• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades
  • Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Builders of poor folks rifles?

muzzle loading side side shotguns
Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
P

Paul63

36 Cal.
Joined
Aug 24, 2016
Messages
62
Reaction score
2
In books magazines and adds we always see the beautifully ornate, inlayed and carved rifles from the Golden Age of rifles.....but what about the poor folks of that ERA?
We see much about the beautiful rifles such as those built by Haines, Dickert, Armstrong and others, but I have to believe that these rifles were way out of financial reach for most people of that ERA.
So who were some of the builders, who built rifles that were affordable to the farmers, laborers, and settlers of that time?
Or......did these same builers, build different grades of rifles that fit the needs and pocket books of the many and not just a few? :hmm:
 
Moleman said:
In books magazines and adds we always see the beautifully ornate, inlayed and carved rifles from the Golden Age of rifles.....but what about the poor folks of that ERA?
We see much about the beautiful rifles such as those built by Haines, Dickert, Armstrong and others, but I have to believe that these rifles were way out of financial reach for most people of that ERA.
So who were some of the builders, who built rifles that were affordable to the farmers, laborers, and settlers of that time?
Or......did these same builers, build different grades of rifles that fit the needs and pocket books of the many and not just a few? :hmm:
Click to expand...

How many poor folks do you know that drive a car without air conditioning and a sound system of some sort?

There were different grades of rifles. The difference wasn't necessarily what we think of, though - the difference between a high-grade English trade rifle in the late 18th century and a mid-grade one was in the quality of the wood finish used, and wasn't obvious to the casual observer, according to one of the gunsmiths making them. The cheapest ones had wooden boxes instead of brass, but all were carved...Other areas where money might have been skimped on was the quality of iron in the barrel - There were five separate grades recognized by British smiths, and some of those they would not use, at least on those guns destined for a British user....One does occasionally run across the term "best iron" in period descriptions of guns.

Carving and decoration were not a huge part of the cost of the gun, and where they were absent it was probably as much do to fashion as economics.
 
Many poor folks didn't own a rifle at all. Those in towns didn't need one & poor folks in the country might have a trade gun or old smoothbore. Then, as mentioned, was the prevailing standards & customs for style. My understanding is that a number of the highly decorated Golden Age guns were made during one or more of the economic panics (what we would call a recession today). Gun makers competing in a slow market would add decoration to make their guns more desirable (but not necessarily higher priced). Costs in the past were those items that the gunmaker had to shell out hard cash to obtain. Their own labor was not entered as an expense on the ledger book. When things were slow, one might start carving or add an inlay made from scrap - if you didn't look busy in your shop, people might assume that your lack of work (business) was due to poor quality. Since you were in the shop all day anyway, better to keep busy by adding decoration which according to the thinking of the day wasn't costing you anything - you were paid by the product, not the hour & not too many could afford to make stuff on speculation - if sales were slow, money for more parts (locks & barrels) would be tight. Hope this helps.
 
When and where? There is a very plain Isaac Haines rifle barrel in Rifles of Colonial America volume 1. In Berks County, PA, in the 1800s a good many plain “smooth rifles” and rifles were made for the locals. From 1820 on, relatively plain “trade rifles” were made by Henry, Tryon, Leman, Derringer, and others. In Tennessee, parts of Virginia, and North Carolina, plain, iron-mounted rifles were made in the late flint and percussion eras. In the percussion era plain rifles were made from New York to Mississippi and Michigan.
 
It was also the style of the time. A look at ships shows gingerbread in the form of carving. A squat or found timber may serve the function, but instead it was given a pulled shape. We see in the evolution of guns that it goes along with other decoration. Ships got plainer, federalist building was plainer, shaker style furniture came in to vogue. The same time along come plan rifles and southren style. Even the very find guns like the Ohio style we see some engraved diver but wood is mostly left plane.
 
