Poorboy style Flintlock

[Hota]

I had a question about the poorboy style ml. I've spoken to many people who have said that nose caps, patch boxes, side plates, and toe/butt plates were mostly dress up items that were often found on the higher end rifles, and that these dressed up rifles made up about 2% of the overall rifles in circulation from 1750 - 1790. According to many folks, even the fellas at Dixon's Muzzleloading who showed me 10 original ml's dating back to 1760, were in the style of the poorboy without the nosecap, side plate, patchbox or even a butt plate. Two of the models didn't even have trigger guards. The fellas at Dixon's said that even D. Boone himself would have carried the poorboy style ml.

Now that has made me happy because I am waiting to pick up my Poorboy in the next couple weeks, but I wanted to get you'alls opinion on the ubiquitousness of the poorboy style.

Don't know how I pulled off "you'alls" and "ubiquitousness" in the same sentence. Coun't do that again if I tried.

 

[Hota]

Damn, I put this in the wrong spot! Can the moderator move this to Flintlock please???? Sorry :redface:

 

[tg]

Guns without furniture were around in the 18th century but I do not believe they were the norm, the gun we call "poorboy" today is a late flint style circa 1820 and on.

 

[Stumpkiller]

There are those who believe that guns made for the frontiersmen were plain, unornamented and devoid of buttplate, triggerguard and all but one forward pipe, since a gun does not need these "frills" to function and the frontiersmen were willing to spend the money for them. The reason these guns are so rare today, the story goes, is that they saw such hard use that they became worn beyond repair; the metal being sold or forged into something else. This sounds good to 21st century ears; but looked at from an 18th century perspective, it simply makes no sense. Even given the varying levels of skill evident in surviving guns of the period and the lack of a guild system such as existed in Europe, any man making a living as an artisan was a much more respected member of his community than a common laborer or farmer; he was a man with a reputation upon which his livelihood depended. I simply don't believe that a reputable gunsmith would have allowed such guns out of his shop any more than a reputable cabinet-maker would have sold unfinished furniture

~~ Joseph Ruckman, Recreating the American Longhunter; 1740 - 1790

When you think about it, the time and material to make a barrel and lock meant that the thimbles, patchbox and entry pipe were only a small additional investment in time. The household furniture was all fairly ornate, Shaker styles not coming into use until after the War of 1812 and the recession that followed. There is the cultural background of the German (Deutch ~ Dutch) gunsmiths to be considered, also.

The Dutch, as you see, used art; it was not some esoteric thing apart from them. On a Dutch farm you worked in a colorful barn, lived in a stone house built for the ages with a motto carved under the eaves, ate pie out of an etched pie dish, and other foods cooked in a stove which had artistic original design, kept your linens in a museum-piece chest, dipped sugar out of a museum-piece sugar bowl, skimmed milk from lovely red-ware made on the potter's wheel, walked on rainbow-like rag rugs, slept under artistic bedspreads of original design, drank wine from museum-piece Stiegel glass or spatter-ware, had a birth and marriage certificate of hand-illumined fracture sang out of hymn books illumined with fracture and worshipped with bibles similarly illumined. You rode in wagons gaily colored, watched the wind sway originally designed weather-vanes atop the barn, and saw even the barnyard made resplendent by peacocks.

The humbler Dutch craftsmen --- carpenters, cabinet makers, painters, ironworkers, etc. have long been known for their extraordinarily high degree of conscientious craftsmanship, making of their trade an art. The women, too, in their rug-making, bedspread making, etc. have shown exceptional artistry; their bed spreads in particular being sometimes works of art, many hanging today in museums in New York and elsewhere. Dutch design in general is greatly prized by artists.

