F&I - Colonial Period Rifle question

[Turtle Creek]

Gents,
Need your historical expertise.
Were rifles made in the F&I/Colonial period without patch box's (wood or brass)?
Almost all of the 'survivors' I see other than fowlers and some smoothies have patch box's.
I'm not sure if this is because higher end builds were better taken car of or that virtually 'all' rifles were built with them in this period.

Thanks.

 

[Zonie]

The metal patch boxes came after the F&I war. Very simple door and hinge affairs.
The sliding wooden patch box lid was the common type used on rifles during this period.

 

[Turtle Creek]

Thanks...but were they made, rifles, without a patchbox at all in that period?
I've only seen smoothies and fowlers without.

BTW, are you a Panama Zonie?

 

[Claude Mathis]

BTW, are you a Panama Zonie?

He's an Ari-Zonie. :wink:

 

[54ball]

I'm not sure if this is because higher end builds were better taken car of or that virtually 'all' rifles were built with them in this period.

If you really do the research you will find that rifles in America were middle class arms. The poor could not afford them and many had no need. The rich may have had one as a toy or conversation piece. The middling class hunter-frontiersman lived and died by them.

 

[nchawkeye]

So, Daniel Boone and David Crockett were middle class???? :grin:

To the OP, most rifles came with patch boxes...

 

[Loyalist Dave]

It's very difficult to say.

The records detail many more rifles having been made than we have actual examples. Even among those where the maker was kind enough to mark the rifle so there is no doubt who made the rifle...the dates are estimates for the makers in most cases did not record enough about each rifle to pin down the date...though in some cases it's a much closer estimate when the maker is known.

Some folks argue that it was "customary" for all rifles to have patch boxes... and they may be right. However, this begs the question, why? Was it considered necessary, so it is then taken as "given" that all the rifles had patch boxes?

If the above is true, then why the tallow-hole on Southern rifles?. Is this sort of a minimum patch box? If the Southern style of rifle making gave birth to the tallow-hole, then those rifle shooters carried on their person what the riflemen with the patchboxes carried inside the patch box.... so why couldn't those folks in places where a patch box was sometimes installed on a rifle also carry those items on their person?

Did the lack of a patch box drop the price of the rifle? Was it ordered by the individual, and so when rifles were ordered for a trading post, did these also have patch boxes? Was it simply up to the maker, who built a rifle, and hoped somebody came along who would buy it, so that having a patch box held to make the sale?

Unfortunately many of the records mention that a gun was a rifle or a pistol or a fusil, but don't go into great detail, unless one gets lucky and finds a record of a repair to a patch box, etc.

LD

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Of course there must have been early rifles without patch boxes. It would be extremely presumptuous to assume all rifles had boxes. However, I suspect they were not common and the strong Germanic tradition of putting patchboxes on rifles, regardless of how simple, probably dominated. Moreover, most of the "Germanic" gunsmiths colonizing the mid-atlantic colonies were fresh off the boat before and during the F&I war, so their European traditions likely were very strong.

dave

 

[Turtle Creek]

Oh, lol.
All of the guys I know that grew up in the Canal zone call themselves 'Zonies".

 

[Claude Mathis]

Oh, lol.
All of the guys I know that grew up in the Canal zone call themselves 'Zonies".

We're getting off-topic, but here in Californaia, the summer tourists that come here from Arizona are called "Zonies".

 

[Stophel]

I would say that probably SOME rifles of the 1750's were made without patchboxes, but probably not very many. (Frankly, I would also say there were not nearly as many rifles of any kind in the 1750's as people often like to think.)

Just like with buttplates, rod pipes, sideplates (full hardware), and carving, it was expected, and it was the norm. Besides, a wooden patchbox is a VERY simple device and can be easily and quickly manufactured by an accomplished gunsmith, so there is no practical reason to not have one. :wink:

Of course, there are only a scant handful of American rifles extant that MAY be from as far back as the 1750's anyway... :shocked2:

 

[galamb]

Agree that most rifles would have had a patchbox.

