Lifespan of a Rifle?

SOLANCO said:

A rifle in 1760, as opposed to a musket, was an expensive custom built flintlock gun. Likely it would have been maintained and used until percussion rifles were coming into wide use.

Click to expand...

And then likely converted to percussion and remain in use until destroyed in a house fire, lost from a boat crossing a river, or stripped down for parts for other guns when worn out.

I have a Mills London upland Fowler circa 1840 percussion that stills works

There is a significant difference in wear between a rifle in regular use and one that is only used periodically, cleaned well, and preserved for storage. I am regularly shooting rifles that I know are at least 45 to 60 years old. Some of the parts may be older. I have one rifle that is using set triggers made about 1837.

The very old rifles with barrels of soft wrought iron did get shot out due to wear at the muzzle, corrosion at the breech and filling the grooves with fouling. This could take from 5 to ten years. Similar rifles that saw little use could be shot after 200 years. So much is dependent on how the rifle was used and cared for. Hard used rifles may have lasted 5 to ten years.

Interesting question I have often thought about. I really think it depends. I know a fellow that has a 22 that was bought when he was 12, passed to son when 12 and then grandson. It is 112 yrs old. The weather, care and money all make a difference. We know there was a yankee (Jn Burns) at Gettysburg that was upset the Southern army was invading the north (it was all right to invade the South though) he was using an old cut down musket (probably 1816), so that would be 46 years old at the time. The Mexicans used Paget's carbines in the Alamo and Mexican War (about 40 years old at the time). Jim Beckwourth I believe carried a 3rd model Brown Bess.

But, again, what was the station in life, abuse it took etc. I am 54. I love the 1850-65 period. I am too old to reenact as a guerilla anymore, so I try to portray the station I am (would have been (under the same circumstances) had I lived then. I am NOT wealthy, so I do not portray Tara Plantation. I have a small farm about 60 acres, and I work outside as well. We have enough, but not much extra. My clothes and firearms I use reflect that.

I have a Jackie Brown French style fusil from around 1780. I would have been born in about 1800 to be the age I am in the 1850's. Could I be using a 75 year old piece? May be.... But I wouldn't bring that to a reenactment. I would use a shotgun or 1841. Personally though, at home, I may use it with my 1850/60 clothes and mentally tell myself it was my father's and still works.

I agree that with all the fancy carved wood, those would not have been the rifles used for hard use in the woods. Personally, I would want to stick within 40 years of what you portray. There are historic anomalies, guns that shouldn't be found where they are, guns that were not issued etcetera. But most folks used what was common to the area and time, like we do.

Just my opinion,
David

Grenadier1758 said:

There is a significant difference in wear between a rifle in regular use and one that is only used periodically....

Click to expand...

I think the key is using them as originally designed for and used. I have a couple Trapdoors ca. 1880's that I shoot with 45-70 cartridges loaded with black powder and cast lead bullets as they were originally designed for and used.

The idea that you see over and over again that all rifles were these expensive items that would cost a years wages just isn't true. If you look in Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in the Golden Age Kindig lists information from Leonard Reedy's Journals that cover the period from 1819 to 1837. Kindig even states he was surprised at the low cost of most of the guns that Reedy made. There are only a FEW rifles listed in the $18.00 range and the prices drop considerably down in price to rifles listed in the $7.00 range which seem to be the most numerous. So the question becomes which would be more likely to have survived over 200 years. The journals also list that he made at least one smooth rifle for $7.00 and a shotgun for $4.69. Surplus muskets would have been even cheaper. The most common repair listed was to freshen a barrel which he charged $0.50. So just like today not everyone drives around in a $100,000 car.

ronaldrothb49 said:

The idea that you see over and over again that all rifles were these expensive items that would cost a years wages just isn't true. If you look in Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in the Golden Age Kindig lists information from Leonard Reedy's Journals that cover the period from 1819 to 1837. Kindig even states he was surprised at the low cost of most of the guns that Reedy made. There are only a FEW rifles listed in the $18.00 range and the prices drop considerably down in price to rifles listed in the $7.00 range which seem to be the most numerous. So the question becomes which would be more likely to have survived over 200 years. The journals also list that he made at least one smooth rifle for $7.00 and a shotgun for $4.69. Surplus muskets would have been even cheaper. The most common repair listed was to freshen a barrel which he charged $0.50. So just like today not everyone drives around in a $100,000 car.

Click to expand...

I am curious as to the current price of his work adjusted for inflation. This may help to understand gun value. If i made $50,000 a year ,there is no way i am going to spend that much on a firearm.

Grenadier1758 said:

That brick dust polishing was probably the cause of most of the wear on the military muskets as little of the unit funds was spent on firing practce.

Click to expand...

The soft brick Polish was at the soldier’s expense. If too short of funds then they were reduced to rubbing two soft bricks together and using the actual dust. The trade polish was actually from deliberately under fired clay and ground fine and made as a commercial product. Sold in small ingots mixed into wax.

You can see what they were like if you buy today’s metal buffing compound in sticks. The soldier’s soft brick sticks were merely the cheapest metal polishing compound on the market. The self made dust and spit was more sanding powder than polish. A survey of muskets in one of John Company’s regimental armouries found that the troops in some areas were using a local emery sand which was causing frequent bursting from thinning the barrels and banned polishing.

Another affliction to muskets was illegally using the iron ram rod as a burnisher.

The British Board of Ordnance would replace regiment’s muskets after 12 years at no regimental expense. Replacing from wear before that was charged to the regiment. Obviously allowances made for exceptional campaign wear and loss in battle.

