Builders of poor folks rifles?

[54ball]

Here is the thing about 18th Century Culture that many miss.

A rifle was a middle class maybe even poor class arm...at least at it"s conception.

The closest parallel today would be a Comercial Fishermans boat.....A famer's tractor......a landscpaper's backhoe.....a drivers or contractor's truck. None of those items are cheap and may cost as much as a year or more's wages.

Same with a rifle in the 18th Century. It was expensive but essential.
By far the greatest cost was in the barrel followed by the lock. The handwork....was cheap and certain amount of decoration was expected on such an expensive item.

The exact opposite is true today. Barrels and locks are cheap whereas the handwork and skilled labor is the cost point.

 

[Elnathan]

Where I read this.....I forget....you know how that goes. :wink:

A fine Quaker built NC rifle was used by a militiaman in the Battle of Guilford Courthouse.
Sometime after the battle the Quaker maker shows up at the militiaman's house asking for the rifle. He asked if the rifle was used in the battle. When the militiaman said it was, the Quaker busted the rifle on the closest tree.

He told the man his rifles were a tool to feed and defend his family, not an implement of war to take men's lives.

Matthew Osborne. He supposedly bought it back, though, before destroying it. According to Michael Briggs this has not been documented, but there is a note in the local meetinghouse records that might that might be a reference to that incident.

 

[Eterry]

I think you touched on a valid point....dad said during WWII if you had metal and it wasn't being used it went in a scrap drive. Same thing for grease, clothing, buttons, and more I'm sure. He said it seemed every week, he was a boy then, there was a drive of some sort that required him and all the neighbor kids to help in. He trained his dog to pull a cart; I recall him talking about working on drives every week.

I also recall an article written in the 80's or 90's by a popular magazine gun writer who spoke of sidewalks containing Winchester 66's, 73's 76's among others in a northwestern town. The Gunshop owner, in the 1930's, wanted a sidewalk, the old guns were worth more in iron than as firearms. Hard to imagine..

 

[azmntman]

He told the man his rifles were a tool to feed and defend his family, not an implement of war to take men's lives.

Is war not (usually) fought to defend ones family....a family needs a righteous government, Like was thought of way back when our nation began? So one should NOT shoot an enemy soldier but its OK to shoot a burglar, rapist etc?

I dunno...I sure respect the Mennonite and Amish but some of their thinkin stumps me :idunno:

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Plain or fancy, a rifle was more expensive because of the cost of rifling the barrel. Then as now, double set triggers added cost, as did a brass box versus a sliding wooden box.

Ah but remember when Morgan was selling his rifles for more the 2X the cost of his "fuzee neat" the rifles were likely single trigger and had wooden patch boxes IF they had patch boxes. :wink:

LD

 

[Elnathan]

He told the man his rifles were a tool to feed and defend his family, not an implement of war to take men's lives.

Is war not (usually) fought to defend ones family....a family needs a righteous government, Like was thought of way back when our nation began? So one should NOT shoot an enemy soldier but its OK to shoot a burglar, rapist etc?

I dunno...I sure respect the Mennonite and Amish but some of their thinkin stumps me :idunno:

We have no record of what he actually said, if the conversation indeed took place.

He might also have figured that the British were a righteous government, or at least more righteous than those so-and-sos down in Wilmington and Charleston, who, for all their talk of freedom and representative government, had been pretty recalcitrant about him and his neighbors on the backcountry a voice in how the colonies were run.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Seems logical to me that as an apprentice builder progressed he would start out building plain guns. I can't see an apprentice starting out building ornate guns.
Given the sheer number of early firearms and the lack of modern industrial manufacturing, there must have been a lot of apprentices...

 

[dave_person]

Hi CC,
I am not sure apprentices actually built a lot of complete guns. They more likely did tasks on guns that the master finished up and signed (if at all).

dave

 

[rich pierce]

So many wishful arguments for their being plenty of plain rifle guns that did not survive, while the fancy ones apparently did.

Makes me wonder how so many muskets and beater single and double barreled shotguns survived the scap metal drives.

I will ask, what is the motivation of those who long for there having been a preponderance or at least an abundance of plain rifles in the Colonial and Federalist periods? Is it related in any way to the guns they own, being plain, and their wanting them to be authentic or representative?

 

[Coot]

Re "fancy" guns, perhaps some are influenced by today's modern (non-muzzleloading) guns which tend to very plain & the default thinking is that since that is how they have been for 100+ years, that is how they must always have been. Perhaps some don't want to seem like they are "putting on airs" by having a "fancy" gun. Perhaps some want to build a "typical" gun but want to do it all themselves (except for the ramrod channel??) but lack engraving or carving skills & don't want to ruin what already took many hours. Based on one author of a book on naval handguns, the survival rate (at least of government owned weapons where the number made is known) of guns is very low. Without hard numbers, informed speculation is what we are stuck with.

 

[Col. Batguano]

...By far the greatest cost was in the barrel followed by the lock. The handwork....was cheap and certain amount of decoration was expected on such an expensive item.

