Longhunter 1765 Rifle

Bill has a style and manner of finishing a longrifle that is notable. My buddies and I, when we see a particularly "clean" build, say, "It's almost Shipmanesque". If you buy one of his rifles, you can be sure there is not a blemish, scratch, file mark, bruise, whatever, anywhere on the gun. If this matters to you, then consider one of his custom longrifles and you will not be disappointed. A plainer stock is less forgiving and will not hide or draw the eye from any errors.

Right now I am at Dixon's Gunmaker's Fair in eastern Pennsylvania. There are some very fine rifles, some earlier in style than this Shipman offering, some decorated to a higher degree, with finer wood, etc. None better made. It's worth the price if those qualities are important to you.

Fine makers who can and do work in early veins with great knowledge and insight include David Dodds and several others. Dodds' work really evokes the originals so well and is priced accordingly.

On the other end of the price scale you can go to Tip Curtiss shop or see his stuff at a show and get an assembled but not completely finished rifle for about $1100 that has all the right parts and good early styling.

In between are any number of makers who can evoke a 1760's rifle for $2500, with fine wood, top notch parts, excellent architecture, decorative elements, etc.

Bill Shipman is a "name" builder whose reputation is rock solid- there is no Shipman gun out there that is a "little iffy". Every one is masterly. Customers can just decide what factors are most important to them.

I think I would have a very difficult time proving this rifle was incorrect for 1765. Nor could anyone absolutely prove it was. We really don't know if this style is right or not.
4200 is not out of line.

Dan

"
I think I would have a very difficult time proving this rifle was incorrect for 1765.'

Typicaly the burden of proof falls on the party making the claim of a particular date to a gun or other object, not to make a claim amd have some one disproove it, there are some traits of this gun that most gun students would attribute to the early rev war most likely thus this would be a suitable date due to that which we know, There is nothing there to put it at 1765 largely due to the lack of existing examples so a safe bet is to date it by the dated examples we have which would be a bit later, I would think with a flat buttplate and diferent lock it would be a lot closer.It is a wonderfull gun whatever date a person chooses to put on it, having said that, it does deserve to be dated as accurately as possible.

What kind of lock had the Schreit rifle.I'm sitting here in Hamburg, so didn't have the RCA book on my side.From the pics above it looks very similar. :hmm:
:hatsoff:

I believe the Schrite lock has more curvature to the bottom of the plate and has an unbrideled frizzen.

Ahh,the unbrideled frizzen.Thanks tg
:hatsoff:

Dan
Tom S. took me to see this rifle #26 while I was his apprentice. The then owner who was a very knowledgeable collector felt it could "possibly" date to the late 1770s but 1780s were more likely.
I was amazed at how light and handy that rifle is.
The barrel is only about 1" across the breech as I recall, and nicely swamped.
Oh, and for anyone interested there is a color photo of the right side of this rifle in Merrill Lindsay's "The Kentucky Rifle" book.

Regards, Dave

Some more pics.
No1


No2


No3

No3a

No3b

:hmm:

Early Reading Rifle




Mel Hankla wrote: "The maker of this un-signed rifle and the other two related examples is unknown, but much study and speculation has lead most students of the Kentucky rifle to attribute them to the Reading area and perhaps by Wolfgang Hachen."

Here is the link: Link
Click on "Original Rifles-Humble Rifle-Reading"
:hatsoff:

Here's my version of that gun. I left it real "pregnant" to give it the earlier feel of that series of guns.
[/img]
[/img]
[/img] [/img] [/img]

I did one about 2 years ago. This type of gun is absolutely one of the HARDEST guns to get even close to right. The "pregnant" cheek was easy for me...It's very "german" and I'm used to that, but the fore end absolutely gave me fits.

I'm kinda proud of this one.




I would REALLY like to believe these guns are from about 1760-1765, but I just have a feeling that they're from around 1770.

