-
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
How fancy for hunting?
- Thread starter m-g willy
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
"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."
That makes a lot of sense Chris,I just cannot buy into the other scenario, it does not hold water IMHO
That makes a lot of sense Chris,I just cannot buy into the other scenario, it does not hold water IMHO
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reaction score
- 634
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?"
Wrong....a common requirement of men being mustered into service during the revolution was that they provide their own rifles. Many of the 'smiths of the time were apraising and aquiring rifles to be used by the soldiers. It is very likely that the fancy survivng rifles weren't used for duty as the wealthy found exemptions for themselves then as they do today.
The John Schreit rifle dated 1761 survived as a war trophy and has been returned to the USA from a British museum within the last 50 years or so. You don't think the Brits took the ugly guns home, do ya?
"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."
I already gave you examples of J P Beck and Jacob Dickert that are contrary to your assertion. Both J P Beck and Dickert made top shelf rifles.
"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."
After spending considerable time deciding who would have been producing rifles in "Lancaster County" prior to the revolution, and not counting the questionable entries who might have just made locks or barrels, I come up with roughly 50 gunsmiths from 1719-1770 or so. Along with those I have photos from 13 of those 'smiths (in this same book). Admittedly there will be photos of several more elsewhere, but not even half?
The Baker family of Pequea, Pa were making rifles likely the earliest in Lancaster County (Lancaster County formed from Chester County around 1729) from 1719-1750 or so, but yet NONE of these rifles are known to exist. Keep in mind that "Lancaster County" also included parts or all of what are now Berks, Lebanon, and Dauphin Counties, so not just a tiny region.
Why have not all the 19th century plain guns been "used up"?
Because they were 100 years later, more of them, and made AFTER the revolution, so not used during the revolution.
Likewise, some of the "used up" pre-revolutionary rifles likely were recycled to take advantage of the existing barrels and locks. Restocking them at a later date most likey yielded decidedly different form such as some of those 19th century guns.
Think about it Chris, after the advent of cartridge and repeating arms, there wasn't much reason to keep the old MLers around. Those that were kept were likely the best condition and fanciest. The same is true of of most anything collected and preserved for centuries. Who keeps the POS?
"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."
Ultra plain would have been the shimmels and barn guns, IMO, and not the common rifles.
Wrong....a common requirement of men being mustered into service during the revolution was that they provide their own rifles. Many of the 'smiths of the time were apraising and aquiring rifles to be used by the soldiers. It is very likely that the fancy survivng rifles weren't used for duty as the wealthy found exemptions for themselves then as they do today.
The John Schreit rifle dated 1761 survived as a war trophy and has been returned to the USA from a British museum within the last 50 years or so. You don't think the Brits took the ugly guns home, do ya?
"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."
I already gave you examples of J P Beck and Jacob Dickert that are contrary to your assertion. Both J P Beck and Dickert made top shelf rifles.
"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."
After spending considerable time deciding who would have been producing rifles in "Lancaster County" prior to the revolution, and not counting the questionable entries who might have just made locks or barrels, I come up with roughly 50 gunsmiths from 1719-1770 or so. Along with those I have photos from 13 of those 'smiths (in this same book). Admittedly there will be photos of several more elsewhere, but not even half?
The Baker family of Pequea, Pa were making rifles likely the earliest in Lancaster County (Lancaster County formed from Chester County around 1729) from 1719-1750 or so, but yet NONE of these rifles are known to exist. Keep in mind that "Lancaster County" also included parts or all of what are now Berks, Lebanon, and Dauphin Counties, so not just a tiny region.
Why have not all the 19th century plain guns been "used up"?
Because they were 100 years later, more of them, and made AFTER the revolution, so not used during the revolution.
Likewise, some of the "used up" pre-revolutionary rifles likely were recycled to take advantage of the existing barrels and locks. Restocking them at a later date most likey yielded decidedly different form such as some of those 19th century guns.
Think about it Chris, after the advent of cartridge and repeating arms, there wasn't much reason to keep the old MLers around. Those that were kept were likely the best condition and fanciest. The same is true of of most anything collected and preserved for centuries. Who keeps the POS?
