Bare Bones AWI Period Southern Rifle

[Artificer]

I'm wondering if the appearance of cobbled-together rifles, right at the same time the really nice art pieces are beginning to be produced in the post-war period, is related to the land-rush to Kentucky in the later '80s and 90s. Most of the earliest settlers in the KY-TN region were pretty well off, but I think there was a massive influx of settlers who were quite poor and I suspect that lots of them specifically wanted a rifle. Add to that economic downturns and an arms embargo from Britain that wasn't lifted until the early 90s IIRC, and there might be a market for inexpensive rifled guns made from cobbled together parts that wasn't there earlier.

I think this is a valid point and well worth investigating further, as much as possible. While the AWI was over, there were still hostile humans to be concerned about and the British continued to instigate/supply NA's to go against the settlers right up to and through the War of 1812.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

That is certainly possible. Jim Chambers mentioned to me awhile back that he thinks that it wasn't uncommon for folks to own two or more guns - a fancy gun for shooting matches and other social occasions, and another more utilitarian piece for everyday use. I'm not sure what he is basing that theory on, but I can think of evidence for people owning more than one firearm even along the frontier. So it is possible that proportion for fancy to plain is skewed among survivors.

I would offer a couple of alternative ideas about folks on the frontier owning two guns or possibly more.

Though many are not first hand accounts, and some are, there is much mention in stories of a fair number of frontier settlers keeping a captured Indian Trade Gun/Rifle or old or captured Military Smoothbore. Having a second gun to shoot while the wife or other family member reloaded the first made sense for isolated cabins/settlements that might have had and some did have to fight off hostile NA's and/or hostile Europeans.

But sometimes the best answer MAY BE the simplest one and one that continues on to this day. When a lad/young man needed a rifle - he often did not have the money to pay for one or if he did, it would not have been an expensive one. An "Old" barrel that was freshed out or even re-bored would have in effect become a "like new" barrel. It didn't matter what the outside of the barrel was to the user, what mattered was how good was the bore and rifling. (I have spent decades explaining to people it does not matter how PRETTY a rifle is for accuracy, but rather the condition of the bore IS the most important thing to accuracy and that doesn't matter if for ML or Modern Rifles.)

Likewise an "old" lock that had been properly repaired would last almost as long, if not as long as some "new" locks in the period, before either needed repair.

So would a cheap/inexpensive rifle WITH a good barrel and lock have been attractive to many young men in the period for their first rifle? I see this as both common sense and still going on today.

Now go forward in that young man's life 20 or more years when his children are grown enough to help him prosper and he has more "expendable" income. NOW he can afford a fancier rifle. His first rifle would be kept not only for sentimental value and mundane use, but to start his Son/s as a first rifle, as well as being a second rifle for security if hostiles were still around.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

Going along with that point we should keep in mind that few people lived in areas where Indians or bad men were to be found. At the time borderlands where the true frontiersmen lived, a little farther east the settlers that might face some danger, and a large swath where life was frontier in terms of roughness but settled enough that it was safe from attack. Folks here hunted, mostly for fun, although the food went in to the pot, and shot as sport. They were as unlikely to fire a gun in anger as we are today. Like us today their guns were expensive and not generally abused. Unlike the true frontiersman these folk stayed in the house when it was raining or to cold.
Leman trade rifles sold for more then most working men made in a fortnight, the equivalent in buying power of $1500-$2000 and a fine rifle would be twice that much. As much as a man made in a month or more. So a rifle made from scrap parts would have an economic appeal but it was even then a source of pride.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

maybe everything isn’t from the same time??? A Frankenstein gun ?

That is of course possible, and I was originally of that school of thought, yet because I found that a lot of imported locks post AWI were without a bridle, it makes me think now that the "cobbled together from old, worn out guns" idea I think gets used too often, as the example from Excess650 shows. I think too, that such an older lock would demonstrate in some cases, a replaced frizzen, for if the barrel was worn out, and was refreshed, then further wore out to the point of it not being useable, would not the frizzen be worn out too? Would they have taken a serviceable firearm and harvested parts from it, or would it be worn out? Do examiners of guns that proclaim them cobbled from used parts from older guns ever do in depth exams of frizzens?

:idunno:

LD

 

[excess650]

I have seen a number of original FLs with frizzens that had been refaced by adding material, so I suspect it took quite a bit for a lock to be considered beyond repair.

I doubt that a "serviceable" gun would have been considered worn out or scavenged for parts. A broken stock or burst barrel might have been reason.