In still another art, the Dutch made colonial art history. Their cast iron stove plates, making even the common kitchen stove artistic, were used everywhere; and these are now collector's items. Between 1746 and 1790 Baron Stiegel put his proved art sense to work on these stove plates, as did Thomas Rutter and others, at the Elizabeth, Coleman, Windsor Furnaces. These stove plates were cast with relief designs of many varieties scenes from the Bible, the ever-present tulip and others. The Bible scenes depicted included Adam and Eve, Potiphar's Wife, the Dance of Death, Elijah and the Ravens, etc. Iron plates were also made to be built into the gable walls of houses, inscribed with pious sentiments or axioms. At Windsor Furnace, Berks, in colonial days one particularly artistic casting repre- senting Leonardo da Vinci's "Last Supper" was made (now owned by the Philadelphia Exchange). Michael Hillegas, first Treasurer of the U. S. was the owner of the Martic Furnace at Furnace Run, where Revolutionary musket barrels, etc., were made. Also in iron the Dutch made very artistic locks, some very interesting examples being preserved when the old State House at Harrisburg was torn down.

The guiding impulse of the Dutch was to enliven and decorate their daily existence with color and line. The Dutch dearly loved their homes, and you have to travel with sharp eyes indeed in Dutch country to see tumble-down, disheveled homes such as are so disheartening to see in so many other parts of the country. The great stone houses of the Dutch would have been repellently drab if the stone exterior was not invariably white- washed, and the exterior woodwork painted blue. Inside the walls are also often painted in pink, blue and yellow, and the colorful earthenware glass and chinaware is everywhere about. The Dutch simply refused to live among drab color&--despite their refusal to bedeck their own persons in color.

The above quotes from:

http://www.horseshoe.cc/pennadutch/culture/arts/pdart.htm

 

[Elnathan]

I had a question about the poorboy style ml. I've spoken to many people who have said that nose caps, patch boxes, side plates, and toe/butt plates were mostly dress up items that were often found on the higher end rifles, and that these dressed up rifles made up about 2% of the overall rifles in circulation from 1750 - 1790. According to many folks, even the fellas at Dixon's Muzzleloading who showed me 10 original ml's dating back to 1760, were in the style of the poorboy without the nosecap, side plate, patchbox or even a butt plate. Two of the models didn't even have trigger guards. The fellas at Dixon's said that even D. Boone himself would have carried the poorboy style ml.

Now that has made me happy because I am waiting to pick up my Poorboy in the next couple weeks, but I wanted to get you'alls opinion on the ubiquitousness of the poorboy style.

Don't know how I pulled off "you'alls" and "ubiquitousness" in the same sentence. Coun't do that again if I tried.

I believe that they got their numbers turned around, and that it was those poorboys that made up that 2%. At any rate, out of some 140-odd rifles Shumway has in his "Rifles of Colonial America" only one was made without a buttplate, entry-thimble, etc. There is another rifle in existence that is said to have been used at King's Mountain that has only one thimble and no buttplate. Too be sure, it is probable that lower-end rifles were not cared for as much as the better ones, leading to a lower survival rate, and that the plainer guns tend to be overlooked when book-writing time comes around, but I don't think that the majority of rifles made before the Revolution were poorboys.
I wonder if the niche that was filled by the poorboy/schimmel types in the post-Revolutionary East was filled by the trade-fusil back when the frontier was in the Appalachian and Ohio regions.
Okwaho, you know a lot more about this then I do.

 

[Hota]

The above quotes from:

http://www.horseshoe.cc/pennadutch/culture/arts/pdart.htm

Thanks for the link. Now I am confused. I thought the stripped down explanation made sense but now so does yourn. I also think there is merit to what Elnathan said

Too be sure, it is probable that lower-end rifles were not cared for as much as the better ones, leading to a lower survival rate, and that the plainer guns tend to be overlooked when book-writing time comes around

I know it doesn't really matter, I am getting a fantastic rifle, I just wanted to know more about it's place in history. Thanks guys! :thumbsup:

 

[Stumpkiller]

Well, that was the bad news. BUT! Not all rifles came out of Eastern Pennsylvania and the other Moravian/German settlements. There were many Virginia, Maryland, New York, eventually Tennessee gunsmiths who produced rifles. The components were also available, so a smith could buy a pre-made lock and barrel, just as today. It is also thought that some smiths specialized in engraving (Kuntz, for exapmle).