Think what you're talking about are what we now call "barn guns" or "Schimmels" using one old name for the type. Some were just iron mounted rifles with very little decoration and some were just basic stocks with lock and barrel attached. Some very plain an basic versions didn't even have butt plates and might have no more than bent brass stock nailed on as a trigger guard. There's been some discussion around the muzzleloading sites about who, when and to what extent. One was even found totally without any trace of having had a trigger guard but that seems especially dangerous to me. Here's one from a restorer who got it to view.
http://i708.photobucket.com/albums/ww81/ALRLIBRARY/LONG RIFLE/Angstadt/PB Addendum/P1030660.jpg
http://i708.photobucket.com/albums/ww81/ALRLIBRARY/LONG RIFLE/Angstadt/PB Addendum/P1030661.jpg
http://i708.photobucket.com/albums/ww81/ALRLIBRARY/LONG RIFLE/Angstadt/PB Addendum/P1030680.jpg
http://i708.photobucket.com/albums/ww81/ALRLIBRARY/LONG RIFLE/Angstadt/PB Addendum/P1030681.jpg

I personally believe the lock was changed at one point in it's past....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi,
Farmers and other land owners during colonial times were not necessarily poor. Travelers from Europe frequently commented on how healthy and prosperous American farms and settlements were. Frontiersmen were also not necessarily poor. Based on currency and pricing information from the 1760s, a nice rifle with some carving, inlays, and a patchbox was well within the means of a frontiersman trading in dressed buck skins and furs. If you've a mind to make a plain gun, make one. There are historical examples of them. Just don't assume that most guns made at least during the colonial and "golden age" periods were some sort of plain poor boys.

dave
 
I built an Indiana "hog rifle" years ago. The basic architecture is that of an Allentown school however that's where the fancy stops. No buttplate, just a large nail where the gun touches the ground when loading. I didn't use sandpaper just broken glass to scrape the stock. I do have a brass trigger guard and ramrod guides. It's ugly but it shoots. Farmers could buy a lock and a barrel at the local store. They had wood in the barn. During the Winter they might build a new gun for themselves or to trade. They weren't fancy but they would kill a hog for butchering.

They got used up, scrapped and thrown away. The ones that survived til today are the fancy ones with all the carving and inlays that hardly ever got shot.

It's a lot of fun to enter a match with an ugly gun and beat guys with $3,000 fancy guns.
 
Hi,
"They got used up, scrapped and thrown away. The ones that survived til today are the fancy ones with all the carving and inlays that hardly ever got shot."

Then how come so many "fancy" original long rifles were converted to percussion? If they were not used, why make the change. Many of those "fancy" guns you are thinking of were reconverted back to flint in the 20th century but were used as both flint and percussion rifles during their working lives. Why do most "fancy" long rifles from colonial and golden age periods that are still in original flint condition show much wear around the locks and vent holes? Certainly there are some that do not but most that I examined at shows, museums, and in collections show considerable wear from shooting. The Moravian records published by Bob Lienemann and his co-authors document a lot of the work done at the famous Christian's Spring gun shop. Their version of a simple plain gun usually had a butt plate, side plate, carving around the barrel tang, a little carving on the wooden patch box and behind the cheek piece, and perhaps a "Moravian Star" inletted on the cheek piece. The price for that quality gun was about a dozen dressed buck skins, something well within the means of a frontier settler or hunter. Look at Davy Crockett's purported first rifle, a nice York County piece with carving and engraving. Look at the rifles made by the English firms of Grice and Wilson for their indian trade in the late 18th century that was supposed to copy the fashion and style demanded by their customers on the frontiers. They are finely made with carving and both wood and brass patchboxes. The fanciest of the 3 grades offered was the most popular version and in demand. It cost 2lbs 12 shillings, which is about the cost of a fairly fancy rifle from Christian's Spring. The notion that all or even most of those surviving long rifles from colonial and golden age periods were fancy ones that were hardly used and that the rifles actually used were mostly plain "schimmels" and "poor boys" does not hold up under scrutiny. Moreover, during the mid-late 18th century, there is not much evidence that farmers made their own simple guns during winter. Gun making was a trade with an apprentice system and many gun makers aspired to the American dream of that time, which was to make enough money to buy land, take up farming, and quit their trade work.

dave
 
Dave Person said:
Hi,
"They got used up, scrapped and thrown away. The ones that survived til today are the fancy ones with all the carving and inlays that hardly ever got shot."