"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."
Ultra plain would have been the shimmels and barn guns, IMO, and not the common rifles.
Look at anything else from this era. Take the steam engines of the time, virtually every casting that survives today has some sort of ornamental features. These were just nasty old beasts of burden, nothing as prestigious or respected as the "family rifle".
Look at furniture of the time, many aesthetics that serve no purpose. I think it was just the mindset of the day. If it was fancy and built in this manner it was considered complete- and probably made the impression that it was imported from the old country's of the settlers that lived here from Germany, England etc. I seriously doubt after laboring to build all the metal parts like the barrel, lock and furniture in laborious fashion with simple and not very good handtools, that they would just slap it in a plain stock and call that good. Mass production and modern machinery, dropped manufacturing costs to a point that would make that a sensible option. Someone that is practiced and proficient with carving, can knock out a design in short order.
Just my opinions obviously
-Ron
Interesting thread.
Look at furniture of the time, many aesthetics that serve no purpose. I think it was just the mindset of the day. If it was fancy and built in this manner it was considered complete- and probably made the impression that it was imported from the old country's of the settlers that lived here from Germany, England etc. I seriously doubt after laboring to build all the metal parts like the barrel, lock and furniture in laborious fashion with simple and not very good handtools, that they would just slap it in a plain stock and call that good. Mass production and modern machinery, dropped manufacturing costs to a point that would make that a sensible option. Someone that is practiced and proficient with carving, can knock out a design in short order.
Just my opinions obviously
-Ron
Interesting thread.
"Wrong....a common requirement of men being mustered into service during the revolution was that they provide their own rifles. Many of the 'smiths of the time were apraising and aquiring rifles to be used by the soldiers."
I recall that most men mustered provided their own smoothbores and most rifle builders were pressed into the production of muskets for the war effort
I recall that most men mustered provided their own smoothbores and most rifle builders were pressed into the production of muskets for the war effort
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,884
- Reaction score
- 947
Looks to me like Kanati is on the correct path here. It is not always easy to shift our mental gears from a modern world where materials are mostly cheap & labor generally expensive to an 18th c where materials were costly and labor was cheap. Style was important and for those who could afford new things, decoration was kind of a norm. Look at things like all the (to us) extra buttons on something like a common soldiers regimental coat, the ornamentation on public buildings, the carvings on ships, the decorated everyday pottery, etc. Decoration even had an economic role - just as a banker wears a suit today to appear successful & trustworthy, so did professionals then. As to the guns, there was also an economic factor - the carving, lovely as it is, only amounts to a small percentage of the time to make the lock, barrel & shape & inlet the stock & perform the other tasks essential to making a gun, whether plain or fancy. If the gunsmith could sell guns as fast as he could make them, then making a larger number of plain guns would be logical. But if business is a bit slow, what should he do? Not being busy in the shop is sort of advertising that you do not have customers (are you a bad gunsmith that you have no work?) & besides, "idle hands are the devil's workshop". If business is a bit slow, how do you get business away from competing gunsmiths? One answer is to keep your self and/or your help busy by adding some carving. Carving can be fun, shows off your skill, makes your gun "prettier" than the plain one for sale down the street & without spending any scarce cash, makes your gun more attractive to a buyer. As to the poor man who cannot afford to spend much on a gun, he is much more likely to be buying a used gun than a new one of the latest (rifle) design & style (sort of like buying a car today). The guns he is likely looking at are things like a used trade gun or old military musket. Think about the 1950s & 60s when a surplus 98 Mauser was dirt cheap but a new model 70 would cost plenty. Have the "nicer" guns survived in a higher percentage than the "plain, mostly worn out" guns - likely yes - most other surviving intact artifacts have. But was a (by todays standards) 'decorated' gun common for the period? Again, likely yes, there are too many around today for them to have been an uncommon type then. As always, history is a mix of facts and opinion that likely will never be sorted out to universal satisfaction - but the chase is fun. :grin:
I've read also that General Washington wanted his recruits with smoothbores, preferably able to fix a bayonet. Smoothbores, though less accurate, could be loaded faster. The commitees of safety from the individual states had written requirements for the muskets they wanted built by gunsmiths.