Certainly some existed, or were restocked plainly. But I agree with most opinions that they were few made before 1800 that were "utility" or "Schimmel" grade. I never remember even hearing the word "schimmel" when discussing flintlocks until very recently.

A poor boy would probably have used a much less expensive smoothbore.

 

[B.Habermehl]

"Schimmel" is a regesterd trademark. belonging to Chuck Dixon. Thats why it is somthing you heard fairly recently. OTH there were plain parts guns made up during the revolution and during other times of urgency. These were the "barn guns" or "Shimmels". :imo: Remember the pictures in the books RCA and others do represent mostly exceptional pieces though. I am coming to believe that some modest decoration was more common than not. Just not to the degree that is seen in some of the published pieces. Look at the British bess it even had a bit of carveing, and it was a battle implement. BJH

 

[elmonk]

Stumpkiller,

>When you think about it, the time and material to make a barrel and lock <snip><

By the time of the Revolution few gunsmiths were hand forging their own barrels.

There is an area of Berks County, PA along the Wyomissing Creek that began production of barrels in numbers between the time of the F&I War and the Revolution. Shops set up along the creek with forges and trip hammers. They used wrought iron "skelps" produced by forges scattered throughout the county who were refining and forging bar stock and strip stock. By the early years of the 19th century there were about 7 trip-hammer forges working in that area.

The idea of a gunsmith hand hammer forging his own barrels might impress the tourists at Williamsburg but in reality, by the time of the Revolution there were forges turning out nothing but barrels all over the state of PA.

An example of how the system is worked is seen in one Hawken Rifle in one of John Baird's books. A Hawken dating to about 1830. Barrel stamped "H Reeds, Rdg PA".
The stamp is actually H. Deeds. Henry Deeds owned a barrel boring mill near what is now the Daniel Boone Homestead in Exeter Twp. near Reading, Pa. The trip-hammer forged barrel had come out of a forge in what is now Mohnton, PA. From Henry Deeds father-in-law's barrel making forge. One of the Pannabeckers.
Deeds sold the bored barrels in job lots of a dozen. With the barrel on the Hawken gun it would have been hauled into Reading by horse and wagon. Then onto a canal boat headed west to Pittsburgh. Then down the Ohio to the Mississippi.

Here in PA., by the time of the Revolution, most gunsmiths used imported locks. There were exceptions when it came to gun factories such as Lehman.

Another exception is Bedford County where some gunsmiths continued to make their own locks to produce a specific style.

By the time you get to the opening of the 19th century you see supply houses in Philadelphia selling rifle parts to the gunsmiths inland.

 

[Stumpkiller]

"Schimmel" is a regesterd trademark. belonging to Chuck Dixon.

And the Schimmel Piano Company. It is also a word meaning "mould" in German. TOTW has a "Schimmel" rifle at this moment for sale by R.E. Lienemann Shimmel Rifle - TOTW

Maybe Chuck will cut you in for a piece of what's left after his lawyers get their cut if you turn them both in. ::

I have a problem with the whole "Barn Gun" descriptive. In spite of my wife's demands, no muzzleloader owner in history would put a hard earned and life preserving firelock in the barn, unless they were inside milking at the time.

I agree with you that decoration for the common rifle would not have been the extremes seen in the existing Golden Age examples. But I imagine most had some and few had none.

 

[rich pierce]

I have a problem with the whole "Barn Gun" descriptive. In spite of my wife's demands, no muzzleloader owner in history would put a hard earned and life preserving firelock in the barn, unless they were inside milking at the time.

I agree the "Barn gun" moniker is just a made-up term just as Chuck made up the Schimmel term and for all I know the "poor-boy" term is made up too.

