice 50 years from now since their form is dictated more by function than style and their beauty more of quality than adornment.

Comments?..................DJ

I believe you are correct in your assumption classic lines and simple functional beauty are always in style. classy rifles will always be classic rifles.

As far as the rest go I personally blame Andy Warhol and Roy Weatherby, Andy changed peoples ideas about art and Roy changed peoples ideas about guns, dammit i guess somewhere they crossed paths.j

Guns are like sex, all good, some just better than others. My tastes have changed over time, perhaps they will continue to change. Currently I like slim rifles, they feel better and I like the looks.

A jewler friend of mine once showed me the difference when viewing the same diamond by itself on a deep, rich colored velvet pad as opposed to what it looked like with a bunch of other diamonds sitting around it.

Have you ever seen a painting where the frame caught your eye more than the painting did?

I think the same applies to classic styled rifles where nothing on them detracts from the rest of the rifle...everything just seems to fit together in a complementary manner and you can tell that the person who built it was building an entire unit not just a decorated floor plate or a checkered wrist and forend.

Classic is a relative word in my view. What's classic today may not be in ten to twenty years. Most of the classic you are talking about only dates back a max of 100 years. Most less than that. It also depends on whose influence you favor.

I think those of us that have posted thus far probably agree about 95% on what that classic ideal is.

I was in the Richards Microfit shop once not too long ago looking for a basic 98 stock. I found a pretty darn nice one for a paltry price that even had an ebony cap installed at, get this, 90 degrees. I had a smith that was also visiting tell me with a straight face that the stock wasn't worth the price I paid because, now get this, "it didn't even have white spacers." I nearly threw up. You can see what his idea of classic is though.

Funny thing is, when I got my first bolt action years ago, a Rem 700 ADL, I thought I was the coolest guy around when I installed the sling swivels with the white spacers.

I installed white spacers on the buttplate and pistol grip of my fathers Savage 99 presentation grade rifle back in 1962. They're still on the gun even though I own the gun today. Now that I think of it I think I'll remove them pronto.

My definition of classic is something that is time proven.....has stood the test of time and is also beautiful.

Here's a few classics:
Winchester's model 92
Winchester's M-70
Schnabel foreends
ebony fittings
shadowline cheekpieces
walnut stocks
Mannlicher stocks
blued steel
and a number of cartridges that have better competition but we still buy them
.30-06
7 X 57
.375 H&H

quote:

I think an H&H Double or a Biesen 270 are going to be just as nice 50 years from now since their form is dictated more by function than style and their beauty more of quality than adornment.

This quote might just be the quote of the year. Well thought out and well stated.

well - tastes in rifles are a different as there are different shooters, but anyone with a full sized brain knows that shotguns only come with 2 barrels side by side

And...King George of England once said (of hammerless shotguns)..."Its like a Spaniel without ears!" He preferred the older outside hammer doubles...
Each to his own...
Best Regards, Tom

It is interesting to note the changes in "classicness" that optics has provoked. 60+ years ago a rifle with a high straight comb was a bit out there. Now, you see virtually no low comb rifles with generous DAH, even by the high end (and future classic) makers (eg, Dakota), EVEN when they are equipped with open sights.

In fact, I was looking at a 70 Safari (or whatever its called) in 375. I couldn't even get down on the sights because of the high straight comb. I asked a couple of salesmen, neither of them could either. Kind of makes me wonder if Winchester considers irons to be useful or just decoration...

This stock shape craze extends to the aftermarket synthetic stocks as well, where it is quite difficult to find even a few patterns that offer that nice balance between scope and irons.

I am just rambling now...

quote:

Originally posted by 9.3x62:
I am just rambling now...

I don't think so. I completely agree with you - on most modern rifles open sights are added for looks, not for function.

I say this, although I know that people see open sights differently. Some people are willing to get really far down on their stocks, and some prefer to keep their heads more erect. Still, the overwhelming majority of modern stocks are laid out for scope use, and are at best a poor compromise and at worst unusable with open sights.

That is fine with me, since I can't see open sights too well in any event. But it always cracks me up when shooters claim that THEIR stocks fit them perfectly with both open and optical sights. This is particularly common in Europe, where open sights seem to be a matter of tradition, and few rifles are sold without them. I guess statements like the one above fall into the same category with claims of perfect accuracy, but when you see the shooters on the firing line, you immediately realize how little experience they have in shooting their gun, and consequently how poorly they do so.

- mike

It all goes to the old saying 'art is in the eye of the beholder'. What more can be said.

I am reminded of two quotes.