 

[Artificer]

Though certainly not an everyday or even a very common repair, I have noted "britching" or "rebritching" enough in Gunsmith account books, to explain why they might have harvested a serviceable lock from a gun with a barrel that needed a new breech. On smoothbore barrels, particularly some with almost paper thin barrels at the muzzle, they might not have been able to "britch" or cut off the breech end and have enough metal for the breech plug threads. So some kind of new barrel would have been required, either smoothbore or rifled, to make a gun.

There are even accounts of Military Artificers/Armorers having to make this same kind of repair, though they would not have made a new barrel when/if there was not enough metal to fit the old or a new breech plug.

We sometimes forget that there were no significant quantities of gun locks made in the colonies until the AWI. While Apprentice Gunsmiths here in the colonies Pre AWI (and of course Post AWI) were required to make one lock for their "Journeyman Gun," they often did not ever make another complete lock in their entire working career. They just could not make locks anywhere close to as inexpensively, as the "dedicated" lock making shops in England and Europe. So the majority of locks used on American Arms were not made here until the 19th century.

Gus

 

[rich pierce]

I wish the pictures on that website were better. Of interest on that early rifle, the drop seems very different from any 18th century European rifle I’ve seen. As we think about how and when American rifles began to diverge from European rifle styling, the uniquely American styling of this rifle suggests to me that this rifle could be later than the Revolutionary War period by 10 or more years.

 

[tenngun]

A gun may not be worn out to be scraped. Over the years I broke one gun at the wrist. Folks stumbled and did stupid stuff then, and riflemen and militia did go to war. Even if lock and barrel are both worn out trigger and guard pipes and side plate do little but sit there on the wood.

 

[Jumpshot]

Not sure how many folks have heard of or seen this really plain Southern Rife, so I thought some would enjoy seeing it.
http://emuseum.history.org/view/ob...ate:flow=4db4a7d7-1b89-4d48-ab48-cd729d1fdba0

Gus

Your link goes to a bayonet.

 

[Artificer]

Well, it didn't at first, but it seems to now.

Try this as it works for me:
http://emuseum.history.org/view/ob...ate:flow=6c899c33-1eeb-4f75-88ce-47ef35a7a9ec

If not, go to page 115 in the link and you will find it there.

Gus

 

[Elnathan]

The really serious thing that I would think would wear out on a lock are the tumbler bearings. Lockplates and tumblers were both hardened, but the lockplate and bridle holes for the tumbler shafts would have been reamed with tapered reamers, meaning that the tumbler shaft was riding on a ridge of metal rather than along the whole length of the hole. Fixing a worn bearing with period technology would require making a whole new tumbler, softening the plate and reaming to match, ditto for the bridle, adjusting the mainspring and sear, and rehardening everything. That is a pretty extensive rebuild.

I've never seen any commentary on it, ancient or modern, but that strikes me as the critical problem with a lock - you can replace broken cocks and springs, re-steel a frizzen, and braze up a burnt-out pan, but replacing a worn tumbler with a tumbler mill, tapered reamer, and the mk. 1 eyeball is a pretty daunting prospect. Might be just as easy to strip the lock of useful parts and build a new one around a new tumbler and plate....


As for identifying recycled parts, one clue if it they are a mix of different styles, like the jaeger triggerguard on the mountain rifle I mentioned earlier. Another is if they don't fit the stock very well, like a sideplate canted oddly to make the screw-holes line up. And if you have a barrel signed J.P. Beck and a bunch of Lebanon County style-furniture engraved in Beck's style mounted in a stock in an entirely different stock style and carved with the distinctive pattern of, say, Frederick Sell, that there is a hint that might have been restocked at one point... :hmm:

(I actually did see a rifle like that recently, where the barrel and furniture of one famous Golden Age smith - I think it was J.P. Beck - was stocked up and carved in a completely different school by another well-known smith elsewhere in P.A. So I'm not just making that up)

 

[rich pierce]

I have seen early locks where the tumbler and the tumbler hole in the lockplate had matching tapers. Seemed really clever to me. By the time a lock gets sloppy enough that the tumbler is rocking in the plate, the pan is usually a wallow, the pan to frizzen fit is gone, and everything is looseygoosey. It is possible to enlarge the tumbler hole, file it square, and braze in a square piece of iron, then re-drill and ream for the original tumbler after cleaning the tumbler up. But we see a lot of replacement locks on originals, because sometimes parts are cheaper than labor or are going to be a better solution.

 

[Zonie]

I don't know why a gunsmith would make a tapered hole for the tumbler in the lock plate.