Then how come so many "fancy" original long rifles were converted to percussion? If they were not used, why make the change. Many of those "fancy" guns you are thinking of were reconverted back to flint in the 20th century but were used as both flint and percussion rifles during their working lives. Why do most "fancy" long rifles from colonial and golden age periods that are still in original flint condition show much wear around the locks and vent holes? Certainly there are some that do not but most that I examined at shows, museums, and in collections show considerable wear from shooting. The Moravian records published by Bob Lienemann and his co-authors document a lot of the work done at the famous Christian's Spring gun shop. Their version of a simple plain gun usually had a butt plate, side plate, carving around the barrel tang, a little carving on the wooden patch box and behind the cheek piece, and perhaps a "Moravian Star" inletted on the cheek piece. The price for that quality gun was about a dozen dressed buck skins, something well within the means of a frontier settler or hunter. Look at Davy Crockett's purported first rifle, a nice York County piece with carving and engraving. Look at the rifles made by the English firms of Grice and Wilson for their indian trade in the late 18th century that was supposed to copy the fashion and style demanded by their customers on the frontiers. They are finely made with carving and both wood and brass patchboxes. The fanciest of the 3 grades offered was the most popular version and in demand. It cost 2lbs 12 shillings, which is about the cost of a fairly fancy rifle from Christian's Spring. The notion that all or even most of those surviving long rifles from colonial and golden age periods were fancy ones that were hardly used and that the rifles actually used were mostly plain "schimmels" and "poor boys" does not hold up under scrutiny. Moreover, during the mid-late 18th century, there is not much evidence that farmers made their own simple guns during winter. Gun making was a trade with an apprentice system and many gun makers aspired to the American dream of that time, which was to make enough money to buy land, take up farming, and quit their trade work.

dave
Click to expand...

Agreed. With the exception of cobbled together arms for militia use in New England or war-time emergency (in certain cases), poor boy guns just don't seem to predominate, at least in the colonial period. Even el cheapo trade guns and trade rifles would be considered "fancy" by today's standards, albeit finished cruder and with crappier materials. It makes sense and I understand why most people would think the majority of rifles would tend to be crude... handmade things today are expensive, after all. We pay a premium to the gunsmith to carve or to engrave. That said, there are some pretty crudely carved and engraved originals out there, but that tends to be due to the fact that many gunsmiths were coming over here without the benefit of a whole shop full of specialty stockers, barrel reamers, carvers, engravers, etc. Might not be the best at any one thing, but darn sure can put a whole gun together - lock, stock, and barrel.
 
I think it's even simpler than that, though I agree. Then as today, poorer people had fewer, and lesser quality things. Richer people, had more, and better quality things. That said, if an article was very important to a poorer person, they might have it in a disproportionate quality to their means, and guys being guys, and gun's being very much a guy thing, as a matter of status they may be more inclined to have something nicer than their means might otherwise dictate.

there's exceptions to all of these guidelines of course, but basic human nature and the male ego I can't see as having changed a great deal over a mere 200 years.
 
Many Klatch said:
I built an Indiana "hog rifle" years ago. Farmers could buy a lock and a barrel at the local store. They had wood in the barn. During the Winter they might build a new gun for themselves or to trade. They weren't fancy but they would kill a hog for butchering.
Click to expand...

I don’t know when and where these highly skilled farmers lived, but I’ve known a lot of farmers and none had a decent set of chisels, files finer than used on an axe, or suitable woodworking skills. There are a good many people today with fine tools, all the resources for building a rifle one could want, but can’t assemble a working rifle from a blank.

The old story that all the plain one’s got used up is easy to say, impossible to support.
 
I don't think human nature changes much either. I grew up poor and the first rifle I acquired was a 60 year old Spanish mauser...so take a look at old (at the time) military weapons for those that would have been acquired and used by the less financially fortunate.
 
Rich Pierce said:
Many Klatch said:
I built an Indiana "hog rifle" years ago. Farmers could buy a lock and a barrel at the local store. They had wood in the barn. During the Winter they might build a new gun for themselves or to trade. They weren't fancy but they would kill a hog for butchering.
Click to expand...

I don’t know when and where these highly skilled farmers lived, but I’ve known a lot of farmers and none had a decent set of chisels, files finer than used on an axe, or suitable woodworking skills. There are a good many people today with fine tools, all the resources for building a rifle one could want, but can’t assemble a working rifle from a blank.

The old story that all the plain one’s got used up is easy to say, impossible to support.
Click to expand...

In Walter D. Edmond's Drums Along the Mohawk, the male half of the protagonist couple (Gil Martin I think he is named) owns a rifle that supposedly he stocked himself. I wonder if that is where the "home-brewed rifle" story came from, or at least how it was popularized.
 
Bo, you bring up a valid point. We were not well off by any means when I was growing up. My first centerfire rifle was an 1891 Argentine Mauser purchased in the basement of Montgomery Wards for the princely sum of $9.95. The ammo cost $0.95 a box of 20.

In another time it might have been a well used Bess.
 
The Cherokee before their deportation had gunsmiths who could restock old guns. I have read, but don’t know if it’s true that when Jake Hawken started his gun shop his primary business was gun repair.
I would point out that the French Revolution put an end to fancy. Buckles came off shoes, lace disappeared, ect. I have contemplated building a 1770s style rife, but I don’t know how to carve and I just don’t believe that plain rifles existed before the frederlist age. I THINK some could have been restocked but I doubt this would have been common. A man who could not afford a rifle would gravitate to a fusil.
I do wonder that any plane guns that existed died in the metal drives in the world wars.
We do know of some God awful repairs done in nineteenth century guns, white and Indian
 
Moleman,

The thing is, well experienced builder want to be proud of their work. There is a local builder in my area that you got to put the brakes on him to make a plain gun.

Once one gets good, they would like to show it.

Also, the carving adds much value without adding the same amount of time. Basically, a good chunk of time is spent making a plain gun. With a little more time, you get more profit.

Far as dickert was concerned, he made numerous unordained rifles. That is why I am partially fond of his work. He carved with intent. He added value and beauty to his work efficiently and not excessively. From what I have seen of dickertguns, they didn't engrave too much in the metal.
 
tenngun said:
I have contemplated building a 1770s style rife, but I don’t know how to carve and I just don’t believe that plain rifles existed before the frederlist age.
Click to expand...

“Plain” guns in RCA (Rifles of Colonial America) by number:
17: some incised carving
19: some engraving, minimal carving but would look good plain
20: uncomplicated carving
60: minimal carving
80: Isaac Haines, no carving but engraved patchbox
104: plain
106:minimal carving
107: minimal carving
109: minimal carving
110: minimal carving
111: minimal carving
112:minimal carving
124: some doodle carving
130: minimal carving
132: minimal carving
134: some doodle carving
135: minimal carving
136: heinous carving
 

Similar threads

2
Help needed identifying a flintlock rifle builder
Replies
10
Views
690
2busy2
2
Relic shooter
Original Swiss Jaeger, any info. on maker ?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Relic shooter
Relic shooter
Clint Meier
SOLD Need a winter project? How about a Flintlock kit?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Shortgrub
S
Loyalist Dave
The Search for a Vintage Cornbread
4 5 6
Replies
114
Views
4K
Nav
Nav
MTCossack
Thoughts on Patch Boxes - or lack thereof - on the Kentucky Rifle in its Golden Age (and Colonial Age)
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
5K
Eric Krewson
Eric Krewson

Latest posts

Back
Top