Mike, Chris, very nice early guns, I would think that judgeing from the Schriet gun and the "early gun" traits we accept to be correct that these guns COULD be from the 1765-70 period, it would be nice if a couple of more dated guns from that time would show up, so many builders/suppliers have pushed back the time frame to accomadate the market that for most the waters are a bit muddied when talking about "early guns". Has anyone copied the Schrite gun as it was thought to be originaly?

I've thought about doing a Schreidt gun, with full stepped wrist and "proper" triggerguard and all, but haven't gotten around to it yet....haven't had the chance!

So far, I haven't seen anyone else's attempt at it either.

Holy cow! I just noticed that I didn't line up my breech tang screw on that gun! I wouldn't be able to stand that now! :haha:

tg said:

Mike, Chris, very nice early guns, I would think that judgeing from the Schriet gun and the "early gun" traits we accept to be correct that these guns COULD be from the 1765-70 period, it would be nice if a couple of more dated guns from that time would show up, so many builders/suppliers have pushed back the time frame to accomadate the market that for most the waters are a bit muddied when talking about "early guns". Has anyone copied the Schrite gun as it was thought to be originaly?

Click to expand...

I don't believe there has been a copy of the Schreit rifle as it was built originally,probably because we haven't seen it in it's original condition although I understand that there was a picture extant showing the gun with it's original guard.The stepped wrist is conjectural but I also think that it had one.There is,however, a gun which can shed some light. That is the Free Born rifle{RCA 114} which was probably made in Reading in the mid 1760's.It is very interesting in that it shares several details with the Schreit rifle but I don't mean to imply that it was made by Schreit or that the maker was associated with Schreit.There were several gunsmiths in Reading in the 1760's; Wolfgang Hachen,William Graeff probably aka Johann Wilhelm Graeff, and George Schreyer {Sr.}.There is also some genealogical information as to a locksmith/gunsmith named Adolphus Graeff ,grandfather to Johann Wilhelm Graeff who may have worked in Reading in the 1740's and 50's but the dates aren't right. There is also mentioned a Jacob Graeff but I don't have any solid info on him.

The group of rifles illustrated by Shumway includes RCA 21-23 which Earl Lanning has dated as being from the mid to late 1760's.When we add the Schreit and Free Born rifles we have five rifles {including the 1761 dated Schreit rifle}which can probably be fairly safely dated in the 1760's.

While the maker of the Free Born rifle is unknown, there is little doubt that it was made in Reading and possibly by a young George Schreyer. George Shreyer was born in 1739 and was raised in Hanover the home of Nicholas Hachen{brother of Wolfgang Hachen} with whom he probably apprenticed until Nicholas died in 1758.It is likely that George moved to Reading to finish his apprenticeship with Wolfgang.He is shown on the tax rolls of Reading for the years 1761-1768, the last two years as a gunsmith.He probably finished up his apprenticeship and worked as a journeyman from 1761-1766 when he opened a shop on his own as a gunsmith in Reading from 1767-1768.After 1768 until 1775 when he returned to Hanover his whereabouts are as yet a matter of conjecture.

I agree with Mel Hankla's comments on RCA 21-23.The problem is that we have all those guns but only one signed specimen.The Free Born gun is the most interesting gun of the five I have mentioned. It has been described as having carving best described as "embryonic" George Schreyer.It should be studied in connection with the Schreit rifle{RCA 18}and the carving should be studied in connection with the John Newcomer rifle{RCA 73},the Bowers rifle {RCA 92}and the William Antes wender rifle{RCA 54}.

These early Reading guns are fascinating and I hope I haven't rambled on too long on the early ones but they are my favorites.
Tom Patton

Der Fett' Deutscher said:

undertaker said:

Mike, i must say i was a little surprised by the price. :shocked2:
:

Click to expand...

Bill Shipman is an outstanding gunsmith. He has built a name for himself through his quality to where he is at a point where he can actually charge a reasonable price for what really goes into building a gun.

