I have a question about the ornamentation (IE: decorative brass inlays etc...) on traditional muzzle loading rifle stocks. I see some with considerable amounts and some with small amounts and some with little to none? My question is, back in the "day" which amount of brass ornamentation would be correct? Did the average pioneer actually have that much decorative inlays on their rifles? I am wanting to get a M/L that would have been conducive to my area ( North central Indiana). The brass looks good on some and over done on others? Maybe the time period dictated the amount of ornamentation? Or how the rifle was used dictated it? Just not sure and thought you all could give some guidance? Thanks.
-
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
Muzzleloader Ornamentation
- Thread starter John V.
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Billnpatti
Cannon
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 7,340
- Reaction score
- 39
Someone else will have to help me on this with the dates for when decoration was more in vogue. I think the time was right after the Revolutionary War and up until sometime around the 1830s. But I am not sure of these dates. The average person in those days couldn't afford to pay for the time it took to properly carve and add inlays to their gun(s). Most of the day to day guns were pretty plain and were looked at as tools. Sometimes an individual may add a bit of decoration to his rifle but highly decorated and flashy rifles were not the norm for the average person.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 313
For frame of reference, I recently had a rifle built with minimal engraving, and the only "inlay" a brass patch box, also engraved. It added better than 10% to the cost of the completed rifle.
For one of our forebears on a tight budget, eliminating the folderol would be a quick and easy way to save precious money.
For one of our forebears on a tight budget, eliminating the folderol would be a quick and easy way to save precious money.
Right on....Most of the smiths that came to the
new land couldn't make it in Europe because they
didn't qualify belonging to "the guild" and had
no choice but to come here, among other reasons.
That explains the varing degree of craftsmenship.
new land couldn't make it in Europe because they
didn't qualify belonging to "the guild" and had
no choice but to come here, among other reasons.
That explains the varing degree of craftsmenship.
Col. Batguano
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,034
- Reaction score
- 1,406
This thread calls for Dave Person's research in to the matter, and I defer to his knowledge base there.
But, generally carving was more in vogue earlier, and metal inlays later. Earlier, raised carving was more popular, which gave way to incised carving, which gave way to metal inserts and wire inlays. It was also that way in continental Europe, but later on, this sort of thing fell out of fashion, particularly with the English, and they preferred fancier and fancier wood to decorate the guns rather than man made ornamentation. Necessary metal, such as locks, lock panels patch boxes however tended to get finer and finer grades of engraving. This was possible because rather than one gun smith making the gun and handling all the aspects from start to finish, specialists tended to be employed to handle things like engraving, and these tasks were outsourced. American LR's tended to have engraving more typically classified as "folk art", Though some were very good, they paled in comparison to the finest European artisans of the day.
The amount of bling was limited only to the buyer's budget. Certainly guns intended as presentation pieces for high dignitaries was highly decorated. That said, also, they didn't get used much. Look at the guns in places like the Smithsonian, the Tower Armory in London, Musee d'Armee in Paris, Royal Armory in Stockholm. All originals, highly decorated, and in pristine condition.
But, generally carving was more in vogue earlier, and metal inlays later. Earlier, raised carving was more popular, which gave way to incised carving, which gave way to metal inserts and wire inlays. It was also that way in continental Europe, but later on, this sort of thing fell out of fashion, particularly with the English, and they preferred fancier and fancier wood to decorate the guns rather than man made ornamentation. Necessary metal, such as locks, lock panels patch boxes however tended to get finer and finer grades of engraving. This was possible because rather than one gun smith making the gun and handling all the aspects from start to finish, specialists tended to be employed to handle things like engraving, and these tasks were outsourced. American LR's tended to have engraving more typically classified as "folk art", Though some were very good, they paled in comparison to the finest European artisans of the day.
The amount of bling was limited only to the buyer's budget. Certainly guns intended as presentation pieces for high dignitaries was highly decorated. That said, also, they didn't get used much. Look at the guns in places like the Smithsonian, the Tower Armory in London, Musee d'Armee in Paris, Royal Armory in Stockholm. All originals, highly decorated, and in pristine condition.
