Poorboy or barn gun rifles

[Turner1776]

There was a discussion on here a while back concerning poorboy or barn gun type rifles. Most said they were later 1800's style. William White's rifle he carried at the battle of Kings Mountain had a wide butt, no buttplate and no evidence it ever had one, only one thimble, brass mounted, 58 cal 35" barrel. A plain ordinary gun made for everyday use or so it seems :thumbsup:. It is in a museum near the battle field I am told. Has anyone seen this gun or have photos? JIM

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Give www.palongrifles.com a try.

 

[cayugad]

I've been looking at some different custom gun makers. Some list a Poor Boy Rifle other list a Barn Gun. Are they basically the same rifle?

These are just a common no frills hunting rifle to my knowledge. But I admit other then reading the different makers explanations, I know very little of their history...

 

[dodgecity]

You might find Mark Baker's article in the latest edition of Muzzleloader magazine of interest. It deals with barn guns and the armament of the common man in the 18th century.

 

[loojack]

OK, From what I've been able to find out is that a "poorboy" Is an iron mounted rifle made in the Tennessee Valley in the late 18th century to the mid-19th century. The barn gun is generally earlier, about mid-18th century, usually a large cal. smoothbore. Some were restocked trade muskets. From what I can find out the term "barn gun" comes from the gun being sent to the barn because it's old(possibly handed down for generations) and still useful but not needed in the house anymore......loojack
Please feel free to correct me!! :thumbsup:

 

[tg]

One thing to consider is that these terms are contemporary ones use to describe a type of gun from 200+ years ago and the terms may have a different list of attributes depending on who one talks to, i think one may do better to consider a "common" or "plain" gun as opposed to a "fine" or "fancy" one and even then there may be a grey area with individual examples. There are some basics that "most" guns had that lesser guns might not but as always there are exceptions, and it is difficult to come up with a diffinitive definition of most any type of gun from the past.

 

[Okwaho]

The term "poor boy"is a modern one which has developed within the past 30-40 years to describe a very small{less than 5% of those I have seen in 44 years of handling Tennessee guns}number of rifles minus butt pieces,nose caps,rear entry pipes,and with simple bent iron tricker guards.They are often somewhat crude in construction as compared with the plain but well architectured Tennessee rifles with finely forged hardware,good wood selection, high quality English locks,sometimes with banana boxes,and nice lines.Some of these higher quality guns are better than others but most are good to high quality rifles.I have even seen one or two with silver inlays and many have silver plates inlaid in the barrels for a signature and the name of the first owner.There are one or two in Accoutrements I,II,and III and a fine Jacob Gross rifle in Merril Lindsay's book,"The Kentucky Rifle".
The term "barn gun" is another bit of late terminology which was unknown until the last few years and to be honest,I don't have a clue as to what it really means.Erik Kettenberg introduced us to the "Schimmel gun" and I understand Chuck Dixon has copyrighted the term.This is a term which "apparently" refers to a late 18th or early 19th utility gun found primarily in the general southeastern Pennsylvania[url] area.Again[/url] I don't know its function or whether it falls within any recognized school of Pennsylvania gun making.It's area seems to be fairly localized.
Both the "poor boy" and the "barn" guns are in my opinion abberations and represent a very small number of old guns.I realize that a number of vendors and builders are advertising and selling "poor boy" guns and parts appealing to the desire for a "plain ole mountain rifle like Dan'l Boone or others of that ilk carried" and that's fine. As Abraham Lincoln once observed,
"People who like this sort of thing will find this sort
of thing the sort of thing they like"

That's my take on "poor boys" and "barn rifles" and while I'm at it "canoe guns,blanket guns,ranger style cut down bess carbines,Tulle carbines",and other fantasy guns should be considered in the same vein.So get in line with those fantasy guns at the ready,I haven't seen a real firing squad in years.
Tom Patton
God does love a heretic :thumbsup:

 

[Okwaho]

Re: Info needed William White rifle at Kings Mountain
Author: Okwaho
Date: 03-11-05 22:17

There was some discussion of this rifle on the long rifle forum, "americanlong[url] rifles.com[/url]" and I don't recall there being much thought of the "William White" rifle having been actually carried at Kings Mountain. There are 2 rifles shown in "The Sword of the Lord and Gideon" one of which is in the Tennessee State Museum but one is considerably later and the provenance of the other is very questionable.There is a rifle maker who I believe is reproducing the White rifle and it may be "www.palongrifles.com" but I'm not sure.I don't think there are any rifles known with unquestionable provenance of having been carried at Kings Mountain. I have seen pictures of the original "William White" rifle as well as the copy and wasn't impressed as to its age or authenticity.

