What was the 'norm' for 1700s-1800s ML builds?

[roundball]

Was it the 'norm' for each muzzleloader built in the 1700s-1800s to be custom built to an individual buyer's stock dimensions for best fit?

Or were they mostly built to a set of common/average dimensions to fit the common/average size shooter of the day?

 

[Elnathan]

I am not aware of any documantation for whether or not guns were fitted to the customer, and it is difficult to imagine why something like that would have been written down. The only way of investigating that would be to see how many guns were made for specific people, on the assumption that a custom-made rifle would have been fitted to the customer, whereas one made for the Indian trade or "on spec" would necessarily not have been tailored to a specific individual.

The only account book that I am familiar with is Leonard Reedy's. A few of his entries indicate that he built the rifle for a specific person:

"a gun made for George Kissinger, 1834 6."
"a gun made for Samuel Schwartz, 1836 12.50"

Most entries are ambiguous:
"a rifle made, John Herman 9."
"a rifle, Solomon Laudenslauger 14."

there are a handful of accounts like:
"a gun sold to Tobias Freck, 1829 7."

Not much help there. I suspect that most of the 48 guns he notes as sold were made specifically for the person named, but have no way of proving that.

 

[Tumblernotch]

It would be hard for me to choose an option. I believe from what I've seen and read that it was more likely for a maker to build guns for specific customers and more likely to measure and add artwork (carving, &c.) for them in the 18th Century and for most guns to be built in the 19th Century on spec or for sale to hardware dealers. This wouldn't include custom target rifles.

 

[Wayne/Al]

I just finished a book "Jack Hinsons one-man war"
so my vote was kind of swayed by the great care he took in getting that rifle made. I think in the day they could get them off the shelf or used and could also get one custom made. The poll should be interesting though.
That book is a good one on a custom made 50 cal.

Wayne/Al

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Who, when and where in the 1700-1800's

 

[Bruce Bogart]

My apologies Wick. I'm just not certain that we can ascertain this with any kind of certainty. Documentation may clear this up and prove me to be :youcrazy: . And I have noticed some of the old time rifles with differing trigger pulls and drop. I know I would have a hard time shooting quite a few of them, with my nose stuck in the pan and all :shocked2: But then modern guns aren't my size either (scopes HURT)
I'll refrain from more comment here!

 

[jdkerstetter]

Somewhere around here, in one of these books, there's a picture of a longrifle with a side opening brass box that has the maker's name and price on it. Like it sat in a rack for sale. Ring a bell with anybody?

I'm sure they built some for particular people and some on spec. Look at all the rifles built by Dickert and others on government contract...they had probably built enough before this to have an idea of average drop/pull dimensions and settled on an average.....just like today.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[hanshi]

It was probably like guns today in that when you buy a Winchester/Ruger/Remington/Kimber/etc, it's made to sort of average dimensions like any off-the-shelf gun today. Like modern times only a few owners got their gun custom made. Then as now it was an "in stock" transaction.

 

[Trench]

Given the expense and time to build a rifle at the time, I'm not so sure I'd want to build one until I knew I hade a customer waiting with payment. Like other skilled trades, you probably didn't go to work until you had an order.

Unless, you're building rifles and guns on contract like was stated before. Then, you'd have an average LOP, drop, etc.

 

[nchawkeye]

That is a great question for an experienced builder like Mike Brooks, why not send him a PM???

 

[Dphar]

That is a great question for an experienced builder like Mike Brooks, why not send him a PM???

Unless you find PERIOD documentation the questions cannot be answered.
I have never seen anything like this level of detail.
Crockett had a rifle in his teens he really loved and won matches with, but he bought it used.
Many of these rifles were in use for generations. A 1750s-60s rifle bored smooth and converted to percussion? maybe 100 years of use.

Given my experience over the years the idea of "fit" as applied to shotguns is not important. Some "schools" of ML stock design were apparently specifically designed not to fit properly.

Dan

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Given the expense and time to build a rifle at the time, I'm not so sure I'd want to build one until I knew I hade a customer waiting with payment.

Ah but is your customer an individual, or is your customer George Morgan with his trading post in Kaskaskia, and he has ordered a certain number of rifles, and fusils - "neat", or is your customer the Corps of Discovery and the order is again for several rifles, all of the "Lancaster pattern", or perhaps it's the HB company? As one of the previous posts mentioned..., when and where between 1700 - 1800 will probably help answer the question as well as the specifics, eh?

I mean today we can walk into a gunshop and buy a Remington 870, or if one has the means, fly to London and have a shotgun made for us by W.W. Greener. The same may have been true back then, you could get a rifled gun in Lancaster off the shelf, or used from a neighbor, or if you had the money have the rifle maker do one for you.