Don Steele
45 Cal.
When talking about "pioneers", by definition we're excluding the "city-folk" which I believe to be an important distinction. It's my opinion that the reason we have so many really beautifully carved and engraved early longrifles to admire is that they were owned by "city-folk", and not the families who went over-the-mountains and across the prairies to settle the wilderness. Being "city guns" they didn't get nearly the hard use experienced by those in the hands of Pioneers.
The rifles those folks carried were tools, just like their saws and hammers. They weren't decorated for "show"...just built for use. They were used, even "used up" and as a result we don't have nearly as many originals from those areas to compare. I have in-laws who's family history goes back to the earliest settlers in the Cades Cove region of East Tennessee. Those folks don't go in for "showy" guns now, and I can't imagine any of their ancestors did either.
The rifles those folks carried were tools, just like their saws and hammers. They weren't decorated for "show"...just built for use. They were used, even "used up" and as a result we don't have nearly as many originals from those areas to compare. I have in-laws who's family history goes back to the earliest settlers in the Cades Cove region of East Tennessee. Those folks don't go in for "showy" guns now, and I can't imagine any of their ancestors did either.
hanshi
Cannon
I particularly like the SMR style, iron mounted with little or no carving/ornamentation of any kind. A patchbox is okay as is a toe plate and a nose cap. All else is superfluous. I agree with the others who say the average rifle was plain. The unused ones are what we see today.
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 15,305
Do you mean from about Muncie to maybe a little north of Fort Wayne? Not sure if you mean quite as far west as Vincennes?
If your people settled there in the Pre AWI period, they most likely were French and your gun most likely would have been a smoothbore.
There were not many settlers of European descent who moved into the area after the AWI and even that sparked the wars between NA’s (including Chief’s Little Turtle Miami’s and Blue Jacket’s Shawnees) and Americans until after the War of 1812 was over. Depending on where they came from, it would have made a difference in what rifles or guns they had when they came.
So, do you know about when your ancestors moved into Indiana and from where they came?
Gus
If your people settled there in the Pre AWI period, they most likely were French and your gun most likely would have been a smoothbore.
There were not many settlers of European descent who moved into the area after the AWI and even that sparked the wars between NA’s (including Chief’s Little Turtle Miami’s and Blue Jacket’s Shawnees) and Americans until after the War of 1812 was over. Depending on where they came from, it would have made a difference in what rifles or guns they had when they came.
So, do you know about when your ancestors moved into Indiana and from where they came?
Gus
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,009
- Reaction score
- 9,944
Hi,
Hopefully, you will look at some of the books about long rifles. Kindig's, Shumwya's, and Hansen's books will get you started about the decorative trends in American rifles. The topic of ornamentation could fill chapters. Despite the notion that the "average rifle" was plain, consider that almost all of the rifles in those books, decorated or not, show a great deal of wear from use. I understand that it is intuitive to think that the "average pioneer" in colonial times and in the early US could not afford a rifle with some decoration, but that is a notion not backed up by evidence. For example, consider Davy Crockett's first gun, a fine York county rifle with engraving and carving. Based on data evaluated by Bob Lienemann, who co-wrote a book on Moravian gunmaking, around the period of the American Revolution, a good rifle with some carving and a couple of inlays might cost about 7-9 dressed deer skins. Given a rifle would not be purchased every year, that cost was well within the means of a frontiersman. Also consider that the average long rifle was probably not purchased by a pioneer but by a farmer or local merchant, and very early on, Indians. During that era, farmers and merchants often were prosperous people and mostly not dirt poor hardscrabble farmers. I suspect, like automobiles today, people purchased as fine rifles as they could afford, particularly during the era when even the simplest objects usually had some sort of decoration if made by a professionally trained craftsman. With regard to trends in LR decoration, guns during the colonial period and "Golden Age" (17??-1820) often had carving and a small number of inlays. The earlier the period the better the carving and later it becomes more stylized and simplified. During the 19th century, carving began to disappear until after 1820 or so it was rare. Metal inlays, engraved or not, became more popular until they dominated after 1820 or so, often without much artistic merit. This was also the time of Leman, Dimmick, and Henry trade rifles that went west and were plain except for patch boxes, simple engraving, and sometimes checkering. So the issue of ornamentation is not simple and it is probably not correct to say the average long rifle was plain. I was at a re-enactment fixing muskets and rifles while a re-enactor friend was discussing Rev War rifles and rifleman to the crowd. I previously helped him find some documentation for his plain rifle with only a grease hole in the butt like many southern mountain rifles from the 19th century. After sorting through 50 or more examples of Rev War vintage rifles all of which had some decoration, I found one gun that was plain with a grease hole. It is at Valley Forge and it is very odd because the breech third of the barrel is square, not octagon. My friend was happy to find an example somewhat similar to his gun. As he was talking to the public he held up his rifle and claimed that it represented the plain rustic rifle that most rifleman carried in the Rev War. I could only wince.