This was a post of mine from another board on the William White rifle reputed to have been carried at Kings Mountain.
Tom Patton

 

[rich pierce]

This was covered very extensively about a month ago. It's a hot topic, close to religion to some. Everybody knows of evidence that there were a goodly number of plain guns made in Pennsylvania and the South after the Revolutionary War, with most surviving examples being closer to the turn of the century or in the 1800's. The "early plain rifles" are scarce as hen's teeth as Okwaho indicates. However, those who love the idea of early plain rifles being carried by the majority of frontiersmen can explain that fact away easily. Note that it is well-established that there was a big market for fully appointed rifles among the native Americans, enough so that the English exported thousands of "knock-offs" of Lancaster pattern rifles in the 1780's, 1790's, and later especially in the Great lakes area. I guess those Indians were better off than old Dan'l and Simon were.

Just to save time, and re-cover the bases quickly, here are 5 commonly stated theories as to why poor-boy-barnguns lacking a full set of furniture were (supposedly)common in early times (pre-Revolutionary days) but are rarley found now:
Theory 1) The plainer rifles were used up or thrown out, while fancier guns were kept in the family. (Note that there are plenty of butt-ugly militia muskets still around, but it's argued that's because they were so common. I guess maybe a lot MORE common than poor-boy-barn guns, eh?)

Theory 2) The old, well-used parts from plain guns were used to make later fancy guns (Hmm, if I could afford fancy, I'd want new parts!)

Theory 3)The average Joe didn't need a butt-piece or a full set of ramrod pipes or maybe even a trigger guard and if he could save a week's wage to get a cheaper gun, that's what he did. (Guess guys were different then. Nowadays lots of poor guys overspend to get the latest best-equipped stuff, even if the kids have nothing. Plus it's commonly accepted that the cost of a rifled barrel and the lock far outweighed the cost of the other parts)

Theory 4) Plain guns were ready-made up in the shops and a fella had to ask for a full set of parts from the European-trained gunsmith who had never seen a poor-boy in Germany but loved to make them now that he was in the backwoods (I can't imagine trained respected craftsmen, the best of their age, changing their ways of doing things so readily, but....)

Theory 5) Brass is shiny and so the last thing a woodsrunner wanted was any gun with brass on it (cause then he'd look like an Indian carrying a Lancaster pattern English rifle, I guess)

There you have it. I find it more satisfying to say, "I like 'em plain" than to say, "I don't have any evidence, but it just stands to reason! (that lots of men would buy a Corvette without any doors or a roof or windshield or mirrors)"

Muskets were the common man's gun, the poor man's gun. They were much cheaper than rifles, old ones were dumped on the colonists in huge quantities when "New Models" were developed by the British, etc. And they were very adaptable, so you could hunt grouse or moose, depending on how you loaded it. Rifles were several notches above.

 

Rich, can I add another theory to your fine list. The reason for the lack of Pre-revolutionary guns, would be that they were confiscated by the Brittish in the early months of the fighting, and destroyed. An unarmed citizen can easily be controlled. I'm sure this happened in larger cities, Like Boston and New York, much like it is today. IMHO, Bill

 

[rich pierce]

Bill, I knew I missed at least one theory but that was not the one I was thinking of. Still, a good #6!
Theory #7: The early poor-boys were all lost or destroyed in the War Between the States.

 

[Bob J]

Theory 8) Old rifles with missing ramrod pipes, endcaps, buttplates, etc. originally HAD at least some of these basic parts and the missing parts had come loose and were lost OR were cannabalized for other guns. Many years later someone THOUGHT that the old gun was made that way.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

But some of these plain rifles show no evidence of ever having these parts, such as butt pieces or more than one rammer ferrule or an entry pipe. The "Kings Mountain" rifle is one such example.

