Appropriate wood for early rifle?

[Tennessee.45]

A close friend has asked me to build him a rifle for his persona, he’s doing a longer hunter in Tennessee during the early to mid 1760’s, and he really doesn’t want a fancy grade stock. Other then maple what types and grades of wood are appropriate for that time period?

 

[Black Hand]

Maple appears to be the primary wood for rifles made in the Americas. You can pick a plain piece of Maple with little/no curl and use Aquafortis - this will color the wood a deep brownish-red.

 

[rich pierce]

Agree, if you want something plain, hard maple is a great stock wood. Black walnut would also be a good choice, but making a believable very early rifle is challenging. If historical accuracy is important to you, you may want to imagine where the rifle was made (most likely eastern Pennsylvania or Virginia at that date, if not an import).

 

[Black Hand]

Rich,
If you were to pick examples of commercially-available kits that might represent an early rifle (if any), which would they be?

 

[Vaino]

Seeing the very early time period req/d, are there any verified guns built during that time? Possibly some imports were used? If a gun was built during that time period, American walnut or maple would likely be the choice?

Anybody got a pic of a gun built in America during that time period....would be interesting......Fred

 

[crockett]

If Tennessee, maybe Cherry. Possibly beech. Rifles made in the southern highlands had a little more variation. The maple only was more a Pennsylvania situation.

 

[Elnathan]

Rich,
If you were to pick examples of commercially-available kits that might represent an early rifle (if any), which would they be?

I'm not Rich, but the Chambers Virginia, Edward Marshall, and English Sporting rifles spring to mind.

The Kibler Colonial is generic enough that it could pass as a 1760s rifle, I guess. maybe earlier, as no one really knows what a 1750s gun looks like.

 

[Col. Batguano]

Use sugar maple. It has about the best shear and crush strength of any of the commonly used woods, with the exception of possibly hickory or persimmon, which I actually find to be pretty ugly woods. If you stay away from curly or otherwise highly figured stuff, you can pretty much dye and stain any wood to look like pretty much any other wood. You can add curl stripes with stains and paints, but I think they're hard to make disappear.

Of course one wood that hasn't been discussed yet is ash. That too was a historically used wood, and the grain structure would be hard to duplicate with stains and the like. Don't know how appropriate it is for a southern gun though.

 

[rich pierce]

The Marshall rifle was probably stocked here around 1760 or so. The Schreit rifle is dated 1764. The Musicians rifle is very early and has a debatable scratched date of 1754. The Tulip rifle probably dates 1755-65. Wallace Gusler dates the Woodsrunner rifle to 1760s but I think it’s cousin the Feather rifle is 1760s and the Woodsrunner is later. The F Klette Rifle is considered 1760’s to 1770s. Rifles of Colonial America #40 is probably 1750s to 1765. RCA 17, sometimes attributes to Wm Antes, has a date some interpret as 1756 IIRC. So far each of those is sugar maple stocked.

Rifles of Colonial America #19 has suggestions that Andreas Albrecht stocked it in the 1750s. Whether he built it or not, it could easily be a 1750s to 1760s rifle. Both RCA 19 and it’s recently discovered twin are stocked in walnut. There are lesser known early rifles probably stocked in the colonies that may date as early as 1740’s.

As far as kits, the ones mentioned above can be good for 1760s for sure if care is taken. Especially the Marshall rifle and Chambers’ Southern style rifle. Kibler’s kit is also well positioned for such a build. I would customize the guard a bit to suggest earlier.

To build ones own early rifle is easy enough. Use early parts and early architecture and use no features or decorative styles found solely on later rifles. Model European Work of the era but go very plain and stock in American wood.

My recipe for a 1750s rifle built here:
Barrel should be .50 or larger, up to .62, swamped, huge at the breech, and 31-48” long. Lock must be early. Early Ketland, Chambers early Germanic, or an early English round faced lock are good choices. The Davis early colonial Germanic lock works too. Furniture is THE oft neglected area. Buttplate should be wide and flat; no curvature. Ideally the guard would have a vestigial decorative finial at the rear, with the grip rail well off the wrist and parallel to the wrist. A sliding wooden patchbox will satisfy and raise no questions. If a brass box is used it should be rudimentary and have an odd latch system.

I will post a couple pix of my 2 early rifle builds (the ones I still own) later. RCA 19 and 40.

 

[Rifleman1776]

The Davis early colonial Germanic lock works too.

Appearance and period-wise OK.
But function-wise is a whole 'nuther issue.
DAMHIK

 

[rich pierce]

The Davis early colonial Germanic lock works too.

