Builders of poor folks rifles?

[54ball]

Nathan,
You are correct. I need to clarify.
Period writings by Batram and others such as ministers describe these Mountain People of NC, Va, swVa, and what becomes Tn as well, different. Poor is a lazy way to put it.
For some reason I'm wanting to say Adair but that may not be right.
Anyway, this was a minister, Anglican I believe traveling through either western Va or Pa. His descriptions of the women simply dressed, dressing their hair and legs with bear grease. I do believe these are the same accounts that describe how proud the Riflemen were of their backwoods dress. Leggings...hunting shirts.

Another minister account is of a family who's children were naked.

Another account and do believe this was in the Kentucky exploration (longhunter) era a party come across a group bearded "Dunkers".

Batram describes men shirtless working fields with a single brace holding the breeches. The women wearing only a simple chemise or shift.....simple one piece garment. Of course this would be considered underwear in Philadelphia.

Batram goes on to describe that the people in the valley seem to be more wealthy (of a higher class) than the people in the mountains.
Interestingly this same sentiment is mentioned by "Mama York" In 1941's Sergeant York. "I don't know why people on the bottom look down on people from the top. Always been that way I guess."
One thing that seems to be consistent is that the homesteads were somewhat neglected but they would have a fine rifle and a fine horse.

Ministers, especially Anglican tended to be from the aristocracy. Batram was a Naturalist from Philadelphia so their view of these people may have been somewhat biased.

One thing for all to consider...wealth is relative. These people owned or were hacking out their ownership of land and property. It takes a measure of means to move....to travel, to relocate. Wether it would be; for lack of a better term, cash or more likely labor and the fruits of it enabled these people to have the means to move and settle. That equals wealth.

Compared to the world stage of the time of the American Revolution, The Virginians, Pennsylvanians or what we consider the Rifle Culture, were the healthiest most well fed people on the planet.

This was a culture shock to the British (mainly of whom came from abject poverty from places like London),The Hessions (from the feudal serf class of the Germanic States), were amazed at the wealth of the American Colonists. They were perplexed that people who enjoy such wealth would rebel.

I'll close this with David Crockett. Crockett's father was a veteran of Kings Mountain. Crockett left home at an early age. Through his labor and skill his first rifle is alleged to be a fine York rifle that he later sold to set up housekeeping when he married his first wife.

 

[tenngun]

Please don’t miss understand my statement. I did not mean that post when threatened they would suddenly join up. Yes they did believe people treated right would respond in kind. However when assulted they did fight back. Hollywood and some books portray pacifist faiths as milchtoast who would stand by without lifting a hand in self defense while family was slaughtered, that’s not true. They would defend them selfs.
As to the poor being referred to as naked, we have to remember this isn’t the same thing as nude. Naked means defenseless. A person could be dressed but considered naked, because of lack of clothing. A man should have trousers or breaches, stockings. shoes, shirt,weskit,and coat. Breaches, bare legs, barefoot, shirt or shirtless was naked.

 

[Elnathan]

Nathan,
You are correct. I need to clarify.
Period writings by Batram and others such as ministers describe these Mountain People of NC, Va, swVa, and what becomes Tn as well, different. Poor is a lazy way to put it.
For some reason I'm wanting to say Adair but that may not be right.

I think you are thinking of Woodmason, who was basically doing missionary work in the NC piedmont area. I haven't read him myself, but he is cited in virtually every secondary source on the backwoodsmen I have read. Problem is, he has to be taken with a grain of salt, partially because of the whole cultural divide issue, partially because as an Anglican he was at odds with a population composed of religious dissenters (Presbyterians, Quakers, Baptists, and a whole lot of folks that we'd call nondenominational evangelicals today), and because he was writing to his superiors trying to convince them that he was worth supporting monetarily in his endeavors. Woodmason suggests, at least in the passages oft-cited, that the backwoodsmen were universally ignorant of even the most basic tenets of Christianity, whereas we have abundant evidence from other sources that very many, perhaps most, were passionately interested in religion and were certainly very familiar with the Bible.


James Adair wrote extensively about the Indians of the Southeast, with an aim to proving that they were the lost tribes of Israel. I believe most modern scholars believe this unlikely. :haha: Still a very, very valuable resource.

 

[Heelerau]

Mate that comment struck a chord with myself, my family was very cash poor when I was a kid, Dad was a sheep station manager and it payed poorly, but we had quality saddles, rifles and fishing rods ! so I think your observation has some validity!

Cheers

gordon

 

[mshugg]

Today labor = $$$$$ materials not so much.
Then materials = $$$$$ labor not so much.

Don’t try to approach what was with what is mindset, if historical understanding is your goal.

 

[Stophel]

So many people today are desperate to find the 18th century "barn gun", or dead plain rifle....made for "the workin' man".... to justify their own aesthetic and tight wallet (hey, I'm probably poorer than anyone else here... I can't afford my own work!). But things were very different in the 18th century (and began changing through the 19th). The aesthetics and the expectations of the time were very different. They liked decorated firearms (along with other things). They expected a gun to be fully equipped with all the normal hardware and carving, even if not really "fancy". The parts/labor aspect has been talked about already. It simply made no sense when buying a gun that was going to be expensive no matter what, to try and save a few pennies ... might as well get a nice one.

There's another aspect of things that I think people today don't think about. We live in a world chock full of "stuff". We have so many things that take our attention, and take our money. So many things to spend our money on. For most of us, a gun is just another thing, among all the other things (probably among many other guns). Many don't want to spend the cash necessary to get a proper 18th century rifle, even if they have it. It's not a critical thing to them, it's just a hobby, or even a passing interest, and besides, there's more stuff out there to spend money on...

Not so, 250 years ago. People then had relatively few belongings. They didn't need garages, sheds, and rental storage units to hold all their stuff. They didn't have all the things to pay for that we do (many of which, we don't really need... but we think we can't live without them). A gun was a major purchase, and a big thing for them. It was important "stuff" for them, since they didn't have much other. Again, it made no sense for them to try to go cheap.

And yet another thing I think is important to understand. They were gunsmiths, NOT "gun builders". They were not putting together parts kits in their garage, with pre carved and pre-inlet stocks and such. They MADE guns, they didn't "build" them. Everybody and their brother can't be gunsmiths. It takes natural talent, skill, training, practice, and years of work to become a proficient gunsmith. Some are butchers, some are bakers, some are candlestick makers, and some are gunsmiths. (and by the way, I think a lot of people today have no understanding of hand work, and balk at the price of it, having no concept of the staggering amount of skilled work that goes into a rifle, or many other hand made things. You think $1500, $2000, or $3000 is expensive for a gun? Believe me, the gunsmith is working for peanuts, and should charge at least twice as much... but I digress :grin: ). Further, the gun is the expression of the gunsmith's art. They were proud of their work, and rightly so. They probably had little desire to produce a strictly utilitarian implement, utterly devoid of that art, and not up to the standards that they wanted to be known for.

The industrial revolution changed everything. "Stuff" became cheaper and more abundant, and the plain gun became viable, and, unfortunately, the public sense of aesthetics changed, carving disappeared entirely, and engraving nearly so. A "decorated firearm" meant some unartistic gaudy thing with brass or silver doo dads pointlessly spangled all over.

I'm through ranting now. :haha:

 

[dave_person]

Amen Chris!

dave

 

[Loyalist Dave]

So many people today are desperate to find the 18th century "barn gun", or dead plain rifle....made for "the workin' man".... to justify their own aesthetic and tight wallet...,

But things were very different in the 18th century (and began changing through the 19th). The aesthetics and the expectations of the time were very different. They liked decorated firearms (along with other things). They expected a gun to be fully equipped with all the normal hardware and carving, even if not really "fancy". ...,

It simply made no sense when buying a gun that was going to be expensive no matter what, to try and save a few pennies ... might as well get a nice one.

Except..., the actual evidence doesn't completely bear that out. I chose single triggered, lacking hardware rifle, because at the time I thought that was correct for a rifle one would find pre-made, at a trading post, ordered in large numbers by the post manager, aka George Morgan, or the like.

IF it didn't make "sense" to "save a few pennies" then why did Mr. Morgan go to the trouble of ordering a large number of fusils, and have them shipped from Philadelphia to Kaskaskia, and then sold them at 60 shillings, instead of just ordering a few more rifles ?

There's another aspect of things that I think people today don't think about. We live in a world chock full of "stuff". We have so many things that take our attention, and take our money. So many things to spend our money on. For most of us, a gun is just another thing, among all the other things (probably among many other guns). Many don't want to spend the cash necessary to get a proper 18th century rifle, even if they have it. It's not a critical thing to them, it's just a hobby, or even a passing interest, and besides, there's more stuff out there to spend money on...

Not so, 250 years ago. ..., A gun was a major purchase, and a big thing for them. It was important "stuff" for them, since they didn't have much other. Again, it made no sense for them to try to go cheap.

Yes that's true, but you have those pesky fusils to contend with, AND both the rifle and fusils were ordered and then offered for sale. Not every seller was a gunsmith, so in some cases, in fact in most cases where Spence has provided historic advertisements, they begin with "just arrived...,". The customer bought or didn't buy..., if you needed the item as dearly as you propose (and I agree) then you bought what they had, NOT what you wanted them to have for sale. So embellished, how much? Metal patch box or wooded or none? It was buy or go empty handed of an item that the buyer thought was paramount in some cases, to survival.

And yet another thing I think is important to understand. They were gunsmiths, NOT "gun builders". They were not putting together parts kits in their garage, with pre carved and pre-inlet stocks and such. They MADE guns, they didn't "build" them. Everybody and their brother can't be gunsmiths. It takes natural talent, skill, training, practice, and years of work to become a proficient gunsmith. ..... Further, the gun is the expression of the gunsmith's art. They were proud of their work, and rightly so. They probably had little desire to produce a strictly utilitarian implement, utterly devoid of that art, and not up to the standards that they wanted to be known for.

Now you're placing modern standards where there were none. First, many blacksmiths have records of "repairing" guns. No they didn't call themselves "gunsmith", but there was no enforced standard in the day. We have no way of knowing the skills and talents of every "gunsmith". If there is only one "gunsmith" in a 90 square mile area..., he's "the best that ever was" until the local population of customers finds out that he's not. Also a lot of "gunsmiths" built a lot of guns, importing locks and finished barrels. Was it a time saving thing? Was it an embellishment thing because while good at making locks the smith was bad at engraving or simply didn't have the tools? Was it because they sucked at welding a barrel, or did they see that the imported barrel was better than what they could produce with what they had? Who can say?

You're assuming every "gunsmith" was an "artist" because of our modern ideal of a fine 18th century artisan-craftsman, and applying it to all who built rifles. You may be very correct..., but we don't have evidence that all who are listed as "gunsmith" were fine dedicated craftsmen, since we don't have examples of work from every gunsmith that is documented in records.

LD

 

[Rifleman1776]

Pacifism wasn’t the lay down like a door mat shown in Hollywood. Quakers Amish Mennonites ect were more then able to defend themselves. They avoided conflict and didn’t join the militia, they would turn the other cheek, once.

I remember one of my first classes when i went to college was a lecture by a Quaker. He was asked specifically about pacifism. He said, even if his wife was being beaten and ***** he would not interfere because the assailant would be judged later.
I have never had contact with Amish or Mennonites so cannot comment.
I will say, I served on the Selective Service Board for 20 years at the appointment of President Ronald Reagan and during that time always felt the special exemptions given for Amish and Mennonites was unfair to all those who served, or registered to serve if called.

 

[Kansas Jake]

I don't know about Amish, but many Mennonites served in non-combat roles such as medics.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I don't know about Amish, but many Mennonites served in non-combat roles such as medics.

True. But only half good. Their special exemption put those who didn't complain into harms way more than they would have been if everyone served equally.