I've posted this before, but there are some plain rifles in the book "Collector's Illustrated Encyclopedia of the American Revolution".
I've been warned before about applying todays standards to standards 200 years ago, but....Don't todays traditional gunsmiths charge a little more (or a lot more) for engraving and carving? It must take some time to do and time is money, or wasn't that the case 200 years ago? If a man had to save up a year's wages, I've read this on the forum here, he may have wanted to save some small change here or there by getting a gun without a lot of imbellishments. Its hard for me to believe that a gunsmith would force his customers to pay for his artistry whether they wanted it or not and every gun built was going to be his best. If the customer didn't like it he could go down the road and find a builder who wasn't as good and had to sell for less, right?
I don't mean to belabor a point, but I'm a fairly modest man. I don't care for fancy stuff, I feel a little guilty when I have something too fancy. I wonder if there was anybody like that back then or if I'm just a product of today's world?
(Hey, I might not be that modest. Its a matter of opinion.)
I've posted this before, but there are some plain rifles in the book "Collector's Illustrated Encyclopedia of the American Revolution".
I've been warned before about applying todays standards to standards 200 years ago, but....Don't todays traditional gunsmiths charge a little more (or a lot more) for engraving and carving? It must take some time to do and time is money, or wasn't that the case 200 years ago? If a man had to save up a year's wages, I've read this on the forum here, he may have wanted to save some small change here or there by getting a gun without a lot of imbellishments. Its hard for me to believe that a gunsmith would force his customers to pay for his artistry whether they wanted it or not and every gun built was going to be his best. If the customer didn't like it he could go down the road and find a builder who wasn't as good and had to sell for less, right?
I don't mean to belabor a point, but I'm a fairly modest man. I don't care for fancy stuff, I feel a little guilty when I have something too fancy. I wonder if there was anybody like that back then or if I'm just a product of today's world?
(Hey, I might not be that modest. Its a matter of opinion.)
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reaction score
- 634
More digging has references to J P Beck making several grades of guns depending upon what his customers could afford. Bartering was common at that time because folks simply weren't flush with $$.
You are correct, relief carving and engraving add considerably to the price of a gun. Likewise, fancy pierced patchboxes would have taken time to make and inlet, so there were guns without patchboxes, those with sliding wooden covers, and the brass(mostly) patchboxes so often seen.
You are correct, relief carving and engraving add considerably to the price of a gun. Likewise, fancy pierced patchboxes would have taken time to make and inlet, so there were guns without patchboxes, those with sliding wooden covers, and the brass(mostly) patchboxes so often seen.
This possibly is one of the best discussions I've read on the "Forum"....all the posts had something plausible to add and as usual, I'm a little confused and am attempting to "sift" through all these "facts". It's wonderful when an informed thinker can present his opinions and "sway" me to his viewpoint which is then contradicted by the next poster and his viewpoint is plausible enough to "convince" me that he's right. I'm thankful for this education and won't post any of my thoughts because a discussion such as this is way above my pay grade. Thanks to all....Fred
One of the problems with us understanding Colonial America in this aspect is that we live in and for the most part have grown up in a disposable environment. We want it fast and cheap and when it wears out or breaks we toss it in the trash and buy another. We could care a less if the item is embellished so long as it does what we want.
If you spend some time studying furniture and even homes from 2 and 3 centuries ago you realize that nearly everything has artistic embellishment. It wasn't until the industrial revolution of the 19th century when many items became machine made and not individually by a craftsman that embellishment subsided on a large scale. Embellishment is often difficult to do by machine.
We need to attempt to understand the mindset and thinking of our ancestors in order to understand how they lived. If they were here today they would be bewildered just as we are bewildered at the thought of no electricity, running water and indoor plumbing... on a daily basis, for your entire life.
If you spend some time studying furniture and even homes from 2 and 3 centuries ago you realize that nearly everything has artistic embellishment. It wasn't until the industrial revolution of the 19th century when many items became machine made and not individually by a craftsman that embellishment subsided on a large scale. Embellishment is often difficult to do by machine.
We need to attempt to understand the mindset and thinking of our ancestors in order to understand how they lived. If they were here today they would be bewildered just as we are bewildered at the thought of no electricity, running water and indoor plumbing... on a daily basis, for your entire life.
I'm sure that furniture back then was highly decorated. But all furniture? I'm trying to picture myself on the frontier in a cabin with a puncheon or dirt floor sitting with Ma at the table in an embellished chair, a highly decorated rifle above the fire place and my children wearing rough spun clothing and no shoes. Our plates are made of wood..............I'm a dreamer.
smoothflinter said:
That makes sense, but wouldn't most gun builders have lived in populated communities and the homesteader would have purchased his rifle on his way out to the frontier? Heck if I know. Like mentioned before, I live in 2010 and can only try to understand what was going on 250 yrs ago.
smoothflinter said:
Engraving today is a different proposition than it was in 1775 or even 1890.
The customer of the time did not look at the engraving under magnification as they do now. It was simply away to fill up open spaces on locks and patchboxes (see Lynton McKenzie's engraving videos, he gives some history lessons along with the engraving instruction). They can be rented BTW.
At the time we are speaking of the engraving on Kentucky rifles, was in general, quickly and crudely cut compared to most work today or high end English guns after 1800-1820 or so.
They did not spend hours engraving a patchbox, they couldn't, they were not selling to lords, princes and Kings.
This is a Kuntz patchbox detail. Its a wonderful piece of art. But the engraving is very poor quality, I can cut lines as well and I don't consider myself to be an engraver.
Lines deeper and shallower. A scroll with a corner.
I doubt the engraving cost anything like as much as making the box much less inletting it.
They did not spend a lot of time on it.
Carving was not a immense investment either. They were pretty good at it in most cases and DID NOT AGONIZE over the perfect final wood finish. They made it look good, stained the stock if maple and put on finish and it was done.
I spend far more time on stock preparation for finish than any 18th century gunsmith would. But I spend far less time on final finish than most today do.
But today we are required to work to a higher standard so the people capable of doing best quality engraving get a good chunk of change for it. But it takes a lot of time too. We engrave under magnification for the most part today. In 1770s America microscopes and optivisors were rare.
A good carver who was fast could sell a relief carved rifle for little more than a plain one. And it was EXPECTED.
Yes there were barn guns etc. People used to buy parts and stock their own at least in the 19th century. Guns were often restocked after being broke by someone who was not a gunstocker. So when you look at some of the butt ugly "barn gun" etc take this into consideration as well. Signed or not.
Rifles were used for generations. There are rifles in RCA I&II that were likely made in the 1750-1760s and they have been converted BACK to flintlock for display. This means they were likely converted to percussion in the 1830s or 40s. So if they were made in 1765 they had been in use for an entire human lifetime by the time they were converted and then were used for who knows how long after that. Yeah some guns got used up and recycled. Many were scrapped in WW-I scrap drives (Kentuckys and anything else "old" and out of use I knew a WW-I vet when I was a teenager and when he got back from the war his Kentuckys were gone and he only had the stock on one of his "good guns" left).
Bottom line we have a tiny snapshot of the rifles from the 18th and early 19th century. We only see the ones that did not get lost, wrecked or melted down.
Dan
P.S. The General officers wanted smoothbores because thats how wars were fought and the rifleman tended to not do things they thought were stupid/were not well disciplined early in the war.
The 18trh century musket was basically a pike with the capability to shot lead balls. Many considered the bayonet the important part.
Shoot a few volleys then charge with the "pike" if you have enough men left.
Dan
It is difficult for us to understand (IF I have this right) the mindset. Labor was cheap, someone with a knack for carving and can work expeditiously, could have performed even complex patterns rather quickly. If you do something everyday and that is all you do, you learn tricks and develop tools that aid in speed and proficiency. Ever see any of the old videos of the guys paint-pinstriping cars in the car plants here in Detroit back in the 50's etc? They were crazy fast and good at it.
Labor was plentiful and cheap, with all manufacturing really being just cottage industry. Where large scale manufacturing of anything just wasn't happening. Folks were relegated to farm work, mining, and a few specialty vocations- like gunmaking. These people were undoubtedly highly regarded, just as they are today, they were seen as artisans or "wizards" of the craft. To be competitive they would have had to have offered a product at the very least as good as the competition.
Men worked in mining, for pennies per day, farm work for pennies a day etc. Labor was inexpensive, time was plentiful.
I think what is missing from this discussion, is the knowledge of these folks that actually embellished all these different products. Many were undoubtedly immigrants that brought with them their talent and learned methods from from their native country. England, Italy, Germany, France, etc. Look at the majority of the architecture from the time.
The "tricks of the trade" they used are probably long forgotten through history, and if known would probably make it easier to fathom, that most guns were more than likely built in an ornate manner. As the majority of the surviving examples suggest.
-Ron
Labor was plentiful and cheap, with all manufacturing really being just cottage industry. Where large scale manufacturing of anything just wasn't happening. Folks were relegated to farm work, mining, and a few specialty vocations- like gunmaking. These people were undoubtedly highly regarded, just as they are today, they were seen as artisans or "wizards" of the craft. To be competitive they would have had to have offered a product at the very least as good as the competition.
Men worked in mining, for pennies per day, farm work for pennies a day etc. Labor was inexpensive, time was plentiful.
I think what is missing from this discussion, is the knowledge of these folks that actually embellished all these different products. Many were undoubtedly immigrants that brought with them their talent and learned methods from from their native country. England, Italy, Germany, France, etc. Look at the majority of the architecture from the time.
The "tricks of the trade" they used are probably long forgotten through history, and if known would probably make it easier to fathom, that most guns were more than likely built in an ornate manner. As the majority of the surviving examples suggest.
-Ron
Wow, that engraving doesn't look rough to me, especially knowing that it was done by hand. I just got done installing a "skeleton" grip cap on my Dad's 1917 sporter. This is where the wood shows in the middle of the cap. Even if gunsmithing was my only job (I'm a hobbyist at best) I don't see doing this job in less than a few hours. And thats easier than installing brass patchboxes.
If a gunsmith carved/engraved his guns to entice would be customers in a competive market, did he pass the cost of his time on to the customer? Or did he do it for free since he had a lot of time on his hands, and his time was cheap? A gun would then be tied up mainly with material cost then.
I'd like to here what a contemporary gunbuilder has for an opinion on this subject, and hopefully knows some history of his profession.
Sorry, I haven't recieved that haymaker punch yet that will deter me off my mindset. But I'll take it on the chin if it ever comes.
If a gunsmith carved/engraved his guns to entice would be customers in a competive market, did he pass the cost of his time on to the customer? Or did he do it for free since he had a lot of time on his hands, and his time was cheap? A gun would then be tied up mainly with material cost then.
I'd like to here what a contemporary gunbuilder has for an opinion on this subject, and hopefully knows some history of his profession.
Sorry, I haven't recieved that haymaker punch yet that will deter me off my mindset. But I'll take it on the chin if it ever comes.
Stophel
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 5,949
- Reaction score
- 858
You and I seem to be talking about entirely different things. :idunno: I was speaking of utterly unadorned rifles, which are all the rage today. There is a very powerful desire for people to have a "Pre-Revolutionary rifle, but with no carving at all...", usually also they want nearly black wood and iron mounts...
And to show how wrong I am about the lack of these ultra plain guns you give examples of...carved and engraved guns???
The fact that the Schreidt gun is incise carved alone does not make it "early" (nor is a relief carved gun "late"). Incise carving is neither early, nor late. It was used by various makers at various times in various circumstances. Often, it was used in conjunction with relief carving. The infamous "Gun #42" (from about 1770 probably) has incise carving along with lots of HIGH relief carving. Incising is commonly seen on both European and American rifles. In America, it does tend to be found in use more in the Lehigh, Bucks, and to a lesser extent, Berks county areas, and is a regional trait...well into the 19th century.
By the way, the Schreidt gun used to have a fully stepped wrist. The bottom of the stock was cut down when the current triggerguard was installed.
The Andreas Albrecht rifle is HARDLY "modestly incise carved". It has full relief carving that is typical to the Bethlehem/Christians Spring/Dickert style. This is done with a V tool, and the relief portions have incised edges, which make the carving really "pop". It is carved in all the normal places. NOT a plain gun.
The Noll rifle APPEARS to have incise carving around the cheekpiece (the gun is HEAVILY worn), but the teardrops and tang carving are relieved...even so, hardly a "plain" gun.
The Beck rifle you point out is supposed to be "plain" too??? It is fully relief carved in all the typical places with designs that are very typical for Beck. Probably in the 1785-1790 period.
The gun that is on p151 of the book has a barrel which is marked by Dickert, but I'm not entirely convinced he was the maker of the gun as it is stocked. So or not, it is a post-1800 gun, and well outside the time period under discussion.
I have not seen "John Curry's Dickert" rifle, so cannot comment on it directly.
Again, I believe that of the guns that we have existing today, we have a decent representation of the types and levels of guns available. I believe the average gun had moulding lines, teardrops behind the lock panels, a leafy thing or some other design behind the tang, and usually some design around the cheekpiece, that sort of thing. This is, of course, borne out in the examples we do have today, as this level of adornment is almost universal.
Of those few severely plain guns that do exist, and appear to be from the Revolutionary era (like, perhaps, the "John Curry Dickert"), I believe they were made during the war as expeditiously as possible, with no time wasted on carving or engraving (just like so many guns of other types). Get it done, get it out the door.
I'll give an example of a super-plain gun that appears to be of Rev-war vintage. Shumway illustrated a gun in the May, 1988 issue of Muzzle Blasts. It is a gun that was acquired from a "small private museum" in North Carolina. It is a "rifle-type" smoothbore gun. Who knows, it could be a N.C. gun. It is utterly devoid of carving, has no sideplate, and has no nosecap that I can see (the photo is not clear enough). It does have a very attractive buttplate with raised flats. I kind of freaked out immediately upon seeing this gun. I loved it. I do, however, believe that this particular piece was built during the war and was quickly done with no need for decoration.
As to the number of gunsmiths in Lancaster County, I have often wondered if there were more gunsmiths here than in all the rest of the colonies combined.... Lancaster was the gateway to the West, and if you were headed to Kentucky or Ohio, you went through Lancaster...and bought a gun.
:wink:
And to show how wrong I am about the lack of these ultra plain guns you give examples of...carved and engraved guns???
The fact that the Schreidt gun is incise carved alone does not make it "early" (nor is a relief carved gun "late"). Incise carving is neither early, nor late. It was used by various makers at various times in various circumstances. Often, it was used in conjunction with relief carving. The infamous "Gun #42" (from about 1770 probably) has incise carving along with lots of HIGH relief carving. Incising is commonly seen on both European and American rifles. In America, it does tend to be found in use more in the Lehigh, Bucks, and to a lesser extent, Berks county areas, and is a regional trait...well into the 19th century.
By the way, the Schreidt gun used to have a fully stepped wrist. The bottom of the stock was cut down when the current triggerguard was installed.
The Andreas Albrecht rifle is HARDLY "modestly incise carved". It has full relief carving that is typical to the Bethlehem/Christians Spring/Dickert style. This is done with a V tool, and the relief portions have incised edges, which make the carving really "pop". It is carved in all the normal places. NOT a plain gun.
The Noll rifle APPEARS to have incise carving around the cheekpiece (the gun is HEAVILY worn), but the teardrops and tang carving are relieved...even so, hardly a "plain" gun.
The Beck rifle you point out is supposed to be "plain" too??? It is fully relief carved in all the typical places with designs that are very typical for Beck. Probably in the 1785-1790 period.
The gun that is on p151 of the book has a barrel which is marked by Dickert, but I'm not entirely convinced he was the maker of the gun as it is stocked. So or not, it is a post-1800 gun, and well outside the time period under discussion.
I have not seen "John Curry's Dickert" rifle, so cannot comment on it directly.