Building a gun, and doing it WELL is a LOT of work, and a LOT of headache. I can't charge that much because I'm a "nobody" (I'm also not as good as Mr. Shipman! :grin. For most guns, I end up with $10 an hour for my labor AT MOST. That's being generous. That also doesn't include some of the supplies I have to use, like the stain and varnish I make myself, which also takes a good bit of time...my time. It's a labor of love (or hate, depending upon how things are going!) For someone who does it for a living, that ain't good enough, and yes, $4200 is a lot of money (especially for me!), but there is an IMMENSE amount of work that that $4200 is paying for. :wink:

Click to expand...

This is an issue I've wondered about. It must be tough to make a living as a ML gun builder.

How much of that $4200 is parts and supplies, do you think? Could this gunsmith make two of this example in a month?

I know, you have to pay your dues. I would build a rifle if I could make $10 an hour, because I would love it, and you don't learn otherwise, but it's hard to turn down other work that brings in several times that right now.

Oh well, we don't do this for the money, anyway!

Tom

"Holy cow! I just noticed that I didn't line up my breech tang screw on that gun! I wouldn't be able to stand that now!"

Shame on you.... I don't do it purposely I have not bought into the idea that it was a standard thing with all builders on all types of guns, just thinking outside the PC box I guess.I guess I should have said "what we think the Shrite gun originaly looked like" it is such a benchmark gun I would think it would have been duplicated due to the frenzy for early PC guns.

Hi All
Dating rifles is such a pain. Frustrating I guess in the proper term.
Given I am not an expert in this I still think we are just guessing in dating many rifles.
Here are some points to consider.

The straight lock, the bridled pan and many other things people use to date rifles are far older than the American longrifle is assumed to be. See RC #2 from circa 1720 with no stepped wrist and a straight lockplate, no bridle on the pan but the bridled pan is not a dating feature for our purposes. The basic buttstock outline could make an American. If it lacked the obvious European stocking features, the elaborate engraving, had a smaller side plate, a different guard, a 40" barrel and maple as a stock wood how would we date it?? Would it look later than the Schreit rifle?
According to Shumway RCA #6 could have been made made anywhere in a 20+ year span.
This may not be applicable to the American longrifle but then JP Beck made rifles that looked like Rev War period into the "Golden Age".
We have taken the word of people's writings concerning certain things for decades when in reality they were often guessing or had some particular reason for considering a rifle to be early or late. Many look at bore size, but we have surviving near mint rifles from the 1765-1775 era that are 42-47 caliber. At least some now large bore, over 50, rifles have been recut several times over their lifetime and this could easily make a 44 into a 54 over the rifle's long service life.
My point is that we just do not really know. We know when some men died and in many cases when they were first listed as gun makers. But we really do not know when certain features actually came into use. The maker who is first listed as a gunsmith in 1775 may have been making rifles nearly identical to those made by his master in 1750. We have no way or knowing.
I could be completely wrong here but we really need to think about a great many things that we learned in our younger days and ask if these theories are really correct or just guesses dating from the 1940s or 50s.

The rifle in question here has a too late buttplate, the original is flatter and the lock in particular looks a little "off", a large Siler or similar might look better but then I keep going back the lock plate shape of RCA #2 the basic plate shape appears too "modern" for a early Kentucky if you use Schreit as a guide.
Its bedtime in Montana.

regards
Dan

tg said:

Mike, Chris, very nice early guns,

Click to expand...

Yip, well done.Both of you. :bow: :bow:
:hatsoff:

I could only warmly recommend the website of Mel Hankla.
Link
Go to Original Rifles and take a look.All pics are in color. :thumbsup:

There you can see f.g. :R.C.A. # 115, Kindig's # 18,Free Born,M. Sheetz and so on.

It's a very interessting website. :thumbsup:
:hatsoff:

Tom Patton.
That "Free Born Gun" was obviously made in North Carolina...... :wink: :haha: :blah: