Chapter VI: The Matter of Engraving

Engraving is placed upon a gun purely as an ornament to satisfy the esthetic taste of the sportsman. It adds not one iota to the soundness of the arm, its shooting qualities, ease of manipulation, fit, or balance. It is a luxury on a footing with our preference for broadcloth in place of jeans, silver knives and chinaware where steel and tin platters would do as well, pictures upon the wall, that without them would afford us as much shelter and creature comfort. The civilized man has developed a taste for the beautiful, otherwise he would not be civilized, and while he could return to barbarous ways and still exist, why should he?

The engraving upon a shotgun costs from five dollars to two hundred and fifty. The plainest style of engraving and the cheapest is known as line engraving. It consists of a simple line about the borders of the locks and frame with a bit of etching around the screw heads. The next higher grade would comprise some scrolls cut into the locks and possibly the outline of a bird. Then we have scroll engraving, scroll engraving in relief, scroll work inlaid with gold, picture and game engraving surrounded with scroll as a frame, and picture engraving to individual order.

Tastes differ in the ornamentation of guns. One man prefers a wealth of ornamentation, another is pleased with the simplest style, while others may like none at all. Gunmakers are partial to different designs also, one being noted for handsome scroll work in relief, and another for the artistic spirit displayed in his game scenes.

Engraving upon respectable arms is supposed to be done by hand. If this is true the average gunbuilder makes a mere machine out of his artists, for gun after gun is cut exactly alike to the line. Neither will the manufacturer vary his design to order. Should you purchase a hundred dollar grade gun it will have just so much engraving upon it, and there will be ten thousand more cut like it to the last dot.

I knew an army officer who ordered a high priced arm of one of our builders; he wished it left as plain in locks and frame as one of his army rifles, but could not secure what he desired and was obliged to accept the usual engraving that went with the grade. Just why this should have been the case is something for the manufacturers to explain.

A word of advice might be given to our gunmakers here at which they should take no offense. We are noted for the excellence of our sound, well balanced arms in the cheaper and medium grades, but many hesitate to purchase the finer weapons because they do not believe they are getting value in ornamentation and appearance. The gentleman of means who buys a high grade gun feels a trifle as did the man who would only drink coffee that cost fifty cents a pound. The country merchant had no grade of the berry higher priced than twenty-five cents, but it was either fifty cents or no sale so he sold--one pound.

I may not be forgiven for here venturing to criticize the scroll engravings so popular in this and other countries, but in plain truth I consider it nothing more nor less than ornamental penmanship transferred to the frame of a gun. It consists of a lot of curved lines, beautiful in themselves, perhaps, but senseless and meaningless as a whole or as a composition. I am no better satisfied with ornamental penmanship on my gun than I would be to have such flourishes take the place of my paintings which tell a story with life and fire and beauty. A certain amount of scroll is all right as a relief to the plain steel, as a setting to a picture, but other things being equal I should prefer the simple scrolls that are placed upon the medium guns to the elaborate curls and curleycues with which the steel is so thoroughly scratched on our fine guns. I fancy there are others who feel just as I do about this and hence the reluctance to pay good money for engraving or to buy the higher grades of weapons.

The man who is willing to pay for it should have his tastes consulted in the engraving of his gun. If he has a preference for scroll engraving, all well and good, but if he desires pictures on his piece in keeping with the use to which the arm is to be devoted, then he should have them. Above all he is entitled to have his weapon an individual arm in appearance and ornamentation and not an exact duplicate of a thousand others. The builder of one of the most popular imported guns recognizes this, and every one of his higher grade guns is engraved with a distinct design of its own.

Not only is this desirable, but the purchaser should be consulted with regard to what he wishes reproduced. I should prefer an old hawk sitting on the dead limb of a tree, a bevy of quail roosting in the grass, a mallard dropping into the marsh, the head of a favorite setter, to all the flourishes that could be cut into the steel. I regard gold inlaying, gold plating, gold triggers, etc., as on a par with nickel plating the barrels and would as soon have one as the other.

In the matter of ornamentation it seems that we will be obliged, willy nilly, to take what the manufacturers give us. Moreover we have no distinctive style of engraving in this country but have copied after England. If you are satisfied with the English style of gun engraving it can be obtained just as perfectly here. But the writer is forced reluctantly to admit that Continental gun engravers, in his humble opinion, are more artistic than either those of England or America. The sole excuse that an American could have for preferring an arm built in Germany, France, or Belgium is that the ornamentation is more to his liking. He pays well for this, and sacrifices something in sterling lasting and wearing qualities, but if the appearance of the piece gives him the most pleasure he is entitled to gratify his own tastes. It only remains for our builders to meet the demand for arms that are ornamented by artists rather than mechanics.

AMERICAN AND FOREIGN SHOTGUNS COMPARED

Prejudice and local pride are likely to make any American, other than an Anglo-maniac, a biased judge when it comes to comparing our arms with those made in Europe. I make no denial of having a preference for home built weapons, yet I shall attempt to treat all as fairly as I may.

In the first place it is not to be expected that there will be any wonderful difference in the output of the various countries. The same barrels are in common use, the systems of boring are alike in practical results, the stocks are the same and the quality of steel, while the constructive machinery differs little. It follows that weapons can diverge only in minor particulars, such as locks and bolts, cocking mechanism, and finish. It would not be worth while to dwell upon features that are common to all, so I will confine myself to pointing out briefly wherein they differ.

Any close observer would be quick to note that the frames of nearly all American arms are longer and heavier than those built across the water. These long frames are a very positive advantage when considering strength alone, for a gun with long frame _must_ outlast the one with short frame, other things being equal. This is for the reason that there will be less leverage against the locking bolts. It is true, however, that this rule works both ways, and if a short-framed gun gives more leverage against its fastenings, it also exerts greater lever power in cocking both the main lock and the ejector. The increased leverage in the short-framed gun comes from giving the locks a shorter end of the lever and because the barrels turn farther on the joint in opening the gun. If need be, this point could be absolutely proved by lengthening the frame to such an extent that the piece could not be cocked by hand at all in the usual way. It follows that while American arms are the strongest, as a rule they function harder than those made in Europe. Of course there might be exceptions but this is the rule; what we gain in strength we lose in ease of manipulation.

In locking bolts and fastenings I am glad to vote the American ticket straight. As noted, our long frames give us the advantage in the first place, and besides our weapons are mechanically superior in this respect. England and the Continent have tended steadily to multiplicity of fastenings, America to simplicity. While they have developed a quintuple locking action we have invented a single rotary bolt that is emphatically stronger than all of their five. Locking bolts, length of frames, and cocking mechanisms constitute the only really essential differences between American and foreign arms, and in these assuredly America scores. I am not considering the cheap output of Europe, for with such arms we have nothing worthless enough to compare.

Engraving has been sufficiently treated. I can only repeat here that England and America have practically the same style of gun ornamentation, in which they are excelled by both Germany and France.

In weights of arms there is perhaps a greater variation in those of Europe. They build lighter arms than we find serviceable and also construct weapons for heavier charges than any listed by our ammunition houses.

The English game gun is a very light arm, weighing in twelve gauge from 5½ to 6¾ pounds. It is used with reduced charges upon driven and hand raised game. We have never found featherweights adapted to American shooting though they became a short lived fad a few years since. The English pigeon gun, balancing at from seven to eight pounds, is practically the same as our all-service arm. The European wildfowl gun with its heavy charge has had but a limited demand in this country since the ten bore went out of fashion. All nations are alike devoting a good deal of consideration to the small bores at the present time; neither do the dimensions of the narrow gauges vary greatly whether made in America or Europe.

It is probable that the cost of building a shotgun in this country and Europe is about the same. Doubtless their handworkmen receive a trifle less wages than ours, but on the other hand our gunmaking machinery is better and we have more of it.

Every imported arm pays an import duty amounting to about one-third of its value which must be added to the cost of the arm. It follows that we should expect an American arm costing one hundred dollars to be of like value with a foreign gun at one hundred and fifty; a three hundred dollar European piece grading with ours at two hundred. These figures will apply approximately to weapons of all grades. The conclusion is logical that where the sportsman has but a limited amount of money to be placed in his weapon he will do well to purchase from a home builder. Where money is not a consideration an elegant arm can be obtained either at home or abroad.