Again, I believe that of the guns that we have existing today, we have a decent representation of the types and levels of guns available. I believe the average gun had moulding lines, teardrops behind the lock panels, a leafy thing or some other design behind the tang, and usually some design around the cheekpiece, that sort of thing. This is, of course, borne out in the examples we do have today, as this level of adornment is almost universal.
Of those few severely plain guns that do exist, and appear to be from the Revolutionary era (like, perhaps, the "John Curry Dickert"), I believe they were made during the war as expeditiously as possible, with no time wasted on carving or engraving (just like so many guns of other types). Get it done, get it out the door.
I'll give an example of a super-plain gun that appears to be of Rev-war vintage. Shumway illustrated a gun in the May, 1988 issue of Muzzle Blasts. It is a gun that was acquired from a "small private museum" in North Carolina. It is a "rifle-type" smoothbore gun. Who knows, it could be a N.C. gun. It is utterly devoid of carving, has no sideplate, and has no nosecap that I can see (the photo is not clear enough). It does have a very attractive buttplate with raised flats. I kind of freaked out immediately upon seeing this gun. I loved it. I do, however, believe that this particular piece was built during the war and was quickly done with no need for decoration.
As to the number of gunsmiths in Lancaster County, I have often wondered if there were more gunsmiths here than in all the rest of the colonies combined.... Lancaster was the gateway to the West, and if you were headed to Kentucky or Ohio, you went through Lancaster...and bought a gun.
:wink:
Stophel
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2005
- Messages
- 5,949
- Reaction score
- 858
As for "Barn guns"...while a lot of people today might like a sort-of "barn gun", with that level of decor, they don't REALLY want a barn gun...
The barn gun seems to be VERY regional, limited very strictly to the Lehigh/Berks/Bucks county area. 1800 on probably till the Civil War. Literally lock, stock, and barrel, and literally kept in barns. They go "boom" and that's it. The stocks are rough, oversize, and often were devoid of stain or finish at all. Sometimes they don't even have triggerguards. Almost universally smoothbored. This was a period where barrels were more readily available (relatively mass produced in barrel mills), cheap locks were imported from England/Europe, and it was much more possible to actually build a cheap gun.
I built one a few years ago in more or less Boyer style. Very fun gun to do. Mine is VERY over-finished. :grin:
The barn gun seems to be VERY regional, limited very strictly to the Lehigh/Berks/Bucks county area. 1800 on probably till the Civil War. Literally lock, stock, and barrel, and literally kept in barns. They go "boom" and that's it. The stocks are rough, oversize, and often were devoid of stain or finish at all. Sometimes they don't even have triggerguards. Almost universally smoothbored. This was a period where barrels were more readily available (relatively mass produced in barrel mills), cheap locks were imported from England/Europe, and it was much more possible to actually build a cheap gun.
I built one a few years ago in more or less Boyer style. Very fun gun to do. Mine is VERY over-finished. :grin:
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 12,058
- Reaction score
- 6,008
Humans usually prefer novelty whether they are catering to their pride at that moment or not. Rifle smiths probably had to deal with the same quirks of the buyers as do digital camera and car manufacturers. Fads come and go driven by economic spasms and what the makers felt they needed to make. In other words, why think that there was a norm outside of a short span of time and distance?
To quote from The Chrysalids(1955)"Life is change.How it differs from the rocks of our liking."
But, back to the original inquiry...
Folks hunted with what they bought. You'd have to be a rare dandy indeed to pay out for a hunting piece you were afraid to take hunting or a target rifle you were afraid to shoot at targets.
To quote from The Chrysalids(1955)"Life is change.How it differs from the rocks of our liking."
But, back to the original inquiry...