Appearance and period-wise OK.
But function-wise is a whole 'nuther issue.
DAMHIK

Mine is a whizzer. I can hear the sparks crackle. I have about 10 locks in my parts bin and for fun tested them all for sparks. 2 Davis locks won. Sometimes it’s luck of the draw. A Davis round faced English lock was #1. That one will go on a smoothbore I’ll keep for myself. I do try to only buy locks in hand at shows. I will sort through half a dozen of a model and pick one. I often see the same weaknesses across makers.

Does the mainspring completely leverage the tumbler to where it’s almost at the tip of the foot of the tumbler at rest? Rare.

Does the sear have exactly the same position at half and full cock?

Does the frizzen really provide resistance then completely flip open? When open is it likely to stay open or flop back with little resistance?

At full cock is the neck of the cock so close to the bolster that I would have to hog out wood on the lock panel to accommodate? Or is there enough gap there to eliminate the need for an unsightly trough?

Out of 5 locks by a maker, typically one will shine, one is out of the running, and 3 are pretty good.

 

[George]

Peter Kalm, Travels in North America

June, 1749 at Albany We lodged with a gunsmith, who told us, that the best charcoals for the forge were made of the Black Pine. The next in goodness, in his opinion, were charcoals, made of the Beech-tree.

The best and dearest stocks for his muskets were made of the wood of the wild Cherry-tree; and next to these he valued those of the Red Maple most. They scarce make use of any other wood for this purpose. The black Walnut-tree affords excellent wood for stocks; but it does not grow in the neighbourhood of Albany.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Hi Rich,

A question on what you wrote earlier, "Ideally the guard would have a vestigial decorative finial at the rear, with the grip rail well off the wrist and parallel to the wrist."

Would the guard be so far off the grip rail that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th fingers would wrap around the grip, instead of wrapped around the guard?

Gus

 

[Stophel]

NO! That's what the grip rail is for! To act as a sort of pistol grip. Personally, I find straight wristed guns with no grip rail to be rather uncomfortable to hold. I can't twist my wrist up to grip it, and I end up only holding it between my thumb and middle finger!

It's really too bad how American rifles' grip rails began to shrink dramatically in the 1770's, shriveling down to a ridiculous little stub of a thing that is no good for much of anything, since many of them will only accommodate two fingers... at most! I have always wondered why that was...

 

[Stophel]

I have a hard time putting such early dates on many guns as some, especially Mr. Gusler, do. I'm nobody to listen to though, but still. There are a lot of "early-looking" rifles out there that people REALLY WANT to be ca.1770, or even earlier, but they're just not. Guns like the two "thick" Isaac Haines guns, or the John Davidson (VA) gun...

I just can't see the "woodsrunner" or the "feather" guns being much, if any, earlier than about 1775. The "Faber" gun (I'm still not convinced that is the name engraved on the sideplate! :haha: ) is what everyone WANTS to be a 1760's Virginia gun, but I have my doubts about that too.

As I recall, Klette was known to have begun working in 1782, so the signed gun can't be earlier than that.

I'm not entirely convinced that the "Musician" rifle is even American made, though a 1750's date is probably good.

Finding existing American rifles of a likely 1760's date or earlier is pretty tough. 1770 is not so hard, but 1760... :hmm:
I think RCA17 could be a 1760's gun, WITHOUT the added walnut pieces and the mutilated cheekpece and comb. I don't have any problem with many of the other Bethlehem/Christians' Spring guns being 1760's or MAYBE (but I doubt it) even earlier, like the Marshall gun or RCA 40, etc.

Wolfgang Hachen settled in Reading in 1752, or something like that, as I recall, and was a gunsmith from the start, but do any of the existing "Haga" attributed guns date from that early? Personally, I think no, but there's nothing solid to go by.

Population growth and westward expansion have to be considered. Just because there were 5 gunsmiths in a certain town in 1770 doesn't mean there were any there (or anyone at all!) in 1760! Population was growing fast, and people were moving fast. There weren't as many people earlier, so there weren't as many guns earlier.

The familiar "schools" that we all know and love hadn't developed then either, so all that is really out the window, with the exceptions of the Bethlehem/C.S. guns and MAYBE the Reading guns ????. You get into an area where everything is likely to look very German, or perhaps, very English. In a way, it's liberating, as you have a bit of artistic leeway! :haha:

 

[Zonie]

I think the guard grip rail on my "Transitional" rifle is fairly typical of the style Rich was talking about.

Flickr

 

[rich pierce]

No luck posting images.

 

[Stophel]

 

[rich pierce]

That’s what I’m talking about!

 

[Rifleman1776]

When I first got the lock it was a total loser. Davis informed me the guy that cast it "used the wrong powder". Meaning it was a steel that couldn't be hardened. Plus the geometry of the frizzen, by their admission, was wrong. They were kind enough to SELL me a replacement redesigned frizzen. :cursing: I told you. Don't ask.