French & Indian War Era Flintlock Rifles

[tg]

I do not recall for sure but Schumway does not place any early dates on any of the Bucks guns he shows or attributes Bucks as an early school with French influence does he?

 

[rich pierce]

Once something appears in a book, it seems to "seal the deal" for many readers. Every writer has their own style and standards for attributing the period, maker, and probable locale of originals. Early books on longrifles like Kindig's "Thoughts on Kentucky Rifles in the Golden Age" and others often erred on the early side when estimating when guns were made. There has been a more conservative approach over the past 25 years. George Shumway was usually pretty conservative, and would say stuff like, "likely made in the last quarter of the 18th century" or "almost certainly made in the third quarter of the 18th century".

The "Dubs" rifle has been discussed a lot over the years. Normally we like to compared any rifle to other examples to get a sense of how it fits in. That's challenging with the early ones as there are fewer of them.

TG, the Bucks County rifle makers we think of (Verner, Weiker, Shuler) were all working in that area post-Revolutionary war and most of the examples of Bucks County rifles we know best are believed to be 1790-1810. I've always thought that Wm Antes was the grandfather of the Bucks Counry style. His daisy patchbox rifle in Shumway's Rifles of Colonial America volume 1 (listed as #53 or so) has a Bucks County profile and the guard "fits" the Bucks County style. His swivel breech gun also has the curved lower edge. Based on the dimensions of the buttplates and the guard styles on those rifles (compared to contemporary examples that can be dated more closely), they both look like they were made in the 1770's at the earliest and likely 1780's.

There is an early Lehigh-attributed rifle with a curved lower buttstock (single curve, not a step wrist or double curve) that Shumway estimated was a 1770's or possibly earlier rifle.

 

[Stophel]

Why, I'll bet most of the guns in the old Dillon book are pre-Revolutionary! :wink:

I guess given what was known at the time, these writers can't be blamed.

Of course, it didn't help when guns would have dates like "1747" added to them....

 

[tg]

Thanks Rich I guess I have just seen and heard folks ask for a lot of later style guns that have been given a wide buttplate and early lock and Shazamm an "early" F&I Bucks or other gun type likely undefinable as to being from a specific region during the F&I, likely vendors/builders sew the seeds of deception more than the buyers.

 

[colmoultrie]

Well, I think that part of the annoying thing to some is that they just can't say that those people who get an "early" gun are necessarily wrong. :grin: :v

Are they documentable? No. Can one "prove" a negative - of course not. Do they fit into what one "might" be like? Perhaps. While Shumway certainly knows much more about rifles than I do, even he is hedging his bets and speculating on some of the rifles presented in RCA vol I, #54-62.
Did Antes come up with an individual style that broke the mould, but a whole group of other gunmakers followed him? Were they all his students? What do we know of the style of rifles by Jacobus Scout, J. Dubbs, or J Daub? How old was Andrew Verner when he first appeared on the tax rolls in 1785, and what was he doing before that?

Until someone comes up with more examples that "prove" that such rifles didn't exist or some more information, I don't think it harms anyone or harms history, as long as they are presented as speculative pieces.

 

[rich pierce]

Absolutely. "Could be" covers a lot of ground.

When I said I consider Antes the grandfather of the Bucks County style, I didn't mean to suggest that the curved underline of the stock that is characteristic of much later Bucks county rifles was a late invention or something he developed. There's more to a Bucks county rifle than the curved profile, and the curved profile is found on earlier European guns. It's tempting to suggest a French influence, but that remains speculative in my book.

 

[rich pierce]

Took me a while but I found a picture of a Germanic Europen original rifle with a curvaceous buttstock. A real dandy; might be 1760's or 1770's, Stophel would know better than I do. Note how similar the long wrist is to the Bucks County style. Just shows the Bucks county rifle incorporated features already around even in Europe. No ancestral relationship proposed.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Rich: Is there a toeplate on that stock, or am I seeing only a shadow? Thanks.

 

[colmoultrie]

Thanks Rich! That's nice evidence for those who like that shape, but don't want to call it a "Bucks County" rifle. It does also give a possible antecedent. Could you mention where you found the picture and any other info on it?

 

[rich pierce]

Regarding the picture- wish I knew more. It's from an auction catalogue is all I know- a friend sent it to me. Great looking rifle. Don't know if there's a toeplate.