They did have straight reamers back in the day.

After all, straight reamers were used to finish the straight bore in a barrel before it was rifled.

I'm not suggesting that tapered reamers weren't around too back in the day.

They served a very good purpose.

If two pieces of material were to be accurately joined together with something that could be taken apart, first the pieces were clamped together. Then, a hole was first drilled thru the two pieces and a tapered reamer was used to finish the hole.

Tapping a pin with the same taper on it as the hole had thru the hole would precisely align the pieces and, at the same time, hold them together.

 

[Jumpshot]

Well, it didn't at first, but it seems to now.

Try this as it works for me:
http://emuseum.history.org/view/ob...ate:flow=6c899c33-1eeb-4f75-88ce-47ef35a7a9ec

If not, go to page 115 in the link and you will find it there.

Gus

That one works.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

A gun may not be worn out to be scraped. Over the years I broke one gun at the wrist. Folks stumbled and did stupid stuff then, and riflemen and militia did go to war. Even if lock and barrel are both worn out trigger and guard pipes and side plate do little but sit there on the wood

No you miss my point, I'm not saying that isn't true ever ..., I am trying to say the automatic "fall back" idea that an older lock on a newer styled gun must've been scavenged, is used too often. Not that such didn't happen, I'm saying I think folks have too often in the past been assuming when the come upon a lock that appears to be older than the rest of the rifle, it's assume to actually be older without any detailed examination, and thus came from a previous gun. :nono:

When in fact, while the style of the lock may be old, the lock may be quite contemporary to that rifle or gun, and didn't come from a previous gun. The fact that locks imported from Europe were not uncommon with the older, unbridled pan, is an indication that this is correct. It may be correct in many of the extant examples. So instead of proclaiming "it's a used lock", perhaps the lock should be examined to determining if there is any evidence beyond the lock design that leads to such a conclusion.

I have read in the past where a collection of "rifles" was checked, and because at several of the muzzles the rifling could be seen, it was assumed they were all rifles, but when inspected within the barrels, they found several in the collection were straight-grooved.

LD

 

[Artificer]

I don't know why a gunsmith would make a tapered hole for the tumbler in the lock plate.

They did have straight reamers back in the day.

After all, straight reamers were used to finish the straight bore in a barrel before it was rifled.

I'm not suggesting that tapered reamers weren't around too back in the day.

They served a very good purpose.

If two pieces of material were to be accurately joined together with something that could be taken apart, first the pieces were clamped together. Then, a hole was first drilled thru the two pieces and a tapered reamer was used to finish the hole.

Tapping a pin with the same taper on it as the hole had thru the hole would precisely align the pieces and, at the same time, hold them together.

Hi Zonie,

The problem was not that they didn't have straight reamers. Rather the fact they did not have precision drill bits.

Since they did not have precision drill bits for metal, what they did was drill holes in metal with a "diamond" point bit like the one shown in this link: http://www.markelliottva.com/wordp...y-gunsmithing-tools-metal-cutting-brace-bits/

Then they would ream the hole larger to size with a four, six or eight sided slightly tapered reamer as shown in "fig. 5" in this link (left clicking on the page will enlarge the page to see the tools better): http://artflx.uchicago.edu/images/encyclopedie/V18/plate_18_9_4.jpeg

So, yes, all holes in lock plates were normally tapered reamed to size, even in the large lock making shops in England and Europe. Though the larger lock making shops may have finished the holes with straight reamers, if they had an order for enough locks of a certain type to be made OR if the locks they were making were the highest quality/most expensive type.

Also, the pivot points or arbor points on the tumblers were not normally turned perfectly round on a lathe. They were also made with a slight taper as it was easier and cheaper to do it that way in the period. So a tapered arbor was easier to make and then fitted into the tapered hole of the lock plate by hand filing.

For more information on how they usually made Tumblers in the period, please see the very first part of the first post in this thread: http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/304651/

Gus

 

[Artificer]

What still surprises me a little is how LATE in the 18th century they were still using locks with no bridle on the pan nor over the Tumbler - even on some lower quality Trade Locks.