Folks hunted with what they bought. You'd have to be a rare dandy indeed to pay out for a hunting piece you were afraid to take hunting or a target rifle you were afraid to shoot at targets.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,884
- Reaction score
- 947
Several comments have been made re "now vs then" gunmaking. It may help to consider several things:
Think of the master gunsmith in the 18th c like you would a small business owner today - he is not an employee but a business owner and does not get paid by the hour but by the profit made by the difference between what he paid out & what he brings in. No sales = income of zero per hour. Lots of sales = very high income per hour (for that day). So, like a shop owner today, you have to be open to get business but being open does not mean that you have any buyers today. So being at work (open for business) is not an expense in the same way as paying an employee is but is rather something that you are willing to do in exchange for all of the (hopefully) profits later. With no TV, no internet, no radio, no public library, (& no RC airplanes or hot rods :grin: ) what are you going to do while waiting for a paying customer? Why not add value (decoration was considered very worthwhile) by simple carving or line engraving - it is not costing hard cash unless you are paying an outsider to do it or you are ignoring a paying customer. And yes, there were apprentices working in the masters shop but they were paid by room & board, training & clothes & not an hourly wage. So the master with fixed expenses to keep an apprentice tried to keep them as busy as possible.
Re costs, in the 18th c, the smith had to prep the iron, hand forge, hand bore & rifle the barrel & file the flats. Today, 3 minutes on the phone and $200 of the customers money (not the gunmakers) will have a barrel from TOW or Getz headed out by UPS. Today, a figured gun blank can easily cost hundreds, in the 18th c virtually all the wood was "old growth" & vast areas were being cleared for farm land and to produce charcoal for smelting - wood was cheap - gunmakers could have the best for very little. Today, many/most builders made some use of power tools to reduce forming & inlet time (I know of at least one highly regarded builder who has his barrels inlet by computer guided routers) but in the 18th c it was all hand work. The cost of carving & engraving was a MUCH smaller percentage of the total effort than it is today.
Think of the master gunsmith in the 18th c like you would a small business owner today - he is not an employee but a business owner and does not get paid by the hour but by the profit made by the difference between what he paid out & what he brings in. No sales = income of zero per hour. Lots of sales = very high income per hour (for that day). So, like a shop owner today, you have to be open to get business but being open does not mean that you have any buyers today. So being at work (open for business) is not an expense in the same way as paying an employee is but is rather something that you are willing to do in exchange for all of the (hopefully) profits later. With no TV, no internet, no radio, no public library, (& no RC airplanes or hot rods :grin: ) what are you going to do while waiting for a paying customer? Why not add value (decoration was considered very worthwhile) by simple carving or line engraving - it is not costing hard cash unless you are paying an outsider to do it or you are ignoring a paying customer. And yes, there were apprentices working in the masters shop but they were paid by room & board, training & clothes & not an hourly wage. So the master with fixed expenses to keep an apprentice tried to keep them as busy as possible.
Re costs, in the 18th c, the smith had to prep the iron, hand forge, hand bore & rifle the barrel & file the flats. Today, 3 minutes on the phone and $200 of the customers money (not the gunmakers) will have a barrel from TOW or Getz headed out by UPS. Today, a figured gun blank can easily cost hundreds, in the 18th c virtually all the wood was "old growth" & vast areas were being cleared for farm land and to produce charcoal for smelting - wood was cheap - gunmakers could have the best for very little. Today, many/most builders made some use of power tools to reduce forming & inlet time (I know of at least one highly regarded builder who has his barrels inlet by computer guided routers) but in the 18th c it was all hand work. The cost of carving & engraving was a MUCH smaller percentage of the total effort than it is today.
The guns builder of the time would likely add the standard of carving of the time on any gun they made,some like Haines may have used the same feature on eavery guin as a "signature" I have watche a good carver work on a gun and there is not much time envolved doing some pretty nice work behind the tang and cheekpiece as well as the typical moudlings same for engraving the lock or other furniture, the locks and barrels were usually imported, I cannot see a great deal of extra cost going into a nicely carved gun, which is much different from the e;abrate pieves featured in Lenks book and others showing the high art pieces of the 17th and 18th century. I have not seen anytingin the way of a"price guide" that shows comparable rate for increase in adornment of the guns of the period,this would be the only real indicator of the differences, I haveseen multiplre priceing of trade guns but not much describing the differences other than "highly polished" and type of furniture "iron/brass.I think Stophel has a good handle on what was what in the past and have seen a great number of long time gun builders/historians agree with the same concepts he adresses here.
Similar threads