LD

 

[Stumpkiller]

One way to tell would be to have someone like Mike Brooks who has measured multiple rifles/guns from a single gunsmith describe whether the stock dimensions vary significantly. Even then you wouldn't know if it was by design to fit an individual or just the whim of the gunsmith. From what I can tell Bedfords were not made to fit humans. ;-)

Anyone seen an old original try-stock in museums or collections? But a smith might just allow a customer to select from shop or display pieces and duplicate those dimensions. Or allow the customer to buy a pre-made gun that fit.

I truly don't know.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Unfortunately, there is no way to answer the question with the information we have today. The answer is probably a combination of No.1 and No.2. Mike's help would indeed have been beneficial on this.

If a gun maker was a full time professional, then during slack times he and his people (apprentice, journeymen, etc.) would likely rough stock parts to have them ready for finishing as needed. If someone wanted something made to his measurements then the gunsmith might take one of the pre-stocked parts sets and work with that making modifications as needed or start from scratch, hard to say, it would only be speculation on our part at best. If a shop was large enough, guns could be made and finished complete to the shop's standard pattern and be ready for sale as needed. Not all or even most shops were one man operations.

Do remember this, whether gun maker, tinsmith, furniture maker, cooper or whatever, a crafts person could not just sit on his or her thumbs and wait for work to walk through the door. That is now as well as then a way to an unsuccessful business and failure.

 

[cynthialee]

I think Stump has a good idea on the measureing of guns made by a single smith may give insight.

One thing that occurs to me is that I do not know how many months wages a gun cost back in the day. If it is effectively lower than todays market, more men would have been able to afford such a gun. If it is effectively higher than today, then it would make sense that few custom guns were made.

I do not imagine they were making many womens fire arms. Which I would imagine those that were made would be likely custom builds. Mainly this comes to mind because many fire arms are just to big or awkward for me. I am 5'8" and that isn't to short, but I still need youth models to get a good fit with most modern firearms. Gals back then were smaller on average so handeling a firearm would have been a chore.

anyways,
sorry I ramble on....

 

[stormcrow]

I can think of no reason why gunmaking in the 18th century would not loosely mirror the same market structure as is in place today. That is, some makers focusing full time on custom/high end, some focusing full time on volume/less expensive, and some being produced on a part time basis to other job responsibilities such as agriculture. Each of these to address various segments of demand in the marketplace. So my answer might be "All of the above" :grin:

 

[gizamo]

I believe that Mike Brooks use to write the descriptions for one of the major Auction houses that dealt in original Flintlock and Percussion rifles. He has some depth of knowledge in this particular area...

 

[pripley]

I can not pick one of the options, they all seem appropriate at some level. This survey got me to thinking about Eli Whitney and his place in history for starting to make guns with interchangeable parts in 1798. The source for my information is an old set of The World Book Encyclopedia (c. 1971) that I am unable to part with. "In 1798 Whitney built another factory near New Haven and began to make muskets by a new method. Until then, each gun had been handmade by a skilled craftsman, and no two guns were alike." Who is to say variation was by design or circumstance?

 

[George]

Roundball, I don't know enough about the question to vote, and I don’t know if you will consider this info pertinent, but since you said muzzleloaders, not just rifles, I’ll pass it along. This concerns mostly fowling pieces, not rifles, and is England, not America, but would tend to show the sophistication of the gunsmith’s trade at that time and place.

Writing in 1789 in London, Wm. Cleator discusses the importance of the length of the gun overall, the length of the buttstock, or LOP, and the “bent” of the stock, all as related to the size and build of the individual shooter. He says these “...can be determined with great accuracy by the gunsmith, from observing the manner in which the shooter presents his piece and takes his aim.”

Writing 20 years earlier, 1767-70, again in London, Thomas Page goes into much greater depth in his discussion of the proper fit of the gun for “shooting flying”. Too long and convoluted to quote, but here’s a list of some factors he speaks of when advising a shooter on choosing a fowling piece:

barrel length and its relationship to quickly and accurately shouldering and aiming the piece. Shorter is quicker but more difficult to keep on target, longer is slower to mount but more steady in aiming because of increased sighting radius. His recommended shorter gun was 33”, his longer one 39”.

Overall balance, with barrel thickness and profile discussed

Length of pull, breech to butt, ranging from 14” to 15.5”

degree of bend of stock, dimensions given for average drop at heel and at comb, and description of what is needed for tall, short, heavy and slim, long- and short-necked shooters

castoff advised for wide-shouldered shooters

need for the gun to automatically line up on target when quickly mounted, description for how to test that

And once the gun is in the hands of the shooter, advice to replace the flint with a wooden dummy and spend a month mounting and dry firing at any old target to become accustomed to the gun.

Now, how much of this sophisticated understanding of gun fit was mirrored in the colonies I leave to others to figure out.

Spence

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Spence's post explains some of the reasoning to my prior post. A query such as this needs to be more specific, refined and defined to have more answer than caveat.
I assume the way the poll has been worded has something to do with establishing some high ground somewhere.
Spence, good and informative post. You have gone over and above in helping those who like to benefit from the hard research work of others.