I grew up in farm country and saw a lot of beat up "30-30's" that spent time on tractors, in barns, rattling around behind the seat in pickup trucks, and in general were looking worse-off than any pre-Revolutionary rifle ever pictured in Shumway's books. Some folks think the "barn gun" is a later gun made for farmers who flocked into Pennsylvania when the countryside was made safe after the War of 1812. They just needed a tool like a shovel or axe, needed it to be sturdy and inexpensive. I personally doubt that many extremely plain guns missing furniture were made in Pennsylvania before the Revolution. It would have been easy for someone just needing a gun in that timeframe to get a cheap old musket or trade gun, and anyone wanting or needing a rifle would probably get at least the basics. Later and in different places, practices may have been different. But we just don't see many early rifle-guns from Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc. with robust architecture and swamped barrels and early locks without a buttplate, all the ramrod pipes, a trigger guard, sideplate, etc.

 

[Okwaho]

Rich,I share the skepticism in your post.Like you I never heard of barn or schimmel guns until Eric Kettemberg brought up their existence on the old Trekkers board a year or so ago.So I asked my "old" friend from over the mountain and he had never heard of such guns as a type either.Despite much comment to the contrary I still view barn,schimmel,blanket,canoe,and poorboy guns as being fantasy guns which were so named in the late 20th century.I haven't seen all that many late 18th century Pennsylvania guns but I have looked at a ton of Southern mountain rifles,mostly Tennessee and Western North Carolina in origin and I would guess that no more than 1-2% fell in the category of so called "poor boy" rifles.I once owned the quintesential "poor boy" rifle. It had no butt plate,sideplate{not even decorative washers},or rear entry pipe.The foward 2-3" of the forestock were missing but I doubt it had a nose cap.There were 2 very simple rammer pipes and the trigger guard was a simple piece of forged iron with 2 bends and no grip rail.It was fastened with 2 woodscrews. The cheekpiece was short,narrow and had no molding.It did have a hole in the stock behind the guard for a vent pick and 2 holes in the butt, one for grease and the other for a pre patched .40 cal. ball.The lock was round tailed and the gun had a hand forged barrel with a little swamp.The wood was very plain maple with no curl.

In short it was an exceedingly cheap rifle and that is how I would describe most of the so called "poor boy" Tennessee rifles I have seen over the years.I sold it about 10 years ago for $300.00 and I wouldn't pay over $500.00 to get it back.I have on the other hand seen a great many exceedingly plain Tennessee guns often made of a fine grade of curly maple and very nice architecture.The forgework on them was always of a fine quality as was the remainder of the[url] furniture.In[/url] short they were high quality slender guns with above average architecture. A very good example and a gun which has often been published is the Jacob {J. G.}Gross rifle from Sullivan County, Tennessee.

You mentioned early rifle guns from Pennsylvania which could conceivably fall into this category. I call your attention to RCA no.137 which is as close as I've seen to a gun of this type.However this gun has a lot of quality to it and can hardly be considered to fall into any of the categories that I mentioned[url] above.In[/url] fact I wouldn't mind owning it. It has a lot of character and that's more than I can say about the average cheap/poor boy rifles I have seen.Now I guess I've said enough and will stop lest I find myself subject to flogging and forcible castration for these comments,
Tom Patton,heretic

:what:

 

[BLAHMAN]

I had always thought, perhaps because it had been explained to me from others, that these "poor boys" are simply utilitarian guns. I am going to summize several things...let's see if you can follow my logic.....

I would tend to think that some customers of a smithy could not afford the extra labor and cost to have all the "trimmings" put onto thier gun. They needed a gun, it had to function (first) and look pretty later.

I am also going to think that as the gun was used, it went through transformations, perhaps even a restocking here or there.

Also, there may have been some gunsmiths with the bare amount of training that decided to pack up and leave, go to other locations to set up shop...maybe they didn't have the skills to perform the fancy trimmings of other rifles.