Scroll down to: "Flat faced English trade quality lock signed Blair. (ca. 1775-1785)"

In this link: http://www.flintriflesmith.com/antique_gun_locks.htm

Of course with my luck, I can't find it right now, but I have seen a few locks used on "last quarter of the 18th century" Rifles that did have a bridle over the Tumbler, but not on the pan. Maybe they got away with not having a pan bridle because the screw was made from Steel rather than case hardened Iron? I'm not sure.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

The really serious thing that I would think would wear out on a lock are the tumbler bearings. Lockplates and tumblers were both hardened, but the lockplate and bridle holes for the tumbler shafts would have been reamed with tapered reamers, meaning that the tumbler shaft was riding on a ridge of metal rather than along the whole length of the hole. Fixing a worn bearing with period technology would require making a whole new tumbler, softening the plate and reaming to match, ditto for the bridle, adjusting the mainspring and sear, and rehardening everything. That is a pretty extensive rebuild.

I've never seen any commentary on it, ancient or modern, but that strikes me as the critical problem with a lock - you can replace broken cocks and springs, re-steel a frizzen, and braze up a burnt-out pan, but replacing a worn tumbler with a tumbler mill, tapered reamer, and the mk. 1 eyeball is a pretty daunting prospect. Might be just as easy to strip the lock of useful parts and build a new one around a new tumbler and plate....

I have to respectfully disagree with the emboldened part above.

Since the hole in the plate was taper reamed from the internal side and the taper on the Tumbler arbor was filed to a taper to fit it, the arbor would have still been working against a flat surface that was curved and to the angle the taper reamer cut the hole. IOW, the arbor would not have been riding on just a ridge of metal.

Making a replacement tumbler would not have been nearly as difficult of a job as making a new tumbler and plate and then fitting the rest of the parts to the new plate.

A plate with a worn tumbler hole could easily have been "spot annealed" with the technology of the day, reamed to round, and then the plate re-case hardened. A new Tumbler with a larger diameter arbor could then be made, fitted and hardened.

I don't see that as a common repair of the time period, but certainly one that was well within the abilities of most gunsmiths to perform.

Gus

 

[Elnathan]

The really serious thing that I would think would wear out on a lock are the tumbler bearings. Lockplates and tumblers were both hardened, but the lockplate and bridle holes for the tumbler shafts would have been reamed with tapered reamers, meaning that the tumbler shaft was riding on a ridge of metal rather than along the whole length of the hole. Fixing a worn bearing with period technology would require making a whole new tumbler, softening the plate and reaming to match, ditto for the bridle, adjusting the mainspring and sear, and rehardening everything. That is a pretty extensive rebuild.

I've never seen any commentary on it, ancient or modern, but that strikes me as the critical problem with a lock - you can replace broken cocks and springs, re-steel a frizzen, and braze up a burnt-out pan, but replacing a worn tumbler with a tumbler mill, tapered reamer, and the mk. 1 eyeball is a pretty daunting prospect. Might be just as easy to strip the lock of useful parts and build a new one around a new tumbler and plate....

I have to respectfully disagree with the emboldened part above.

Since the hole in the plate was taper reamed from the internal side and the taper on the Tumbler arbor was filed to a taper to fit it, the arbor would have still been working against a flat surface that was curved and to the angle the taper reamer cut the hole. IOW, the arbor would not have been riding on just a ridge of metal.

Making a replacement tumbler would not have been nearly as difficult of a job as making a new tumbler and plate and then fitting the rest of the parts to the new plate.

A plate with a worn tumbler hole could easily have been "spot annealed" with the technology of the day, reamed to round, and then the plate re-case hardened. A new Tumbler with a larger diameter arbor could then be made, fitted and hardened.

I don't see that as a common repair of the time period, but certainly one that was well within the abilities of most gunsmiths to perform.

Gus

It depends on whether your tumbler reamer makes a hole bigger than the tumbler you are trying to replace, doesn't it? Unless you are going to make a new mill, the diameter of the tumbler bearings is a fixed point. I was assuming that the tumbler mill on hand was no larger than that of the original tumbler, which I suppose isn't likely to have always been the case. Good point about the spot annealing, though if you have to reharden anyway I'm not sure that it would save much time.

Mike Miller reams his holes from both sides to fit the tumbler shaft, IIRC. Not having worked with 18th century tools to make a lock, I was just assuming that was the right way to do it. The possibility that you could just ream from the inside and taper the tumbler shafts to match it didn't occur to me. I don't see how the bearings on the tumbler could have come tapered from the mill, though - Unless I've missed something major the whole point of a tumbler mill is to grind away everything from the side of the tumbler that isn't a bearing, and there are no teeth in the holes. Now, you might taper the rough blank to get what will eventually become a bearing started, but isn't that part cut away?

 

[tenngun]

That’s a trueism. They were less concerned about building an HC/PC rifle back then. They never heard of schools and could not have told a Maryland from a Kentucky Virgina or Tennessee.