The exact opposite is true today. Barrels and locks are cheap whereas the handwork and skilled labor is the cost point.

The reason barrels and locks are relatively cheap today is because they are largely made with the assistance of machines. I would be interested to know how many actual labor hours goes in to making a modern ML'ing barrel or lock. I bet when it's broken down it isn't very many. Likewise with a factory ML'ing gun like a Pedersoli. They make generous use of machines (like power sanders, CAD/CAM inletting routers etc.) in making their guns in order to keep labor hours (per piece) down. Component costs are a larger percentage of the final price than labor, which is why they use cheaper wood. It takes pretty much the same number of hours for us to build a gun with cheap wood as expensive stuff, so that's why if we're going to dedicate the time to build a custom gun, it "pays" to use the best piece of wood you can afford. Components are a relatively small percentage of the final gun price.

In the "Art of the PA Long Rifle, they say that in the 100 hours it takes to build a (presumably a relatively undecorated) rifle, about 20-40 of them are spent on making the barrel, and another 10 or so on the lock. Labor is a commodity, and costs are what labor costs, whether it's used for stoking the stove, or building a gun. Skilled labor sells for more than unskilled labor, so long as it is actually DOING that skill. I wouldn't pay my lawyer more than the kid next door to cut my lawn, but I sure wouldn't hire the kid next door to do my legal work for me!

 

[coloradoclyde]

What we see from about the 1850's on is nothing but plain guns (all types not jus muzzleloaders)....Ornate guns were "special order" especially when cartridge guns came on the scene...
Even the Hawkens weren't that ornate....

I think by the early 1800's the country was growing so fast that golden age gunsmiths just couldn't keep up with demand and had to speed things up by sacrificing detail....
with changing technologies like percussion ignition and war contracts, production just became more and more industrialized....

Gold rushes....westward expansion etc. all contributed to the decline.

Ornate examples survived for the same reason that you can see plenty of old corvettes today but seeing a Chevette is near impossible. Even though almost twice as many chevettes were produced.

 

[tenngun]

From an Amish/ Mennonites/ several pacifist denominations shooting a burglar in your house is self defense, going to war is the same as going to the wrong side of town and shooting would be criminals.
I would have reguarded Nazi Germany as a threat, but a pacifist could point out Germany didn’t try to invade the USA. One can say the same thing about the revolution. Pay unto Ceasar that which is Caesar’s , until the redcoat was coming through you door he was no threat to you.
I don’t agree with their point of view, but I see their point.
It was anti war anti slavery quakers that built the best slaving and privateering ships, The Baltimore Clippers

 

[armyeod]

Pacifism wasn’t the lay down like a door mat shown in Hollywood. Quakers Amish Mennonites ect were more then able to defend themselves. They avoided conflict and didn’t join the militia, they would turn the other cheek, once.

Well the thread was hijacked...lol.
Think about the Amish today; many are millionaires and stash their money at home.
Would you be undefended?

 

[Wes/Tex]

Well the thread was hijacked...lol.
Think about the Amish today; many are millionaires and stash their money at home.
Would you be undefended?

You got that right...I only originally mentioned it might be why some guns were less ornate and it took on a life of it's own! :wink:

 

[Pete44ru]

Here is the thing about 18th Century Culture that many miss.

A rifle was a middle class maybe even poor class arm...at least at it"s conception.

The closest parallel today would be a Comercial Fishermans boat.....A famer's tractor......a landscpaper's backhoe.....a drivers or contractor's truck.
None of those items are cheap and may cost as much as a year or more's wages.

Same with a rifle in the 18th Century. It was expensive but essential.
By far the greatest cost was in the barrel followed by the lock.
The handwork....was cheap and certain amount of decoration was expected on such an expensive item.

While I'm sure that may be true of trappers and better-off farmers, I would think that the vast majority of sodbusters with families, trying to scratch out a sustenance on a bit of acreage somewhere, would have a relatively inexpensive smoothbore/fowler or a pistol than a fancy rifle.

However, the poor man's rifle came to be known (at least in the South) as a "Poor Boy" - a basic rifle, sans any extras like other than the furniture ( triggerguard, RR thimble, etc) essential to keeping it in one piece when fired.

I'm reasonable sure that there were many local/itinerant iron workers spread around the existing country at that time, who made barrels very inexpensively to cater to just that market.


.

 

[54ball]

Rich,
There's not a lot on RCA 119 but what is there is very good. 119 is really a neat Rifle. Basically it's stocked as an English Fowling gun but with a full ocatagonal barrel. The furniture is all English Smoothbore....Triggerguard no grip, round toed butt plate, English side plate, large English round faced lock and even the pipes look English.

The carving, especially behind the cheek, American. Early edditions attribute this gun to Virginia. Now it's attributed to Newcomer out of PA. BTW, it's one of the few Walnut PAs.

I've been gathering parts for a rifle based on 119. None of the usual suspects have the right furniture. I do believe Chambers' Smooth Rifle is based off this rifle although his has a octagonal to round barrel. His furniture would have been good but Wayne Dunlap has a set...identical off his 1770s English Halfstock.

