Lifespan of a Rifle?

[smoothshooter]

A rifle in 1760, as opposed to a musket, was an expensive custom built flintlock gun. Likely it would have been maintained and used until percussion rifles were coming into wide use.

And then likely converted to percussion and remain in use until destroyed in a house fire, lost from a boat crossing a river, or stripped down for parts for other guns when worn out.

 

[#BPBReloadingFFL]

I have a Mills London upland Fowler circa 1840 percussion that stills works

 

[Grenadier1758]

There is a significant difference in wear between a rifle in regular use and one that is only used periodically, cleaned well, and preserved for storage. I am regularly shooting rifles that I know are at least 45 to 60 years old. Some of the parts may be older. I have one rifle that is using set triggers made about 1837.

The very old rifles with barrels of soft wrought iron did get shot out due to wear at the muzzle, corrosion at the breech and filling the grooves with fouling. This could take from 5 to ten years. Similar rifles that saw little use could be shot after 200 years. So much is dependent on how the rifle was used and cared for. Hard used rifles may have lasted 5 to ten years.

 

[David Y. Snellen]

Interesting question I have often thought about. I really think it depends. I know a fellow that has a 22 that was bought when he was 12, passed to son when 12 and then grandson. It is 112 yrs old. The weather, care and money all make a difference. We know there was a yankee (Jn Burns) at Gettysburg that was upset the Southern army was invading the north (it was all right to invade the South though) he was using an old cut down musket (probably 1816), so that would be 46 years old at the time. The Mexicans used Paget's carbines in the Alamo and Mexican War (about 40 years old at the time). Jim Beckwourth I believe carried a 3rd model Brown Bess.

But, again, what was the station in life, abuse it took etc. I am 54. I love the 1850-65 period. I am too old to reenact as a guerilla anymore, so I try to portray the station I am (would have been (under the same circumstances) had I lived then. I am NOT wealthy, so I do not portray Tara Plantation. I have a small farm about 60 acres, and I work outside as well. We have enough, but not much extra. My clothes and firearms I use reflect that.

I have a Jackie Brown French style fusil from around 1780. I would have been born in about 1800 to be the age I am in the 1850's. Could I be using a 75 year old piece? May be.... But I wouldn't bring that to a reenactment. I would use a shotgun or 1841. Personally though, at home, I may use it with my 1850/60 clothes and mentally tell myself it was my father's and still works.

I agree that with all the fancy carved wood, those would not have been the rifles used for hard use in the woods. Personally, I would want to stick within 40 years of what you portray. There are historic anomalies, guns that shouldn't be found where they are, guns that were not issued etcetera. But most folks used what was common to the area and time, like we do.

Just my opinion,
David

 

[wiscoaster]

There is a significant difference in wear between a rifle in regular use and one that is only used periodically....

I think the key is using them as originally designed for and used. I have a couple Trapdoors ca. 1880's that I shoot with 45-70 cartridges loaded with black powder and cast lead bullets as they were originally designed for and used.

 

[ronaldrothb49]

The idea that you see over and over again that all rifles were these expensive items that would cost a years wages just isn't true. If you look in Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in the Golden Age Kindig lists information from Leonard Reedy's Journals that cover the period from 1819 to 1837. Kindig even states he was surprised at the low cost of most of the guns that Reedy made. There are only a FEW rifles listed in the $18.00 range and the prices drop considerably down in price to rifles listed in the $7.00 range which seem to be the most numerous. So the question becomes which would be more likely to have survived over 200 years. The journals also list that he made at least one smooth rifle for $7.00 and a shotgun for $4.69. Surplus muskets would have been even cheaper. The most common repair listed was to freshen a barrel which he charged $0.50. So just like today not everyone drives around in a $100,000 car.

 

[sportster73hp]

The idea that you see over and over again that all rifles were these expensive items that would cost a years wages just isn't true. If you look in Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in the Golden Age Kindig lists information from Leonard Reedy's Journals that cover the period from 1819 to 1837. Kindig even states he was surprised at the low cost of most of the guns that Reedy made. There are only a FEW rifles listed in the $18.00 range and the prices drop considerably down in price to rifles listed in the $7.00 range which seem to be the most numerous. So the question becomes which would be more likely to have survived over 200 years. The journals also list that he made at least one smooth rifle for $7.00 and a shotgun for $4.69. Surplus muskets would have been even cheaper. The most common repair listed was to freshen a barrel which he charged $0.50. So just like today not everyone drives around in a $100,000 car.

I am curious as to the current price of his work adjusted for inflation. This may help to understand gun value. If i made $50,000 a year ,there is no way i am going to spend that much on a firearm.

 

[RAEDWALD]

That brick dust polishing was probably the cause of most of the wear on the military muskets as little of the unit funds was spent on firing practce.

The soft brick Polish was at the soldier’s expense. If too short of funds then they were reduced to rubbing two soft bricks together and using the actual dust. The trade polish was actually from deliberately under fired clay and ground fine and made as a commercial product. Sold in small ingots mixed into wax.

You can see what they were like if you buy today’s metal buffing compound in sticks. The soldier’s soft brick sticks were merely the cheapest metal polishing compound on the market. The self made dust and spit was more sanding powder than polish. A survey of muskets in one of John Company’s regimental armouries found that the troops in some areas were using a local emery sand which was causing frequent bursting from thinning the barrels and banned polishing.

Another affliction to muskets was illegally using the iron ram rod as a burnisher.

The British Board of Ordnance would replace regiment’s muskets after 12 years at no regimental expense. Replacing from wear before that was charged to the regiment. Obviously allowances made for exceptional campaign wear and loss in battle.

 

[Mad L]

If I recall correctly, wasn't there once a mountain man named Seth Kinman; story has it that it was carried down through generations. Eventually held together with bailing wire, had also been converted from flint to percussion.

https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/75/111/seth-kinman-mountain-man-rifle

 

[Ohio Rusty]

Last week I taught a blacksmithing class to a group of Historical interpretation students. I gave them some hands on experience of what it would have been like as a blacksmith apprentice. I gave them all the job of being a white smith. I had a bunch of old tarnished silverware and I made a bowl of fine brick dust. With pads of wet leather the students went on their journey polishing the silverware. They were really surprised how shiny the silverware became using brick dust as a polishing agent. It was nice to see students learn something new using the old ways.
Ohio Rusty ><>

 

[ronaldrothb49]

I am curious as to the current price of his work adjusted for inflation. This may help to understand gun value. If i made $50,000 a year ,there is no way i am going to spend that much on a firearm.

My point exactly. Fancy carving, engraving and inlays do NOTHING to help put meat on the table for a frontier farmer trying to feed his family. The fancy guns survived because they were more of a status symbol for the wealthier townsmen and probably didn't get used that much.

 

[bpalbee]

I think it is very plausible.

What really bugs me when I see reenactors who have as a weapon of choice a top of the line for the time firearm that few people would have been able to afford. Yes the weapon is HC/PC, but come on now you are portraying a dude that was likely poor as dirt.

I think you're into something, seems crazy in this day to venture into a wilderness unarmed but people did it. If you read about the McLaughlin Canyon Massacre in 1858, a large party of miners ambushed by Indians outside Tonasket Washington. Only one or two of the party were armed at all. We have so much materially now it's hard to relate to how poor people were. I am not a fan of Cormac McCarthy's "Blood Meridian" due to excessive violence and foul language, but the destitution of the main character was quite believable