I don't mean to speak out of turn but this question has always been of interest to me, most current builders/suppliers offer something like the Edward Marshall gun or one like the Albrech gun, the main distiguishing features being a 37" barrel and a description that talks of a blending of Germanic and inovative Anerican styles, i have thought that there may ne little of no difference between "transitional"gun and an "early" longrifle, the Marshall gun was probably restocked in the 1760's or 70's and there is a true American longgun by Schriet dated at 1761, barrel length cannot really be a factor as there are a wide range of barrel lengths from 1740-1800 from German, English, colonial and American guns Some consider a transitinal gun one that is not exactly a gun from the homeland yet not a real example of the budding schools in the colonies some of which did not develope untill the Federal period, thus an early/transitional Lancaster gun would have been 20years the predesessor to a early/transitional Bucks gun. Some builders never dropped some of the old style traits into the early 1800's and an early/transitional gun by one of the Feree family or an English builder would have a different flavour than the Marshall or Albrech gun. I think the term early longrifle may be as good as transitional,I do not know if one can really make a case for two seperate entities here as the Colonial/American longrifle did evolve from the guns of Europe, and in different areas the change happened at different times and was affected by different influences. I think we have what is commercialy accepted/promoted as a transitional gun probably out of marketing stratigy more than anything else. one could make a case for a gun with more homeland features than non to be transitional but the same arguement could be made for an early longrifle that has not yet reached the point of completely fitting a particular school.
-
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
Best and Worst Muzzleloaders
- Thread starter musketman
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Sounds good tg...about 20 years ago I traded into a 'transitional' rifle...I think. It is a typical Jaeger, 34" bbl, converted to halfstock percussion. It still has the Jaeger buttplate and the lock is a true flintlock converted to percussion. The builder went to a lot of trouble to make it so.
I'd still like to hear from others about this and whether they think what I have qualifies as a 'transitional' rifle.
Voyageur
I'd still like to hear from others about this and whether they think what I have qualifies as a 'transitional' rifle.
Voyageur
That sounds like a neat gun, there were many "conversions" from flint to percussion in the 1820's and after which is a bit different than a "transition" between the European style and the American longrifle I think, which is what many classify a transitional gun as being, which may be a correct term I just have not seen anything to seperate a Transitional gun from and early longrifle...maybe others will jump in and offer some thoughts.
The whole thing is rather confusing to me but I consider the "Transitional" to be more of a enhancement of the Jaeger which tends to lengthen and slenderize it, and reduce the bore size. It may have the early brass patchboxs rather than the typical Jaeger sliding wood cover. An example of this is shown as number 3 (the Edward Marshall Rifle) in Plate 10 of Dillins "THE KENTUCKY RIFLE". Dillin goes on to show on the same plate number 4 which looks ever so much like a "pre Revolutionary War Kentucky" in that it has the smooth lines and the lengths (44 1/2 long .44 caliber barrel) we associate with a Penn Rifle. He goes on to say that it is dated 1728 on the breech with "H.T.1739" scratched on the stock.
Kauffman in "THE PENNSYLVANIA-KENTUCKY RIFLE" shows what I consider "Transitional" style guns in Plate 4 and 5. These have the heavy stocks and butts of the Jeager but are more slender and refined (for lack of a better word).
This would indicate to me that there was considerable overlap (in time) between the two different forms of guns and it may well have been a matter of what gunsmith you employed to make your gun to determine which "style" you got.
There is little doubt in my mind that the "Transitional" style was made by Old World German gunsmiths in Pennsylvania who were strongly influenced by the Jeager.
The "early Kentucky style almost (to me) looks like they incorporated more of the English and French grace of the guns made for Royality as is shown on page 21 (1685), 24 (1724), and 27 (1730) in Richard Akehursts "SPORTING GUNS".
Well, I've taken enough space so Have a Good One!
Kauffman in "THE PENNSYLVANIA-KENTUCKY RIFLE" shows what I consider "Transitional" style guns in Plate 4 and 5. These have the heavy stocks and butts of the Jeager but are more slender and refined (for lack of a better word).
This would indicate to me that there was considerable overlap (in time) between the two different forms of guns and it may well have been a matter of what gunsmith you employed to make your gun to determine which "style" you got.
There is little doubt in my mind that the "Transitional" style was made by Old World German gunsmiths in Pennsylvania who were strongly influenced by the Jeager.
The "early Kentucky style almost (to me) looks like they incorporated more of the English and French grace of the guns made for Royality as is shown on page 21 (1685), 24 (1724), and 27 (1730) in Richard Akehursts "SPORTING GUNS".
Well, I've taken enough space so Have a Good One!
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 6,488
- Reaction score
- 1,424
Saw an article a while back on these guns you mentioned exposing these dates as added on in the 1950's by one or more unscrupulous persons in order to sell them at a higher price than their acual worth. At the time this was done there were few real experts capable of picking up on this practice, and a few of these questionable guns show up in books now and then as the real thing, which they are except for being predated to their acual time frame. Beware of accepting as fact, guns that are dated earlier than they appear, the dates are very likely faked.
I still want to get this clear...
A 'transitional gun' is not a 'conversion' from flintlock Jaeger to flintlock American Longrifle.
A 'transitional gun' is not a 'conversion' of a Jaeger from flintlock to caplock.
A 'transitional gun' is a 'newly made gun' that combines both Jaeger & American Longrifle flintlock designs.
A 'transitional gun' is not a 'conversion' from flintlock Jaeger to flintlock American Longrifle.
A 'transitional gun' is not a 'conversion' of a Jaeger from flintlock to caplock.
A 'transitional gun' is a 'newly made gun' that combines both Jaeger & American Longrifle flintlock designs.
"It is a typical Jaeger, 34" bbl, converted to halfstock percussion. It still has the Jaeger buttplate and the lock is a true flintlock converted to percussion."
Agreed for the most part but the post above describes a typical Jaeger that has been converted to flintlock so I don't think it would be a transitional gun, and I think there are early guns by English and French builders that blend the style of old with a few new tricks of their own these could be considered transitional guns or early guns that predated the formal schools that favoured the French or English styles more than the German. The population and possibly the developement of a "Colonial" style gun in the south may have been earlier than the Penn. area.I think that if we are to consider a seperate type of gun (transitional) from the very early longrifles it may be a case of getting a clear view through muddied waters and certainly deserves more consideration than only the German guns influence. My main point is that this type of gun (transitional) has been pigeon holed as haveing a 37' barrel and and being pretty much a knock off of the Marshall gun....I think there is more to the story.
Agreed for the most part but the post above describes a typical Jaeger that has been converted to flintlock so I don't think it would be a transitional gun, and I think there are early guns by English and French builders that blend the style of old with a few new tricks of their own these could be considered transitional guns or early guns that predated the formal schools that favoured the French or English styles more than the German. The population and possibly the developement of a "Colonial" style gun in the south may have been earlier than the Penn. area.I think that if we are to consider a seperate type of gun (transitional) from the very early longrifles it may be a case of getting a clear view through muddied waters and certainly deserves more consideration than only the German guns influence. My main point is that this type of gun (transitional) has been pigeon holed as haveing a 37' barrel and and being pretty much a knock off of the Marshall gun....I think there is more to the story.
Wick: Someone may have been playing a trick on Captain John G. W. Dillin but as his book "The Kentucky Rifle" was published in 1924 and as I have a signed original book I know some later revision could not have been made to it.
From my readings I have learned that in the 1920s and before, many of the original rifles were considered little more than an "old gun" and they often sold for $5.00 or so. Little motive for forging dates in those days.
He may have been wrong but to quote him as he refers to Plate 10: "No 4 is the fully developed Americal rifle. It is dated 1728 at the breech end of the barrel on the left side. This gun is 100 per cent American and is the earliest dated rifle which the author has yet seen. It is also marked "H.T.1739," which is scratched deeply on the stock, and bears other indications which suggest that it has seen military service..." Is it authentic? Dillin thought so.
Voyageur: I don't understand your quote "A 'transitional gun' is a 'newly made gun' that combines both Jaeger & American Longrifle flintlock designs."