It may also be that the customer could not or did not care one way or the other about the looks of the gun...it had to work. For example: there is nothing better than than a simple pick up truck, look how many people buy them, work them, bump them, bondo them. Transfer that idea to a rifle and it makes sense. :imo:

 

[bub524]

I'm probably not as savvy on all this as alot of you folks, but here's my 2 cents worth.
An aquaintance who is an assistant firearms curator told me once that the really nice fancy rifles of the past are abundant. Those are mostly what we see in books and displays. They were "family" heirlooms that while they saw service, spent a lot of their life indoors being well cared for. On the other hand, the firearms that were used on a day to day basis got a lot of wear and few of them survived. Look at antiques, in gross generalities, for the most part the expensive things have survived while the utilitarian items have not. When you consider how many old hammers where made, there are alot around yet, but not many considering how many were made.
When I build or buy a rifle, I'm paying for function and durability not fluff. I think the average hard working man on a limited income in the 1700's would be doing the same. You can buy a bit of powder and lead for what those fancy patch boxes, inlays and carving cost. And they don't make it shoot any better.
I think there were a lot more "plain" rifles around then fancy ones. Whether you call them barn rifles, poorboy, or whatever.
Okay, thats out of my system.

 

[rich pierce]

One last point, in a certain context: I love plain guns with good architecture. The rest either adds to or detracts from the basic lines of the rifle. I don't like decorated guns with poor architecture. I have nothing against a plain gun with just the basics and I built such a gun for my wife and son about 18 years ago. 2 ramrod pipes, no nosecap, simple forged trigger guard, flat strap buttplate.

OK, my main point: we often hear that fancy guns were preserved and plain guns were not. There is likely some truth to that but it still puts such "plain guns that were lost in time" in the fantasy category for me. We have to "imagine that back in the day your average Joe........" That's fine as long as we realize we are "imagining" and that's what it is. We can't ever "prove" that "there were lots of simple guns lacking furniture that were lost in time because they were thrown out in the trash while fancy guns were preserved, so that's why there are fancy guns now and not plain ones in museums."

I grew up in hardscrabble farm country in the northeast. Hills and rocks and snow. No gun ever got thrown out. We still have an old 1863 Springfield my great grandfather bought cheap after the Civil War when they dumped beat up war rifles on the market as "smoothbores". It lacks a forestock, ramrod, and mainspring. Has lacked them since the 1930s, the last time anyone remembers it being in shooting shape. It's butt-ugly and does not work. We don't keep it because it's fancy. We keep it because it's an old family gun. I am guessing that many other guns were kept or passed down for the same reasons whether they were plain or fancy.

Also there are dozens to hundreds of Revolutionary War Committee of Safety muskets that are clearly cobbled-together "beaters" by anyone's definition found in museums. Butt-ugly, crude conglomerations of parts. Somehow they got passed down and we still see dozens of examples. This despite the general preference for rifles over smoothbores among collectors.

Just my ideas, like to keep a debate rolling.

 

[Okwaho]

Another good post,Rich I guess I had better define my terms as to plain guns. Plain,as I use the term, doesn't mean poor quality only lack of ornamentation. My previous post speaks to the cheap guns we now see described as "poor boys"and the examples I used for both the "poor boy" and the "plain" rifle speak for themselves.Not to belabor the point but one of the finest { I think it sold last for about $15,000} Tennessee guns in existence is a plain rifle built by Jacob Gross of Sullivan County,Tennessee about 1825. I regret that I didn't have a picture of the "poor boy" rifle I once owned and sold but you folks can pretty well imagine what it looked like from my unflattering but accurate description. The same isn't true of the Gross rifle. It has been published several times as follows:
"Track of the Wolf Catalogue no.12d", p.112
"Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1750-1850" p.181 which includes a full length picture{name misspelled as J Goss}
"The Kentucky Rifle" by Merrill Lindsay No.16 bottom and following page {color picture}
I once owned a rifle from probably Unicoi County,Tennessee which was also very plain without a signature,made of walnut with no patchbox. It was original percussion using an older flintlock plate not drilled for the internal or external flint screws.Architecturally it was a superb rifle with slim graceful lines, an elongated side washer and a barrel tang which went over the comb about 2-3"It probably had better architecture than the Gross rifle but wasn't a flintlock or signed and the lack of a patchbox didn't help either.
Now compare ths rifle and the Gross rifle with the "poor boy" rifle I owned and described and you can see the difference.I really don't think I heard the term "poor boy" before about 20 years ago. I didn't like the term then and I still don't like it.
A cheap crude gun is a cheap crude gun and a plain gun with good architecture is a plain gun with good architecture and never the twain should meet.
Tom Patton