 

[tg]

My point is that very often a gun with mostly traits identifiable to ost rev War are given a wide buttstock and a couple of early traaist and are passed off as F&I when the majority of the guns features are decidedly later it is the gun can only be as early as its latest feature concept, I have often heard I want a Tennesee or Southen Mt but for the F&I, anyway I am not interested in argueing the issue about whether some of the guns made are really early styles or not I am confident enough that there is no point in taking it much further, the TVM version of the Early Virginia is a good example I do not see anything to put it into the F&I yet many lay claim to such when making a purchase to outfit for that era just one example.Not a big deal just a matter of how realistic one chooses to be based on what we know at this time.

 

[Stophel]

Not the least bit unusual for German gunsmiths to use French (and Spanish, and Italian....) forms.

If one wants to see a proto-Lehigh gun, look at anything by any of the Freund family of gunsmiths. They were from Fürstenau, which is near Frankfurt-am-Main, which is the region where a LARGE percentage of the German immigrants to Pennsylvania came from.

 

[Stophel]

My point is that very often a gun with mostly traits identifiable to ost rev War are given a wide buttstock and a couple of early traaist and are passed off as F&I when the majority of the guns features are decidedly later it is the gun can only be as early as its latest feature concept, I have often heard I want a Tennesee or Southen Mt but for the F&I, anyway I am not interested in argueing the issue about whether some of the guns made are really early styles or not I am confident enough that there is no point in taking it much further, the TVM version of the Early Virginia is a good example I do not see anything to put it into the F&I yet many lay claim to such when making a purchase to outfit for that era just one example.Not a big deal just a matter of how realistic one chooses to be based on what we know at this time.

People act as if there is a "checklist" of what makes a pre-revolutionary rifle. Wide butt...check, Lock with no bridle...check, wood patchbox...check. Fill out the checks, and you're good to go.

Well, it's not that way at all. I often see people ask something like "How can you tell it's a pre-rev rifle" (similar questions are "what's the difference between a Lancaster and a Reading", or "what's the difference between a Lancaster and an Early Virginia"...). Frankly, many people simply cannot comprehend styling differences. A Reading gun looks no different to them from a Lancaster gun. It's like art. If one cannot tell the difference between, say, Rembrandt and Brueghel, there is NO use in trying to explain it to them.

 

[jsn]

How common was it to even have a rifled weapon anyway during this time period? the masses would have had mainly smooth bores correct? If all of this is correct then there probably are not many surviving examples of true rifles during this period. So we can try our best to recreate an origional but we just need some more information.

 

[Stophel]

How common was it to even have a rifled weapon anyway during this time period? the masses would have had mainly smooth bores correct? If all of this is correct then there probably are not many surviving examples of true rifles during this period. So we can try our best to recreate an origional but we just need some more information.

Relatively few rifles, yes. :thumbsup:

 

[flintriflesmith]

How common was it to even have a rifled weapon anyway during this time period? the masses would have had mainly smooth bores correct? ...

Relatively few rifles, yes. :thumbsup:

That depends entirely on where! There were pockets where due to settlement patterns, the nature of the game being hunted, etc. rifles were fairly common. I know that there were areas in the Virginia backcountry where rifles made up one third or more of the civilian arms listed in inventories and where entire militia units were described as "armed entirely with rifles."
Gary

 

[Okwaho]

My point is that very often a gun with mostly traits identifiable to ost rev War are given a wide buttstock and a couple of early traaist and are passed off as F&I when the majority of the guns features are decidedly later it is the gun can only be as early as its latest feature concept, I have often heard I want a Tennesee or Southen Mt but for the F&I, anyway I am not interested in argueing the issue about whether some of the guns made are really early styles or not I am confident enough that there is no point in taking it much further, the TVM version of the Early Virginia is a good example I do not see anything to put it into the F&I yet many lay claim to such when making a purchase to outfit for that era just one example.Not a big deal just a matter of how realistic one chooses to be based on what we know at this time.

People act as if there is a "checklist" of what makes a pre-revolutionary rifle. Wide butt...check, Lock with no bridle...check, wood patchbox...check. Fill out the checks, and you're good to go.