IMO the "transitional gun" as the term is used today was made in the 1700-1750 time frame (hardly "newly made") and is a direct offshoot of the Jaeger, made by Jaeger builders using American Wood, sometimes using Brass Patch boxes and often using smaller calibers, and longer barrels than the European Jaeger guns. They seem to have preceeded the "American Longrifle" but may well have been produced after the "American Longrifle" was beginning to become popular.
Perhaps you would like "Americanized Jeager" better than "Transitional Rifle" as a title for it, but the term "Transitional Rifle" seems to be commonly accepted and understood by those I talk to today.
By the way, the famous Edward Marshall Indian Walk (which enlarged the size of Pennsylvania by a sizeable amount) occured in 1737 so his gun was made prior to that date.
From my readings I have learned that in the 1920s and before, many of the original rifles were considered little more than an "old gun" and they often sold for $5.00 or so. Little motive for forging dates in those days.
He may have been wrong but to quote him as he refers to Plate 10: "No 4 is the fully developed Americal rifle. It is dated 1728 at the breech end of the barrel on the left side. This gun is 100 per cent American and is the earliest dated rifle which the author has yet seen. It is also marked "H.T.1739," which is scratched deeply on the stock, and bears other indications which suggest that it has seen military service..." Is it authentic? Dillin thought so.
Voyageur: I don't understand your quote "A 'transitional gun' is a 'newly made gun' that combines both Jaeger & American Longrifle flintlock designs."
IMO the "transitional gun" as the term is used today was made in the 1700-1750 time frame (hardly "newly made") and is a direct offshoot of the Jaeger, made by Jaeger builders using American Wood, sometimes using Brass Patch boxes and often using smaller calibers, and longer barrels than the European Jaeger guns. They seem to have preceeded the "American Longrifle" but may well have been produced after the "American Longrifle" was beginning to become popular.
Perhaps you would like "Americanized Jeager" better than "Transitional Rifle" as a title for it, but the term "Transitional Rifle" seems to be commonly accepted and understood by those I talk to today.
By the way, the famous Edward Marshall Indian Walk (which enlarged the size of Pennsylvania by a sizeable amount) occured in 1737 so his gun was made prior to that date.
To get back to the subject of this post, what do you think about a Weatherby Belted Magnum Stainless steel muzzleloader with a fluted barrel dressed up in a Red/White and Blue Laminated thumb hole stock with built in Bipod rest. It will be topped off with a SWAROVSKI 6-24x50A/O Scope!!
It could be a .54 cal so it could shoot the Barnes .470 cal 500 Gr SP XLC bullets in a sabot with 120 grains of FFFFg mixed with 60 grains of IMR7828 fired by a CCI Magnum Rifle Primer!!
The belt? Oh, that comes with a nice shiny gold plated buckle and it keeps your pants from falling down around your ankles when you touch her off!!
That'll learn em dumb deer!!
It could be a .54 cal so it could shoot the Barnes .470 cal 500 Gr SP XLC bullets in a sabot with 120 grains of FFFFg mixed with 60 grains of IMR7828 fired by a CCI Magnum Rifle Primer!!
The belt? Oh, that comes with a nice shiny gold plated buckle and it keeps your pants from falling down around your ankles when you touch her off!!
That'll learn em dumb deer!!
OK...I can understand that all kinds of inovations can be made peculiar to the area or gunsmith that is making the transition.
What I am looking for is this: What particular firearm are we 'transiting' from? Was the Jaeger the epitome of firearms at some particular point in time?
What I am looking for is this: What particular firearm are we 'transiting' from? Was the Jaeger the epitome of firearms at some particular point in time?
I think the German rifle was the in thing in Germany and for early colonial gunmakers of German heritage, but English gun makers made rifles in the early 18th century as did other European makers so we could be transiting from most any European type toward an Americanized one, I think the emphasis on the German influence is just one aspect (undoubtedly the most popular and most marketed) of the evolution of early guns and it might be difficult to nail down a gun as transitional or early longrifle, there are so few dated early examples to study, and the German transitional gun theory seems to be very strongly based on the Marshall gun which may be a German Jaeger type gun of unknown original manufacture date, restocked in the 1760's or 1770's, so it may not really be a representitive example of a built from scratch transitional or early rifle. just some thoughts based on a lot on listening to a lot of posts on this over the last several years and some thoughts by Schumway in his books.
Yeah, I noted in my copy of Kauffman that he felt the 1725 to 1775 dates would encompass the 'transitional' period.
You know, I wonder how much the perfection of the flintlock lock by the French and the final development and understanding of 'twist' with a patched ball with the resultant emphasis on sights might have had on the overall design. Fit-to-shoulder and ease-of-mount must have come to the fore.
Now days 'change' is the rule and almost a 'must'. Back then the natural conservatism surely must have impeded 'change'...I don't think I would have enjoyed living then.
You know, I wonder how much the perfection of the flintlock lock by the French and the final development and understanding of 'twist' with a patched ball with the resultant emphasis on sights might have had on the overall design. Fit-to-shoulder and ease-of-mount must have come to the fore.
Now days 'change' is the rule and almost a 'must'. Back then the natural conservatism surely must have impeded 'change'...I don't think I would have enjoyed living then.
I suspect a lot of infuences filterd through to form the " American longrifle" which some place as being a seperate type of gun as early as the 1740's The French may have influenced the German and Dutch and English in the 16th and 17th century and in the 17th century there are many colonial gunmakers of different heritage in the first half of the 18th century who have left us no examples of their work. This is why I suggest a wider view when the topic of "tansitional' guns arises because the Marshall gun almost always becomes the benchmark, I wonder what type of gun the man who restocked the Marshall gun(if this is the case) would have made at that same time if given a block of wood and contemporary lock and furniture, and choice of imported barrel and lock it would probably be early or transitional, but might have a 42" barrel and different furniture
and overall style...lots of questions each one answered raises another, old guns is neat stuff!
and overall style...lots of questions each one answered raises another, old guns is neat stuff!
Started in the ML game with an in-line I traded for a rifle I hardly used. Did'nt take me long though till I got my first sidelock. Love the history behind these guns. If-un I had the money I'd get a coustom long rifle. Till then the best rifle is the one I can afford and shoots dependably and accurately. To me CVA rifles are great shooters for the money.
Guest
'zonie, I want that Weatherby muzzleloader.
Harv: I knew you would. That's why I came up with the idea. I am kinda suprised that you went for the Red, White and Blue laminated stock. Shudder shudder.
You do realize that scope will set you back about $1500 don't you?
You do realize that scope will set you back about $1500 don't you?
I've got a beautiful .50cal Knight MK-85 Predator with alternating layers of black & gray laminated stock, stainless receiver and barrel, with matching satin finish Leupold 3.5x10x50 on top...putting aside discussions of traditional vs. inlines, it is one fine piece of engineering and extremely accurate...since I've switched to sidelocks & flintlocks, it now just lays oiled in it's case...I need to go on and sell it, probably separate the rifle and scope and sell them separately to minimize sticker shock
Roundball: I think you have a good idea to seperate them. You will probably get more for the scope than you will for the rifle.
Whether it's inlines or traditional styles, Factory made Black Powder guns just don't hold their resale value. For those wanting to get rid of one this is just sad but true. For those wanting to buy one, if they are very careful about checking the guns condition, they can find some really good buys.
Whether it's inlines or traditional styles, Factory made Black Powder guns just don't hold their resale value. For those wanting to get rid of one this is just sad but true. For those wanting to buy one, if they are very careful about checking the guns condition, they can find some really good buys.
Guest
I have no problem with red, white and blue. We are neighbours arent we. I wouldn't mind moving across the border sometimes. I like my cheep Traditions muzzlegun. It doesn't have nice wood or anything else very pretty on it except the scope. If I were to buy another it would be a Savage model 10ML using smokeless powder. Thats probably the best MODERN muzzleloader hunting gun out there. I will say that there are some very nice looking traditional muzzleloaders out there.
Similar threads