:m2c:

 

IMHO, the vast majority of the fine guns we see pictured in the books on American rifles were always considered works of art and many hung on the wall or mantle since the day they were bought. The working gun was typically plain and used hard and eventually scrapped--not discarded, but whatever parts were still usable were reused and the other parts were salvaged for scrap metal, etc....I agree that terms like "poorboy" are modern. I think most early guns had buttplates and the other basic furniture. But many working guns were plain, without much or any ornamentation, often without a box, maybe often without a nosecap. These things all cost money to add to a gun. Ask any modern maker what he charges to put on a box with wood cover--probably twice what he charges to put on a simple brass cover--and that ain't cheap! Boxes were not necessary then or now. Nose caps and entry thimbles are not necessary either. It stands to reason that the common working hunter or farmer might cut the cost of a gun by eliminating those unnecessary features. All that is really needed is a good barrel, lock, trigger and stock--and the hardware to keep it together. Certainly by the late flintlock period it would have been "in style" to have a rifle with a brass box and brass hardware, but many a backwoods hunter in the south at least stuck to their plain rifles. I personally don't own a rifle without a buttplate, but have two without entry thimbles, nosecaps, sideplates or boxes. I don't call'm poorboys. They cost me too much.

 

[Elnathan]

Blahman, how many of those pickups come without radios, seat-covers, or air-conditioning? old and beaten-up doesn't necessarily mean plain. :winking: I know, apples and oranges. Still, unless someone can give some other evidence then "reasonable supposition," the case for pre-revolutionary "poor-boys" remains thin, IMHO. Especially since there were plenty of cheap firearms out there that do not fall into the rifle class and several well-made rifles that seem to have been heavily used.

 

[bub524]

I think the modern day "poorboy" has been taken to mean a *cheap* gun as opposed to an inexpensive one. I have a couple of plain rifles and a couple I'm working on. They all have butt plates, nice but simple trigger guards, good triggers, Chambers locks, nice stocks, and very good barrels. But they lack a nose cap, patchbox, inlays, carving or any other fluff. And...they aren't *cheap* by any stretch. They are good firearms, well made, shoot better then I do, but plain. Thats what I call a Plain Simple Rifle or PSR. I don't do inlays, patchboxes or carving mainly because it would stretch my skills beyond what I'm capable of and instead of a nice plain gun I would have a cobbled up one with a lot of fluff. I think at some point back in the mid to late 70's when I first started into this BP stuff I recall Dixie coming out with a "poorboy" rifle that was *CHEAP* and made in Japan and things progressed from there. At least thats the first time I recall hearing the term "poorboy" rifle. And that Dixie rifle was junk as I recall. :m2c:

 

[Donny]

I believe back in them days, there was not much middle class, a few rich folks, and a lot of dirt poor folks. A very wealthy man bought these fine guns, and it was a sportin and target gun, not one to put meat on the table. ::


I am just pondering, on poorboys, 1) do you think most surviving were parts of a broken gun restocked by a novice?? Didn't bother to attach the butt, etc. So many originals of any kind today have wrist breaks, big cracks, etc. What if some slackjawed yokel thought, "It ain't so hard to make a gun from this old broke thing and this board"
2)Is the lock and barrel on these so called poorboy of decent quality? eace: