How fancy for hunting?

[m-g willy]

After seeing all the fancy carving on the Lancaster and other rifles from the 1760-1780 guns I was wondering if these are normal for the day or are they the big money guns of the well to do?
Did the guns the hunters use have all these decorations or were they more plain?

 

[excess650]

The relief carved guns are generally later than you are thinking. Simpler, incised carving is more in line with the pre revolutionary period. The fancy guns are those that survived because they were deemed special by those who saw them for what they were, and saved them.

I think that you'll find the general "working guns" fall between the fancy carved and inlaid specimens, and the really utilitarian shimmels.

 

[Stumpkiller]

The hunters bought what was offerred and the Pennsylvania gunsmiths put the fancy on as a matter of professional pride. The materials for the lock and barrel were expensive. Working the wood and scratching the brass furniture was cheap.

Ever seen a German cookoo clock without nice woodcarving? Stop by a BMW or Mercedes dealer and tell him you want to buy a car painted in flat enamel without chrome or opening windows.

These were the advertising for the gunsmith and he made them well.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

A look at the military Bess shows some molding carving around the barrel tang and lock area. Even the cheapest trade guns had some rudimentary engraving decoration on them. Decoration could run from many hours of delicate work on fine pieces to a very short time of scratching out some designs on metal and running a few moldings in a workmanlike manner (watch Hershel House in his first video as he eyeballs and quickly executes his engraving and carving). Not to say there was not a completely plain one but I believe the majority of even the lower grades had something as it was quick and easy.

 

[LRB]

What Stumpkiller said. Some amount of decoration was expected and the modern conception of the longhunters being poor, dressed in rags, and carrying dirt plain rifles is just not factual for the most part. They had plenty of money to spend on nice guns, clothing, and gear, and according to research by Wallace Gusler, they did. No one knows for sure, but I think the notion of the so called "barn guns" is being over emphasized.

 

[Dphar]

After seeing all the fancy carving on the Lancaster and other rifles from the 1760-1780 guns I was wondering if these are normal for the day or are they the big money guns of the well to do?
Did the guns the hunters use have all these decorations or were they more plain?

It is impossible to say. However, there is a record of Simon Kenton ordering a double barreled rifle from PA in 1780 and these were very expensive.
Hunters were not necessarily poor. There was good money in market hunting and selling fur. So don't consider them as poor. George Drouillard, Lewis and Clarks interpreter and hunter had a servant worth $400 when he was killed by the Blackfeet at the Three Forks of the Missouri in 1810. This really surprised me.
This information comes from a description of his estate written my Manuel Lisa no less. The document is up for auction but I have lost the address or its on the other computer :shake:

Anyway yes the high end guns were used apparently for generations.
Look at William Antes swivel breech, it is still flintlock and may easily date to 1770 or so. This rifle was obviously heavily used. These rifles were very expensive, at least twice a normal high end rifle.
See pg 99 at http://books.google.com/books?id=t...0CBUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=william Antes&f=false
Or Volume 1 of Rifles of Colonial America.

Other than the wrist carving, which is virtually gone on the original this is pretty close to the original though it is stocked in walnut.

James Girty's new rifle cost ₤8.10.0 in May 1776. This was upper end price and he was not likely using it just for show during its service life.
See Chapter 6 of Bailey's "British Military Flintlock Rifles".

Dan

 

[roundball]

"...the modern conception of the longhunters being poor, dressed in rags, and carrying dirt plain rifles is just not factual for the most part. They had plenty of money to spend on nice guns, clothing, and gear..."

Interesting...I can't say I ever had 'longhunters' singled out in my mind from what I'll call "settlers" in general and that I have always assumed settlers were generally dirt poor, with more affluent people in settlements running businesses, etc.

So to help me get a more clear picture, did you use the word "longhunter" intentionally to separate them out of the general mix of settlers, and that they were indeed better off than a typical settler?

 

[excess650]

The question was of rifles of the 1760-1780 time period, and not cookoo clocks or Mercedes. Not a lot of these rifles have survived, and generally just the fancy ones or those plainer guns in best condition.

Then as now, there were various price ranges, and not everyone could afford the lavishly engraved and relief carved rifles. Take a look at the wood used for the stocks....they range from plain maple and walnut to very curly maple. Look at the carving....sure there are some heavily relief carved, but more incised carving in this time period. Patch boxes vary from the sliding wooden variety as were common in Europe to the brass patch boxes that were definitely and American addition.

Particular examples would be the John Schreit rifle dated 1761 with wooden patchbox, modest relief carving around the tang and incised carving behind the cheekrest. It does have nice, curly maple.

The Andreas Albrecht rifle (p61 Gunsmiths of Lancaster County)has plain wood, sliding wooden patchbox, very modest incised carving, and no engraving.

The John Noll rifle dated August 9, 1774 has pretty plain wood, modest incised carving, and simple engraving on its brass patch box.

The J P Beck (p70 same book) has sliding wooden patch box, only slightly curly maple, more carving, but no engraving.

The Jacob Dickert (p151) has no patch box, no cheek piece, no engraving....barrel is octagon to round with rear sight.

John Curry's Jacob Dickert documented as having been used 1776-1778 has a brass patchbox without engraving, no relief carving, and doesn't appear to have any incised carving.

Contrast these Becks and Dickerts with those most often photographed, and you'll see a huge difference. The point is that the early guns made in this country generally were more plain. The fancier guns, for the most part, were made in the post revolutionary period "Golden Age" from 1780 to 1820.

Not all of these early gunsmiths were German immigrants, either. Many were Swiss(Mennonites making exodus) and some were French (Fainot, Ferree, LeFevre).

I believe the Edward Marshall owned rifle and the Martin Meillin rifle(1705) were both made in Europe.

 

[LRB]

I am not entirely sure of what you are asking, but yes, there is a marked difference between settlers, hunters, and longhunters. The most common gun of the time for settlers would be a musket or other simple smooth bore. Most would not have had the money to spend on a rifle. A local hunter suppling meat for a fort, or settlement, might have used a rifle or smooth bore, depending on his income, or preference. The real longhunters of the 1760's were simply hide hunters and due to the high demand for deer hides in Europe, were, or could be, quite rich by the standards of the time, and most often prefered the rifle, and the best of horses and gear. They are easily compared to the 19th c. beavermen, but without the rendevous'.

 

[roundball]

"...yes, there is a marked difference between settlers, hunters, and longhunters. The most common gun of the time for settlers would be a musket or other simple smooth bore. Most would not have had the money to spend on a rifle.

A local hunter suppling meat for a fort, or settlement, might have used a rifle or smooth bore, depending on his income, or preference.

The real longhunters of the 1760's were simply hide hunters and due to the high demand for deer hides in Europe, were, or could be, quite rich by the standards of the time, and most often prefered the rifle, and the best of horses and gear.

That's excellent...hadn't ever seen those distinctions made before

 

[tg]

I think that most of the guns made before the Golden Age would have been carved and decorated to at least a min standard of the time, line mouldings and modest incise work or carcing behind the tang and cheekpiece which we might think rather nice even fancy compared to the production guns we see today, with the originals there were always exceptions to the norm,the simple trade guns would be the exception many of these just a plain unadorned version of the fowlers of the period, I have no doubt that if a gentle man of means or a common man who had saved for a gun of extra adornment would have carried it proudly into the field unlike many today who say that a gun is to nice to shoot, some of the high art European guns of the 17th and 18th century may have been more for eye candy or status I do not know for sure about those, but I have not seen any colonial work that matches them.

 

[Stophel]

The relief carved guns are generally later than you are thinking. Simpler, incised carving is more in line with the pre revolutionary period. The fancy guns are those that survived because they were deemed special by those who saw them for what they were, and saved them.

I think that you'll find the general "working guns" fall between the fancy carved and inlaid specimens, and the really utilitarian shimmels.

The "incise carving is earlier" is a fallacy started many years ago which persists. If anything, incise carving tends to be later...well, actually, incise carving tends to be regional, much more than time specific. The earlier the gun, the MORE likely it is to have carving. Big, bold, relief carving. Maybe not lots of it, maybe not super fancy, but it was done because it was expected. A gun was just not a gun without carving. It was just the way it was done. The modern aesthetic of plain, smooth, and utterly unadorned was a foreign concept to the people of the 18th century, who took great delight in decorating virtually everything. Besides, carving is cheap. A good gunsmith would have no problem whatsoever in quickly carving a gun. A quick and simple task. Moulding lines, teardrops, little leafy things behind the tang, swirls around the cheekpiece...easy to do. Why not have carving? The material costs to build the gun were generally rather more than the cost of labor.

My own personal, and VERY strongly held belief is that if one were to find a relatively "early" gun (meaning a PA rifle type gun) without carving, and there are a few, it is most likely a gun made during the Revolution (or PERHAPS for later militia duty...not real sure about that), where NO time could be wasted on superfluous things like carving or engraving. It wasn't really until well after the turn of the 19th century when tastes changed (for the worse...) and nice carving was done away with, and a "nice" gun instead had lots of gaudy metal inlays. :barf:

:grin:

 

[Dphar]

This always good for a spirited discussing. But we need to remember that the frontier was well populated with riflemen by the 1750s.
The natives used them in significant numbers from at least the 1740s.

The rifle has many advantages over the smooth bore for civilian use. Its more accurate and its cheaper to shoot since the bore is smaller.
The Battle of Blue Licks in which the Kentuckians were defeated by Girty with some British Rangers and natives was apparently a rifle fight at least there were no muskets present. There were no musket balls found at all and none over about 50-55 caliber in a dig I have read about.
But if you have to pack 50 rounds of ammo from Detroit (for example) to Kentucky on foot would you rather have 40 to the pound or 12 to the pound? 40 to the pound will serve an enemy as well as 12.
But this said I have not seen the actual results of the dig just what was related on a website.

The smoothbore's utility is grossly overrated on the Colonial frontier. If large enough to be useful as a shotgun it used too much powder and lead for small game. If smaller is usefulness with small shot was limited and buckshot virtually impossible to use.
Besides how did one compete in the rifle match with a shotgun?

Dan

 

[ohio ramrod]

The simple fact is very few "everyday guns " from that time period survived. I believe most had some type of carvings but the guns we see are the ones that were "special".

 

[Okwaho]

Stophel is right on here.Carving is found on all sorts of early guns.ie: most French and English military guns,French trade guns,etc.In the case of early long rifles these makers were largely trained in Europe especially in the Germanic areas and Switzerland.I don't have the book cited by excess650 but do have Kindig and Shumway.

As to the Beck rifles without engraving he probably apprenticed in Reading where engraving was uncommon.
I haven't a clue as to the "documentation" of the Dickert rifle owned by Curry so will pass.I also can't comment on the Noll rifle and as to the Dickert with no engraving or carving ,he worked for at least 40 years and I don't know what period the rifle cited falls into.

I think most serious students of the long rifle agree that the Marshall rifle is probably a Christian Springs stocking of an earlier German hunting rifle.It should be noted that the lock is virtually identical {including engraving} to the 1771 Brass Barrel rifle.The so called Martin Meiling rifle is still wrapped into controversy as to where,when,and by whom it was made. The jury is still out.

As stated above I concur totally with Stophel here as to the fallacy of the lack and extent of carving and to a slightly lesser degree engraving on very early rifles.Incised carving is found to some degree on very early rifles but it is usually used to complement the relief carving.I think the lack of relief carving is more likely the result of a gunsmith whose talent for carving is limited although the amount may be dictated by the affluence of the customer.
Tom Patton

 

[Dphar]

The simple fact is very few "everyday guns " from that time period survived. I believe most had some type of carvings but the guns we see are the ones that were "special".

Note that this is MY view. Yours may vary.