dave
Hopefully, you will look at some of the books about long rifles. Kindig's, Shumwya's, and Hansen's books will get you started about the decorative trends in American rifles. The topic of ornamentation could fill chapters. Despite the notion that the "average rifle" was plain, consider that almost all of the rifles in those books, decorated or not, show a great deal of wear from use. I understand that it is intuitive to think that the "average pioneer" in colonial times and in the early US could not afford a rifle with some decoration, but that is a notion not backed up by evidence. For example, consider Davy Crockett's first gun, a fine York county rifle with engraving and carving. Based on data evaluated by Bob Lienemann, who co-wrote a book on Moravian gunmaking, around the period of the American Revolution, a good rifle with some carving and a couple of inlays might cost about 7-9 dressed deer skins. Given a rifle would not be purchased every year, that cost was well within the means of a frontiersman. Also consider that the average long rifle was probably not purchased by a pioneer but by a farmer or local merchant, and very early on, Indians. During that era, farmers and merchants often were prosperous people and mostly not dirt poor hardscrabble farmers. I suspect, like automobiles today, people purchased as fine rifles as they could afford, particularly during the era when even the simplest objects usually had some sort of decoration if made by a professionally trained craftsman. With regard to trends in LR decoration, guns during the colonial period and "Golden Age" (17??-1820) often had carving and a small number of inlays. The earlier the period the better the carving and later it becomes more stylized and simplified. During the 19th century, carving began to disappear until after 1820 or so it was rare. Metal inlays, engraved or not, became more popular until they dominated after 1820 or so, often without much artistic merit. This was also the time of Leman, Dimmick, and Henry trade rifles that went west and were plain except for patch boxes, simple engraving, and sometimes checkering. So the issue of ornamentation is not simple and it is probably not correct to say the average long rifle was plain. I was at a re-enactment fixing muskets and rifles while a re-enactor friend was discussing Rev War rifles and rifleman to the crowd. I previously helped him find some documentation for his plain rifle with only a grease hole in the butt like many southern mountain rifles from the 19th century. After sorting through 50 or more examples of Rev War vintage rifles all of which had some decoration, I found one gun that was plain with a grease hole. It is at Valley Forge and it is very odd because the breech third of the barrel is square, not octagon. My friend was happy to find an example somewhat similar to his gun. As he was talking to the public he held up his rifle and claimed that it represented the plain rustic rifle that most rifleman carried in the Rev War. I could only wince.
dave
When the British government needed rifles to supply to their Indian allies during the Revolution, they copied a Lancaster with carving behind the cheekpiece. That is a pretty good indication of what the Indians where used to being able to get.
Incidentally, there were three different grades of rifle, and as it so happens someone was curious about what made the difference in price. The answer from the gunsmith has been preserved - the quality of the wood finish was much better on the highest quality gun, but the difference wasn't something that a layman would be able to see.