 

[azmntman]

I bet some Amish medics shot back eventually! :idunno:

 

[M. De Land]

Some of those "poor" folks even smelted their own iron, forged scelps and fabricated barrels, which I found utter-ally astonishing, especially when considering that they starting out with little more than a few simple hand tools.
I've never done that in a modern shop filled with electric powered gun building machinery! Necessity really is the mother of invention!

 

[Zonie]

To All:

While religions were key parts of the local communities and the lives of gunsmiths, forum rules say we don't discuss it.

I think mentioning it as a factor in the designs and types of guns built in the 18th and 19th century is fine but getting into discussions about the beliefs of the various religions is not.

Please try to stay within the rules.

 

[Stophel]

Except..., the actual evidence doesn't completely bear that out. I chose single triggered, lacking hardware rifle, because at the time I thought that was correct for a rifle one would find pre-made, at a trading post, ordered in large numbers by the post manager, aka George Morgan, or the like.

Then where is the actual evidence? Where are the lacking-hardware pre-Revolutionary rifles? All used up? Pure speculation that such a thing ever existed. Even Indian trade guns would be engraved and may have a minor amount of carving (the English were never big on gun carving, it just wasn't their style). If a 1770 retailer ordered a quantity of rifles from an American gunsmith, and that gunsmith were trying to get the guns done and out quickly, he still would have no problem doing the normal minimal carving and putting on all the normal hardware, as that can all be done very quickly by an accomplished hand. Especially since anyone who got a retail contract like that would hardly be a one-man shop. They would be able to do such work efficiently. There are some "plain" rifles that exist today that have minimal, or even no carving, but I think most of these are rather later than many people wish they were. Even so, buttplates, ramrod pipes, etc. all there (I know of one late 18th century rifle, I'll say ca 1785 without a sideplate... that's about it). The "barn gun" seems so far to be an entirely post 1800 phenomenon.

Now you're placing modern standards where there were none. First, many blacksmiths have records of "repairing" guns. No they didn't call themselves "gunsmith", but there was no enforced standard in the day. We have no way of knowing the skills and talents of every "gunsmith"...

A repaired gun is not a completed gun. And the occasional "dabbler" is not churning out "common man" guns (my opinion is that RCA #136 is probably a good, and very rare example of a "dabbler's" gun). Many good gunsmiths also worked at farming or other trades, because there wasn't enough gun work to keep them busy at times.
In a way, you're right. Not all gunsmiths at the time were much good. Many of them were not really very good at all....A fact most evident in their carving and engraving... :grin:

My intense distaste for the VERY popular modern phrase "build" may be only my own. It conjures up images of "builders" doing their "latest build" where they slap together parts of AR15's like Legos, and then show off pictures of their "build" on the internet, bragging about the "build quality", and talking about what they're gonna do for their "next build".... :barf: Yes, the 18th century gunsmith used purchased locks and sometimes hardware and barrels (more and more as time progressed towards, and beyond 1800... which made "plain guns" more possible), but they were hardly "building" a gun like sticking little plastic blocks together. Sorry, it's just a huge personal peeve of mine. :grin:

Perhaps there is some confusion as to what one may consider "plain"...
Again, one can find relatively "plain" rifles from (presumably) the Revolutionary period, and some more from the post Revolutionary period, but they're hardly barn guns. They are well-shaped, well-designed, well-finished, fully-appointed guns made by professionals. Perhaps the particular client was of a plain sect and didn't want decoration, who knows. But most people weren't of a plain sect. Yes, there are different types of guns that exist. In the 17th century the style among the English colonials for guns was VERY plain... some downright crude, in fact. That was just the fashion then. Styles change. By the second quarter of the 18th century (rather earlier than that, actually) this was very passe', even among the English. Even "fusils", "Trade guns", and "Carolina guns"... relatively mass-produced guns, near the bottom of the barrel, as it were, are fully furnished, as were military muskets.

I know it's not just economics at play here, as a lot of people today just don't want, like, or appreciate any kind of gun decoration. Many, in fact, seem to be in open rebellion against it, for whatever reason. Their aesthetic doesn't fit in with that of the 18th century. They want to fit an Arts & Crafts rifle into a Baroque/Rococo world.

I just believe that, whatever the motivation, the popular notion of the 18th century used-up "plain common man's gun" is pretty much wishful thinking. :wink:

 

[Elnathan]

There are some "plain" rifles that exist today that have minimal, or even no carving, but I think most of these are rather later than many people wish they were. Even so, buttplates, ramrod pipes, etc. all there (I know of one late 18th century rifle, I'll say ca 1785 without a sideplate... that's about it). The "barn gun" seems so far to be an entirely post 1800 phenomenon.

I can think of two 18th century rifles, one of which might be anywhere from 1785 to 1810 (it seems looks like an 18th century rifle to me) and another that is probably 1780s, that are sans buttplate and entry thimble. However, they are both carved, and not just a little squiggle.

 

[Stophel]

RCA#137 is like this. A very neat gun, and kind of an oddity. I think it is likely stocked up using a lock and sideplate from a 1780's gun, but as a whole, it is rather later than that.

There are a few anomalies out there. Some that can really make you scratch your head.

Once at a show many years ago, I saw a gun that I was fascinated with. It was definitely what would be considered a "barn gun". The plain maple stock was unstained, and probably the only "finish" was that applied by a century of greasy handling. It was quite yellow and very worn. The stock was of generic rifle architecture, and I cannot now recall if it had a cheekpiece or not. It had a wooden patchbox (lid missing), and no buttplate. The wood patchbox is "early"... right??? The patchbox latch would have caught a slip of metal inlet into the stock.. but that area of the wood was busted out and gone. It had, at one time, a fowler-type triggerguard, which was missing, but the inlet was there. The barrel was a musket barrel, and the lock a reused Revolutionary period Brown Bess lock. I really, really wanted to believe it was a Revolutionary period gun, but to be honest with myself, I just couldn't. :haha:

Stuff like this can throw us off sometimes. I have photos of a VERY neat gun, made up with a Bess musket barrel, rod and pipes, a Ketland lock of Revolutionary period, more or less, a plain "full panel" brass sideplate, and an engraved German rifle triggerguard that might be 1740's. No buttplate, no carving. A neatly done gun, that one might also wish were an "assembled" Revolutionary War musket... but honestly, I'd have to say I think it's a militia musket, probably New England, and probably early 19th century. Even if it were Revolutionary, things like this were pressed into service as quickly as possible, with NO time to waste, and I don't think can be compared with peace time civilian arms.

 

[Stophel]

The sideplate-less gun I spoke of earlier was illustrated by Shumway in Muzzleblasts some time ago. It is an attractive gun of generic "rifle type", fairly robust, and made with a musket barrel and lock. Found in N.C. in an old small museum, but who knows if it's from there or not. One might really want it to be Revolutionary period, but it may or may not be. It has no sideplate or carving, but the buttplate, which is nice and wide, has raised flats on the tang, which I can tell you are a lot of work to file out! I believe that something like this, is about as plain as you would have ever seen for an American rifle (though this wasn't a rifle) of the last quarter of the 18th century.

I took this gun as inspiration for one I made for myself several years ago (hey, I like plain guns too!), but was convinced to sell it. I made a rifle out of it, and made a better flatter cheekpiece, but otherwise didn't change much.

Making a rifle like this, I do think, was a little bit of fantasy, considering the musket nature of the original, but, it was fun to do.. and I wish I had it back! :haha:

 

[Elnathan]

RCA was one of the guns I was thinking of. The other is probably a very early Lexington school rifle from KY.

I remember that smoothrifle in Shumway now, and your interpretation. I like that both...


I saw a rifle last year in Knoxville that was one of those puzzles. I got some pictures and looking over them it looks like a c. 1800 English lock that was reconverted with German style lock and frizzen assembly, overall architecture looks more or less 1800, but it also has a flat iron buttplate, open bow triggerguard with acanthus leaf finale, and the entry thimble tang is pointed. Also has a wooden patchbox. I think it is a 19th century rifle that someone stocked up using recycled German furniture from 70 years before.

 

[Elkeater]

I was gonna comment on the affordable Henry Leman rifle but then realized he is probably after the Golden Age. I couldn't leave a blank page.