Builders of poor folks rifles?

[Rifleman1776]

Non-fancy but still a very beautiful rifle. The lines are very pleasing to look at.

 

[Elkeater]

I wish you had sold it to me! The wood grain is excellent. That combined with the reveal at the back of the lock plate is very pleasing. Is it walnut?

 

[George]

I see ads such as these...

The South-Carolina GAZETTE
August 25, 1764
CHARLES-TOWN
”¦..very neat silver and steel-mounted Fowling-Pieces, with break offs and bolts and best locks, common brass-mounted ditto, common and best brass barrel Holster Pistols, with good locks, moulds and cases,

The South-Carolina GAZETTE
June 13, 1761
CHARLES-TOWN
... neat light fowling pieces, inferior ditto

They are saying there are different levels of quality of new guns, and I'm sure the prices reflect that. What do you think the difference is in the neat/best and the common/inferior guns?

Spence

 

[M. De Land]

Kinda sounds like they are talking imported rifles and pistols rather than American made.
Most colonial made guns were from imported parts but whole arms were also imported for sale, pre-revolution.

 

[Elnathan]

They are saying there are different levels of quality of new guns, and I'm sure the prices reflect that. What do you think the difference is in the neat/best and the common/inferior guns?

Quality of the lock, quality of the iron in the barrel, and quality of the wood finish are all possible areas of difference. Also, there is very definitely a continuum of quality between a trade gun, export grade fowling pieces, and fine gentlemen's fowling pieces in terms of the care spent shaping the stock and the quality of the mounts. They just all have buttplates and sidepieces.

I don't think that anyone is saying that there weren't differing grades of firearms. What folks are arguing is that during the 18th century 1) guns, even the lowest grade, were not made without at least a cheap, nailed-on buttplate and sideplate, and all but the very cheapest tradeguns had at least some carving and 2) rifles, being more expensive weapons due to the cost of making the barrel, were invariably in the mid-range in terms of fit and finish as well. In other words, a poor man's rifle would not be a "poorboy" type, but one with a complete set of brass furniture, a single-bridle lock with the standard factory engraving, some modest carving, a barrel made with mid-grade iron, and a quick coat of varnish. Original finish quality and the grade of iron in the barrel aren't obvious from photos, but a quick scroll through RCA will reveal many examples of guns fitting the rest of the description.

 

[M. De Land]

Iron quality before the Bessemer smelting process ( 1856) was not very uniform and good barrel steel quality didn't happen until Sheffield came out with pressure cast steel. Steel billets formed in cylinders with a hole punched through the center were rolled out around a mandrel forming a bore which could then be straightened, reamed and rifled. This allowed for better barrels steel which was stronger with no forge welded seems.
Before the advent of this process Damascus steel was used for the better grade of guns but most were simply made from flat sckelps of steel formed into a tube and forge welded their length.
None of these processes were particularly strong or uniform and were completely inadequate for anything but black powder.

 

[rich pierce]

Oftentimes arguments are made that because cheap plain trade guns were bought by the hundreds in the colonial and early Federal periods, then it is likely or even certain that there were cheap, plain rifles made here. I don’t follow the logic. Rifles are precision instruments using better locks and barrels that were far more expensive, comprising much or most of the cost of a finished gun.

There are a number of examples of relatively undecorated rifles from the last quarter of the 1700’s, some even lacking a sideplate, and with no engraving.

Much later on and specifically in hills and hollers of Appalachia we see rifles that lack carving entirely, and may even lack a buttplate. However there were often full rifles (rifles barrels) with double set triggers. In contrast the Berks County PA barn guns were often smoothbores.

 

[Cruzatte]

I'm somewhat confused as to what defines "plain," since I don't really have a clear idea of what kinds of rifles we're comparing. For everyone's consideration I submit this quote from The Northwest Gun by Charles E. Hanson Jr. [p. 48] regarding rifles for the Indian Trade.

Single trigger--Barrels of different lengths from 3 feet 6, to 3 feet 8 inches long--Balls assorted from 32 to 40 to the pound--5 inch Superior Locks. Stocks of maple or Sugar Tree stained and varnished as is customary--Silver thumbpiece--Handsome engraved Brass mountings--Hickory ramrod stained. Wiper in 2 pieces to unscrew in the middle, the socket being fastened to the end of the ramrod--...

Now speaking strictly from personal preference, I'd say that's beyond plain. Matter of fact, it comes close to describing my rifle, with these two exceptions; it has double triggers, and no silver thumbpiece.