(Bailey, De Witt. British Military Flintlock Rifles, 1740-1840. 1st ed. Andrew Mowbray Pub. 2002.)
The quality of the iron in the barrel would have been another point where an expensive and a cheap gun would differ in near-invisible ways.
The lock and barrel made up most of the price of a gun - the distinction between a moderately decorated and completely undecorated gun was probably pretty insignificant.
Incidentally, there were three different grades of rifle, and as it so happens someone was curious about what made the difference in price. The answer from the gunsmith has been preserved - the quality of the wood finish was much better on the highest quality gun, but the difference wasn't something that a layman would be able to see.
(Bailey, De Witt. British Military Flintlock Rifles, 1740-1840. 1st ed. Andrew Mowbray Pub. 2002.)
The quality of the iron in the barrel would have been another point where an expensive and a cheap gun would differ in near-invisible ways.
The lock and barrel made up most of the price of a gun - the distinction between a moderately decorated and completely undecorated gun was probably pretty insignificant.
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 15,305
This post is not meant to be argumentative, but rather as an attempt to explore the matter further.
Bailey points out that the additional decorative carvings on the P1730 Muskets around the tang and carved aprons forward and rear of the lock panel, that extended down on each side to near the trigger guard - were dropped as a cost savings measure in the P1742 Muskets. The beaver tail carving around the tang became very much simplified over the earlier and somewhat rounded hourglass shaped carving. Even this detail only saved a little labor, but still saved enough money to make it worthwhile.
In earlier firearms than the AWI copies of the Lancaster rifles; the lowest grade locks did not have even a bridle over the tumbler. The next step up was having that bridle and would not be seen from the outside of the lock, though it would have been noticeably smoother when cocking the lock. The next step was a pan bridle that would be noticeable outside the lock and keep the tight fit of the steel/frizzen to pan longer in use. Additional cost features would have been a "waterproof" pan, platinum lined touchhole and roller on the feather/frizzen spring. Now as the years progressed in the 18th century, some of these features would have become "standard" and only the latter ones as extra cost features.
Gus
Bailey points out that the additional decorative carvings on the P1730 Muskets around the tang and carved aprons forward and rear of the lock panel, that extended down on each side to near the trigger guard - were dropped as a cost savings measure in the P1742 Muskets. The beaver tail carving around the tang became very much simplified over the earlier and somewhat rounded hourglass shaped carving. Even this detail only saved a little labor, but still saved enough money to make it worthwhile.
In earlier firearms than the AWI copies of the Lancaster rifles; the lowest grade locks did not have even a bridle over the tumbler. The next step up was having that bridle and would not be seen from the outside of the lock, though it would have been noticeably smoother when cocking the lock. The next step was a pan bridle that would be noticeable outside the lock and keep the tight fit of the steel/frizzen to pan longer in use. Additional cost features would have been a "waterproof" pan, platinum lined touchhole and roller on the feather/frizzen spring. Now as the years progressed in the 18th century, some of these features would have become "standard" and only the latter ones as extra cost features.
Gus
Artificer said:
Well from what our family bible says my Great Grandfather(DOB 1853) came to north central Indiana from Darke county, Ohio about mid 1870's early 1880's? As I understand it his older brother(10 years his senior) had already been in Indiana since before the Civil War? So my Great Grandfather was by no means a early settler to Indiana. He came to start over after his wife died(in Ohio) and he had one small child at that time to care for on his own. His older brother lived in Howard county (Kokomo area) he stayed there for awhile. My GGF them bought a farm in very northern Cass county Indiana.
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 15,305
Bravo 4-4 said:
OK, well as a farmer, your ancestor probably owned a single or double barreled percussion shotgun. If he owned a rifle, then it probably would have been a percussion half stock rifle of around .40-.45 caliber. It very likely was made in Ohio as by that time, many were being made there.
Gus
Similar threads