If I recall correctly, wasn't there once a mountain man named Seth Kinman; story has it that it was carried down through generations. Eventually held together with bailing wire, had also been converted from flint to percussion.

https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/75/111/seth-kinman-mountain-man-rifle

Last week I taught a blacksmithing class to a group of Historical interpretation students. I gave them some hands on experience of what it would have been like as a blacksmith apprentice. I gave them all the job of being a white smith. I had a bunch of old tarnished silverware and I made a bowl of fine brick dust. With pads of wet leather the students went on their journey polishing the silverware. They were really surprised how shiny the silverware became using brick dust as a polishing agent. It was nice to see students learn something new using the old ways.
Ohio Rusty ><>

sportster73hp said:

I am curious as to the current price of his work adjusted for inflation. This may help to understand gun value. If i made $50,000 a year ,there is no way i am going to spend that much on a firearm.

Click to expand...

My point exactly. Fancy carving, engraving and inlays do NOTHING to help put meat on the table for a frontier farmer trying to feed his family. The fancy guns survived because they were more of a status symbol for the wealthier townsmen and probably didn't get used that much.

cynthialee said:

I think it is very plausible.

What really bugs me when I see reenactors who have as a weapon of choice a top of the line for the time firearm that few people would have been able to afford. Yes the weapon is HC/PC, but come on now you are portraying a dude that was likely poor as dirt.

Click to expand...

I think you're into something, seems crazy in this day to venture into a wilderness unarmed but people did it. If you read about the McLaughlin Canyon Massacre in 1858, a large party of miners ambushed by Indians outside Tonasket Washington. Only one or two of the party were armed at all. We have so much materially now it's hard to relate to how poor people were. I am not a fan of Cormac McCarthy's "Blood Meridian" due to excessive violence and foul language, but the destitution of the main character was quite believable

I remember reading how early southern volunteers who fought at Bull Run were armed with 1803 Harper’s Ferry rifles. They were readily available and common.

cynthialee said:

funny thing I was thinking about a 'plains hunter' I met in the past
won't say nothing about his gear or his persona name as I am not about to call anyone out on the chance they are on the forum, and it is bad form

but that plains hunter musta robbed a bank to have his kit and gun

Click to expand...

That’s why he was a plains hunter, on the run from civilization

I have personal experience with an Ohio Vincent full stock 36 caliber flintlock. It was purchased by my G Grandfather shortly after the Civil war when he was discharge from the 23rd Ohio. That would have been 1865-66 he used it until he gave it to my Grandfather when he was a teenager around 1910-15 who taught me to shoot a flintlock in 1952-53 and it went to my brother when he died in 1962. The last time I saw it the condition was still pristine looked and shot as new. So the lifespan of a rifle depends upon how well it was cared for.

For context, then as now:
* How many are currently still driving their first car from high school?
* How many people know their first car from is still on the road?
* How many know their first car is sitting in a field, or heated storage, or a museum somewhere?
* How many of those 'first cars' were turned into cheap Chinese recycled steel?
.
I suspect the general population had the same wide range of relationships with firearms (as a material object) that we do today.

Nor'Easter said:

For context, then as now:
* How many are currently still driving their first car from high school?
* How many people know their first car from is still on the road?
* How many know their first car is sitting in a field, or heated storage, or a museum somewhere?
* How many of those 'first cars' were turned into cheap Chinese recycled steel?
.
I suspect the general population had the same wide range of relationships with firearms (as a material object) that we do today.

Click to expand...

My 'first car' was a motorcycle, a limited edition Triumph 350 3TA that my father took in partial payment when he sold his boat shop, DJ Motors in Pasadena.

I know where she is today too: she sits in an antique motorcycle museum in Los Angeles. After the accident I had they purchased her for $2k (longer story for the bar over some whiskey). They purchased her 'as is', I ran into the new owner after getting out of the army. He said they had to go to Germany for some of the parts but the Only thing they changed was her color; changed her from factory blue to antique maroon because he already has the Only Other One Know in the US that is still in one piece (only some 3,000 ever came over) and his is also factory blue.

I asked how much to buy her back, he said "You could come up with enough, she's priceless".

I named her Angie, after the song, I listened to that song over and over as I tried to restore her myself.

I have a rifle that's about 60 years old. It's hunted a LOT, killed deer, bobcats and squirrels. It hasn't been in the woods for several years and has earned a comfortable retirement. I have other and "better" rifles now but I no longer hunt. But yes I still shoot them. Taken care of, not used up and carefully maintained, a rifle can be passed down through generations and "still do it's thing".

Daveboone said:

Depends on use....I have read where the market hunters (Long Hunters) literally would wear out thier firearms within a few years, due to continuous exposure to the elements. The fancier the rifle, the wealthier the owner and the better cared for it was...thats why so many surviving long rifles seem so ...pretty. Sure there are relic firearms from individuals that are still in great shape...but the good money is on those being later rifles they owned, which were better maintained...when the owners were younger, they were harder on them.

Click to expand...

I agree 100 %.
For the very small part of the male population that spent a few of their younger years at or beyond the edge of civilization, owning a firearm of some sort was probably almost universal. For those that spent months at a time well away from the settlements, cheaper, bare bones, plain rifles or smoothbores would have been a logical choice.
Knowing the hard use and abuse those guns would be subjected to, I would speculate that the useful life of most of them would be a couple of years at most. Maybe only a few months. What we now refer to “barn guns” would have been more the order of the day. There would be little point in sinking a bunch of money into guns that would be bent or broken due to mishaps with horses, river crossings by foot and canoe, slips and falls, and unprotected exposure to driving rains and snows. Also, a cheaper primary gun might free up a little money to buy a spare gun of some sort, most likely a shorter lightweight smoothbore.