Well, it's not that way at all. I often see people ask something like "How can you tell it's a pre-rev rifle" (similar questions are "what's the difference between a Lancaster and a Reading", or "what's the difference between a Lancaster and an Early Virginia"...). Frankly, many people simply cannot comprehend styling differences. A Reading gun looks no different to them from a Lancaster gun. It's like art. If one cannot tell the difference between, say, Rembrandt and Brueghel, there is NO use in trying to explain it to them.

Great posts Tg and Stophel,especially with the "checklist",Stophel.
There's a helluva lot more than just following a simple check list and PRESTO you have an"early Virginia rifle from the F&I War or an early Lancaster rifle from the same period.I bought an old half stock iron mounted Tenn. rifle in 1961 for $25.00,got hooked and have been a student of the Kentucky rifle since then.Several years ago I realized that early {pre 1789} rifles}were my main interest and that the pre Revolutionary rifle was my personal holy grail.I have recently shifted my main point of interest to early French hunting muskets and trade guns.I have never lost interest in the Kentucky rifle :bow: and my one gun is a very early one that I have coveted for some time.I have also come to realize that the more research and study that I do the more I realize that I am still on the tip of the iceberg.

I fully realize that the guns offered by many vendors for reenactor use in the various periods are not as fully authentic as I would like to see but in addition to being a Native reenactor of the F&I War and earlier periods I have long a student and collector of Kentucky rifles and accompanying accoutrements.To build an early Kentucky and do it right is a daunting and expensive proposition as Stophel well realizes. I understand that most reenactors have limited budgets but they really need to do the research to determine if the glowing claims made by some builders and vendors are accurate.This cricism is not limited to Kentuckies but also applies to French hunting muskets{Fusils de chasse}and Fusils de traite{trade guns}. :hmm:

I have rambled on and vented my spleen enough but will continue to offer such limited information as I possess in the field of early guns.As always I welcome any responsible opposing comment :bow: :v
Tom Patton

 

[Okwaho]

Jacob Dubs, a swiss gunsmith, emigrated to the colonies in the 1730's and lived in Bucks County, PA (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20083607). A broken off buttstock and a fowler are both attributed to him--pictures are in the Kindig book. The architecture of the stocks clearly predates the classic bucks county style; a straight comb,and long curve from triggerguard to toe.

Based on this, I chose an early bucks county style rifle for my F & I impression.

The gun and butt remnant are attributed to Dubbs based solely on someone's imagination. One of them has a thumbpiece with the initials "JD" (which, undoubtedly, are the initials of the owner anyway). That's it. The gun is more like 1790's. :wink:

If I recall correctly, it also has a date of 1721 added to it! :shocked2:

This gun appearing in "Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1750-1850"published for the Kentucky Rifle Association",P.11 with its accompanying relic butt stock is attributed to "Jacob Dubbs" based primarily on the initials "J D" which appear on the rather crude thumb piece of the butt stock and which are probably a later addition.Initials found here are generally considered to be those of an owner.These two pieces in my opinion are both rifles with the complete gun being a smooth rifle with an octagon to round barrel. This type of barrel was not uncommon in Bucks County/Lehigh Valley guns.The date of 1721 found on the butt stock is in my opinion a fantasy date. Without knowing the birth and death dates and other such material on "Jacob Dubbs"it cannot be determined when he worked if in fact he made these two guns.These guns with their obvious French influence probably date to the 1790's or a few years on either side but not to the F&I War :shocked2: .A curious feature on the complete gun is the guard which appears Germanic,See Shumway RCA Vol.I No.11,PP.52-53. :hmm:
Tom Patton

 

[tg]

I would like to add that in my posts above there was no intent to degrade, diminish the value of any gun or suggest that a "correct" gun is what everyone MUST have,the only purpose was to help shed light on what we do know anout these guns from a hstorical viewpoint so some one is able to make educated choices if there are certain historical issues that are considered important to the individual, the above is my own interpretation and may not reflect the views of the forum/Forum owner and no animals were injured while making these posts.

 

[Okwaho]

I would like to add that in my posts above there was no intent to degrade, diminish the value of any gun or suggest that a "correct" gun is what everyone MUST have,the only purpose was to help shed light on what we do know anout these guns from a hstorical viewpoint so some one is able to make educated choices if there are certain historical issues that are considered important to the individual, the above is my own interpretation and may not reflect the views of the forum/Forum owner and no animals were injured while making these posts.

Hey! I'm with you here BUT I will have to inform the SPCA just in case as well as the Chicken man.
Tom