How do we determine "everyday"?
What you owned and how you dressed determined your station in life. A man with a well decorated rifle is not going to hang it on the wall and use something that looks like a blacksmith restock.
If he did people would wonder why.
What you had and displayed indicated who you were in society.
Note the Thomas Rifle, Rifles of Colonial America #121. Fully carved, engraved patchbox, wire inlay. It was being used in combat in the Revolution when captured by the British and taken as a trophy back the England.
Want a pre-rev war rifle that is "plain" see RCA #131. The Haymaker rifle whose owner was killed in 1774 while on a survey trip. I consider this to be a "plain" rifle. This style rifle could easily date to the 1760s. I would call this an everyday rifle, ti sure was not a wall hanger. The owner had it with him, on the job so to speak, when he was killed according to the story.
Carving of this type would cost almost nothing and makes the rifle look better. The BARREL is the high priced part. Watch the video The Gunsmith of Williamsburg".
Moulding of the upper forend was done when it was shaped. It took no more work to mould than the shape if the smith has a plane or scratch stock shaped for it the moulding is cut automatically. It costs nothing really.
The Antes Swivel is a very expensive rifle, but it was used heavily and never converted to percussion. Its RCA #54. Heavily carved, engraved brass, moulded rod pipes. The amount of wear indicates years of hard use, a lifetime perhaps or more.

Or go to americanhistoricsrvices.com and look to "antigue rifles".

There is an early rifle, to me meaning an early fully evolved American rifle, circa 1770, by Resor with all bells and whistles in "Steel Canvas" which has a lot of color photos of Kentucky rifles. Its mint which is very unusual even for "fancy guns".
Even the Indian trade rifles of the time have a patch box and SOME carving. See "British Military Flintlock Rifles" by Bailey. Its how it was done. Its what was expected. Even in Indian Trade rifles the low end guns were not popular and did not sell well.
This tells me the settlers documented (see "British Military Flintlock Rifles") as selling their rifles to the natives "at monstrous price" in the 1750s-60s were not selling the plain rifles everyone is thinking of when "everyday rifle" is mentioned. Apparently the natives did not want "plain" rifles.
If they could sell their rifle for double then they could buy a nicer/new rifle AND something useful around the farm why not?

Dan

 

[longcruise]

The simple fact is very few "everyday guns " from that time period survived.

How do you know that? That statement could only be factual if we knew what did not survive. In order to know what did not survive one would have had to not only been there but to have had very broad knowledte of what was being done over a long period of time and a big chunk of geography.

 

[tg]

"How do you know that?"

I was going to ask that what in the way of simple facts do we have that the common guns did not survive?I suspect we are looking at many of them in RCA and other publications,as for the relief carving on early guns, RCA 1&2 bears that out on many of the guns "thought" to be pre rev war, lots of work behind the tangs and cheekpieces on a lot of them.

 

[Stophel]

There is a common notion that "early" plain guns did not survive because they were "used up". I believe that this is pure speculation based on wishful thinking. "Why do we have so few pre-Revolutionary guns today? Surely it is because only the fancy ones survived, and the plain ones were worn out and thrown away...right?"

I believe that we don't have any of these dirt-plain pre-revolutionary rifles today, for the most part, simply because there weren't any to begin with.

We have precious few pre-Revolutionary guns (of any type) extant because I just don't think there were that many guns (of any type) to begin with! Think about it. How many people lived in the 13 colonies...especially the "frontier", where rifles and other guns would be more in need, in, say, 1750? Not too many. Not nearly as much as in 1770, and not nearly as much as in 1800, and so on. Fewer people means fewer guns were necessary. There are tons of guns of all types, plain and fancy, from the 19th century, but that's because there were always a whole lot more of them. :wink: Why have not all the 19th century plain guns been "used up"?

Of the ones that we do still have today, I think there is a good representation of what was available and used at the time, and see no reason to speculate that there was this huge phantom class of ultra-plain guns that were common at the time, but have all but disappeared through the ages.

 

[Tom Black]

Several years back I decided that life is simply to short to hunt with an ugly gunne.
Tom Black
Cantucky