The first being "form follows function" which basically says if you don't need it for function then don't put it there.

the second is a story written by Jim Carmichal in which he talks about custom rifles, and likens the taste in custom rifles to twin sisters her once knew.. He claimed that they both were very much alike, and both very beautiful, but after looking at them awhile one appealed to him more than the other for some "unexplainable" reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
He claimed that they both were very much alike, and both very beautiful, but after looking at them awhile one appealed to him more than the other for some "unexplainable" reasons.

She was the one that put out?

One of the first things I noticed (being a scope kinda-guy) when I attended the ACGG show in Reno this year was the use of brand new scopes on classic styled rifles based on old Mauser and Winchester actions. Not that they looked bad or all that out of place, but I would have liked to have seen some old scopes re-furbished sitting on the old actions used to build those beautiful rifles. Just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
He claimed that they both were very much alike, and both very beautiful, but after looking at them awhile one appealed to him more than the other for some "unexplainable" reasons.

She was the one that put out?

So would that be akin to another famous quote that only accurate rifles are interesting. would another word for "put out" be accurate?

then, what we want in a rifle is function and accuracy first, but it has to be beautiful without having to much extra "stuff" on it.

Its funny but i remember the first new big game rifle i bought on my own in 1967 when i was 16-it was a 700 rem in 280 first thing I did was refinish the stock with oil and take off the white line spacers-but at the same time I wanted the biggest flashiest -fastest car I could afford-but gradually my taste in vehichles came around to my taste in firearms-quality without much FLASH.

ZLR,
That was a great one liner!

A tasteless rifle is a lot like obscenity. It's hard to define, but I know it when I see it.

quote:

Originally posted by zimbabwe:
It all goes to the old saying 'art is in the eye of the beholder'. What more can be said.

I always thought is was...

'Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder"

Sometimes there is not enough beer to make them look pretty.

quote:

Originally posted by Snowwolfe:
Sometimes there is not enough beer to make them look pretty.

So true.....and that's why they invented whiskey.

This is one of the best threads in a long time, at least for one liners!

I Like Kurt's and Karl's

They only need to be pretty if you’re going to take them out in public!

I've had several customs built over the past few years. I really like Mannlicher stocked carbines with fancy wood and wraparound checkering. I like Conetrol mounts and all of my rifles have express sight even though they are stocked for scopes. Rifles, particularly Mannlichers just don't LOOK right without open sights. I never shoot the open sights, but the front blades come in handy when I want to lean my weapon against a tree whilst i contemplate nature. Stoney

I am as big of fan of pretty on my firearms as anyone, but function takes priority.

I was on a trip with one of my gunsmith buddies a few weeks back and we had been talking for several hours on the drive. Subject came around to a rifle he built for me a few years back and I told him I was going to put some skateboard tape on the rifle he built me ( said with the devil and a glint in my eye). He was drinking coffee and after he cleaned up after blowing out his nose ( it was funny just like fishing for carp ) He asked my why???? I replied it was practical and available in designer colors and I could always peel it off if I didn't like it. He knew I got him then and asked if I was going to use flouescent green.

My point function over pretty. The best is both in the same package, but a M1 has a beauty all its own, chrome plating and do dads will not improve on it.

Edit: typo changed it to the fish not the excrement typo. Apologies everyone I am the wordls worst typist and it was unintentional.

I'm trying to get my head around to the idea of what is really attractive in a rifle and why. I'm thinking that there are combinations of lines of flow and proportions that are "Classic" and will stand the test of time. I have some ideas of what those lines of flow and proportions are but sometimes it's more of "that rifle just looks right" than being able to say why it looks right.
I guess lots of pictures posted of rifles that "look right" would be a good start...... .........DJ

quote:

Originally posted by z1r:

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
He claimed that they both were very much alike, and both very beautiful, but after looking at them awhile one appealed to him more than the other for some "unexplainable" reasons.

She was the one that put out?

Funny, must be a "guy" thing. I'll bet 75% or more of us thought exactly the same thing when we read that quote. I know my first thought was "He means he couldn't really, accurately, explain it to his mother.....at least not while he was that age and still lived at home...."

22WRF, I had always read that that story was from Jack O'Conner and that the gist of the story was that while one twin was pretty the other due to subtle differences in lines was a true beauty. The question is which subtle differences in line make the difference in classic beauty in both women and rifles. And while I enjoy studying the lines of both subjects, one gets me in less trouble fondling different examples of than the other....... ...........DJ

DJ

It may have been that when I read it Jim was telling what Jack had written. I don't remember because it was awhile ago that I read it.

But I like your line about the "fondling".

Years ago in the performance of my jobs duties I was attendig an event and seated at dinner next to Geoff Lawson the chief designer for Jaguar Motor cars, just before his untimely death. He held that form should follow function and that basic classic lines could not be successfully altered by short term trends which were for appearance only. Obviousily, classic was his style... RIP Geoff.