Even later on (1780's) when things were starting to get "fancy" a "plain rifle" still pretty much always had a patchbox - no carving/mouldings, but the patchbox was still there.

It was probably seen as "functional" (some where to carry accessories needed for shooting) as opposed to pure decoration.

 

[Artificer]

Wow, hope I can get this point/question across without messing it up? Well, here goes....

Outside of European Rifles and unless I'm mistaken, there have been no American Rifles positively attributed to the French and Indian War period or earlier, or is that not correct? If that is true, then how do we know whether or not whether or not American Rifles always, usually or most commonly had patch boxes?

Are we going off Germanic and to a lesser extent English rifles of the period? If so, what percentage of them did not have patch boxes?

I must admit there have been times when I wondered why Rifles even had patch boxes. The "stuff" required to load and maintain smoothbores was pretty much the same as a rifle with the exception of a patch, though unless they used grass in smoothbores quite often - wadding material would seem to have been more "bulky."

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Of course, there are only a scant handful of American rifles extant that MAY be from as far back as the 1750's anyway... :shocked2:

Thank you. With the number of rifles reported by the New York Governor in the 1690's and other accounts of rifles before the French and Indian War, one would think some of the very early rifles would have survived and could be authenticated as to date. OK, that may just be my frustration speaking.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

It was probably seen as "functional" (some where to carry accessories needed for shooting) as opposed to pure decoration.

Please understand I am not trying to nitpick or argue. What accessories were needed with a rifle that were not needed with smoothbore guns of the period and most civilian smoothbores did not have patch boxes?

Gus

 

[alex efremenko]

This is new information.There are two rifles built by Andreas Albrecht. Both being documented in the Moravian archives. One gun being RCA19(1751?) The second being a personal gun of Albrecht' s(1752?) They share at least 16 similarities of being made by the same hand. #19 was made for a Shawnee chief named Paxinosa. Which explains a lot of inconsistencies in its style. Albrecht's rifle is more in style with those of the period (very Germanic). These guns and information were made available at the gun show in Baltimore, earlier this year.

 

[Artificer]

Wow, thanks!! Will dig out my RCA and look at them more carefully.

Gus

 

[Stophel]

This is new information.There are two rifles built by Andreas Albrecht. Both being documented in the Moravian archives. One gun being RCA19(1751?) The second being a personal gun of Albrecht' s(1752?) They share at least 16 similarities of being made by the same hand. #19 was made for a Shawnee chief named Paxinosa. Which explains a lot of inconsistencies in its style. Albrecht's rifle is more in style with those of the period (very Germanic). These guns and information were made available at the gun show in Baltimore, earlier this year.

I don't mean to sound confrontational, but...

RCA 19??? What on earth would possess someone to think that this gun was made by Albrecht? Much less in 1751?

sorry... :grin:

And I would love to see this personal rifle of Albrecht's.

There is one known, signed Albrecht gun that I am aware of. PROBABLY from around 1770. It's RCA 46 (and pictured elsewhere). There is also a gun lock signed "Albrecht Bethlehem" (or something to that effect.. I cannot find my photo of it at the moment).

 

[Stophel]

Please understand I am not trying to nitpick or argue. What accessories were needed with a rifle that were not needed with smoothbore guns of the period and most civilian smoothbores did not have patch boxes?

Gus

Patches. :wink:

 

[alex efremenko]

The description of the gun was described in the Moravian archives. From what I Understand, two sources. A journal from a Moravian wrote of the Chief asking of his 'friend' Albrecht, who built him a gun a few years earlier.
All that 'odd' engraving on #19 has some 'Native' symbolism including what would have been the Chief's symbol/ mark/sign. The gun bears many European features also.
At the time of the 1750's the Moravian's were a communal society. Anything sold for profit bore no name signature. Personal property was another thing.
I know one of the two or three fellows that research the guns and have no reason to doubt him.. I also have an invite to view them both. Which I intend to do if able.