 

[54ball]

While I'm sure that may be true of trappers and better-off farmers, I would think that the vast majority of sodbusters with families, trying to scratch out a sustenance on a bit of acreage somewhere, would have a relatively inexpensive smoothbore/fowler or a pistol than a fancy rifle.

However, the poor man's rifle came to be known (at least in the South) as a "Poor Boy" - a basic rifle, sans any extras like other than the furniture ( triggerguard, RR thimble, etc) essential to keeping it in one piece when fired.

I'm reasonable sure that there were many local/itinerant iron workers spread around the existing country at that time, who made barrels very inexpensively to cater to just that market.


.

What you say has some truth but a lot of the sentiment is of a later time period... early 19th Century and post Civil War up to the Depression. In that later period, much of the South and Southwest suffered abject poverty until the Second World War. I do believe a lot of the "poor farmer" sentiment comes from those times as we are just a couple of generations removed.

So grand paw with his Stevens Single Barrel in 1935 is a lot different than his Great great grand father in 1780.

Appalachia
You have to be carefull with Appalachia. A lot of things are specific to that region and evolved though time there. Many think that region is a time capsule but it is not.

For instance, a plain mountain rifle from 1810 is not the same as a rifle from 1780. Many have tried to make that connection. You can't backdate A 1810 EasternTn/ Western NC style rifle to 1780...I have tried. What you find is the early 1780 Rifles of that area show influeance from PA (Lancaster) Virginia and the Carolinas....Maryland too.

A good example is the Old Holston Rifle attributed to William Bean. It's iron with a lot of Virginia influence. Now the Bean family became known for the classic Tennessee Rifle. A 1830s Bean is the basis for most of the Tennessee kits on the market. It's nothing like the William Bean Rifle. Related to the Bean Family are the Bulls. Bull rifles show a lot of Va infleance amd have a stock shape close to the Cumberland rifles of Thomas Simpson, Jacob Young even the Humble Brothers of Kentucky. Simpson was from NC. The Humbles Va. There appears to be a link from The PA maker Shroyer to the Humbles. John Phillip Beck to the Lauks and John Bull.

Just trace the Great Wagon Road. Lancaster, though to Emmitsburg, Winchester down the Shenandoah Valley to SW Virginia to NC and Tennessee. From Knoxville down the Tennessee to the Cumberland (Nashville). From Watauga through the gap to Kentucky.

In Appalachia you have what I call the farmer gunsmith. These men were primarily farmers who made rifles. Many have family ties to the old Colonial Smiths. Others may have picked up the trade... still others may have worked in iron (barrel makers) and started building rifles.

Lastly is a culture thing and may seem to contradict some of my statements but...Think about it.

There are period writings of the Overthemountainmen or SW VA people. They were described as poor.. living in poor sorry dwellings, children naked women nearly so... but they had a fine horse and a fine rifle many withe (Dreppards) Dickerts.
To this very day in Appalachia, some of these folks live in a crosstie and tarpaper shack... their many children, nearly naked, women nearly so. They will have a fine 4x4...the best, and the best hunting rifle and scope money can buy. :hmm:

 

[Elnathan]

In any case, the Overmountain Men in 1780 were NOT poor - Arnow makes a very good case from original probate records, wills, and other contemporary documents, that many/most of the early trans-appalachian settlers were fairly well off. Given that Seedtime on the Cumberland was published in 1960, I'm surprised so few people among the muzzleloading community seem to have read her works or taken them to heart.

It might also be worth noting that the Boones owned slaves, that Squire had a silver-mounted smallsword (which he broke in combat, IIRC) and Daniel had a waistcoat with silver buttons at one point in his life. Debt-laden and constantly working towards financial independence, yes; devoid of the finer things in life, no.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Pacifism wasn’t the lay down like a door mat shown in Hollywood. Quakers Amish Mennonites ect were more then able to defend themselves. They avoided conflict and didn’t join the militia, they would turn the other cheek, once.

Sorry partner, but the records from PA and VA show clearly in the F&I that they did just that. Even after massacres the Quakers recorded responses akin to pacifists today. The Indians simply needed to be talked to, reasoned with, explained the situation to return to peaceful living. The concept that a group would hate you because of your existence was foreign to them.

They didn't join the militia? PA didn't have a militia up to the AWI. Volunteer companies of men not part of the Society of Friends [Quakers] were organized, but no militia law, and only a few Quakers broke their rules to join up.

Kind of ironic that in the "Quaker State" you also found the majority of early riflesmiths.

In VA (where there was a Militia law) in the town of Waterford, just West of Leesburg, a large portion of the Quakers in that community decided to fight in the AWI and were "read out of meeting", meaning expelled from The Society of Friends. They were then known as Fighting Quakers.

Now Quakers did own firearms and did hunt, but those that broke doctrine to fight in the AWI and were read-out-of-meeting are not recognized as Quakers even today.

LD