 

[loophole]

I can't resist jumping in here, being from Transylvania county where the Gillespie rifles were built. I don't know anything about Pennsylvania, but I can tell you that there are a fair number of Gillespies with no butplate and no entry pipe. I suspect that most of them were built or restocked after the War Between the States. The war was even harder on mountain people than on those of the deep south, because mountain people often sided with the north, and the war often was brother against brother. Mountain people continued to use muzzle loaders long after they were obsolete because that's all they could afford and the surplus muskets from the war were not much good for taking small game, which was the only thing available in many areas. The history I've studied and the family legends that were passed on to me suggest that most mountain people were far better off before the war, and they owned more and better guns. I'll bet the poor boy rifle is a product of the hard times which followed the war.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

It seems we will never decide how common the poorboy was in 1776, but perhaps a better question may be "why would anyone want one today?". The cost of a good lock, average barrel, and plain stock will set you back enough that it would seem foolish to skimp on such small parts as buttplate, triggerguard and thimbles. I expect I'd have felt about the same 250 years ago.
Remember that in those days wood was cheap as dirt. Curley maple logs were piled up and burned where they lay as farmers cleared the land. There was no cost advantage in using any but the best wood. Labor also was cheap and not much point in cutting corners. Even the Northwest gun, intended to be produced as cheaply as a serviceable gun could be made, had buttplate, triggerguard, and thimbles.
I expect it may be true that these guns were later rebuilds. :m2c:

 

[Stumpkiller]

. . . perhaps a better question may be "why would anyone want one today?"

If/when I get around to assembling a rifle from components it will have to be as plain-jane and simple as possible or it will never get done. I love carving and tasteful engraving of patchbox and thumbpiece on a rifle, but not the crude scratchings and gouges these hands could produce. If I can't have the "extras" done nicely, I'd rather go with a design that ignores tham entirely.

 

Remember that the "trade guns" were assembled in Europe, where labor was cheap and materials more accessable.

Even then the butplate was flat strap, the triger guard the same and the thimbles copper sheet.

This was the country where houses were burned to recover the nails.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I have always been under the impression that the better wood has always been more costly. And labor always adds to the price of a gun. If I were a poor man and I needed a rifle in 1770 or 1820 or whenever, I would care more that it had a good lock and barrel and trigger and stock than if it had a butt piece and entry pipe and extra ferrules or a toe piece. Labor, relatively speaking, has aways been costly. Today, if you want a riflesmith to add a patchbox to your longrifle, it can add two or three hundred dollars
to the price of your gun. Each ferrule and an entry pipe increases the investment as does adding the butt piece. Now add carving and you have a gun priced beyond many people's means--both 200 years ago-- and today. And if our poor man of 1770 came by some extra money, he could have the missing bits of hardware added at a later date. And suddenly, a "poorboy" disappears and a plain old long rifle has taken its place....

 

[roundball]

I love carving and tasteful engraving of patchbox and thumbpiece on a rifle, but not the crude scratchings and gouges these hands could produce....If I can't have the "extras" done nicely, I'd rather go with a design that ignores tham entirely.

...similar situation for me...and is why I decided to go the TC Hawken route...used ones at that.

Would I love to be shooting and hunting some beautiful Issac Haines flintlocks...of course I would.
Can I afford beautiful Issac Haines in different calibers? No.
Can I build beautiful Issac Haines in different calibers? No.

So I've gradually picked up several older TC Hawkens, refinished some stocks, got locks upgraded under warranty, sold some standard barrels and replaced with RB barrels, ending up with several different calibers of like new condition flintlocks for a tiny fraction of the cost of buying / building all of them as custom guns...lets me afford to shoot them a lot, and serves me well for deer hunting, squirrel hunting, etc.

Maybe one day the novelty of a variety of different calibers will wear off and I'll sell all these rifles for one beautiful custom rilfe in .50 or .54cal and just use that for everything
:winking:

 

[CoyoteJoe]

:bull: :bull: :bull: Believe me, nobody appreciates the value of a buck more than I. And now that I am trying to scrape by on social security I have to pinch a penny till Lincoln's eyes water!
But consider this: Track of the wolf lists the Isaac Haines rifle kit at $598.84. To omit Buttplate, triggerguard, sideplate, toeplate entry thimble and one upper thimble would save you $75.30, making it "only" $523.54 for the "poorboy".
Are you going to do it? I would not depreciate the value of my effort by skimping 12% on parts. Now if I had an old barrel and a lock and could hack out a stock of whatever local wood I could pick up and build a gun for nearly nothing that would be different, and that would be a poorboy.
I'll stand by my statement that wood of any kind was dirt cheap in colonial times. Everyone was trying to get rid of it. The 18th and 19th century U.S. was one giant hardwood forest. That is why fullstocks cost less than halfstocks well into the machine age. Because wood was cheap and the labor to work it was cheap. The iron underrib cost cash money.
Yes, labor always cost, but it didn't always cost much, especially when apprentices and indentured servants did most of the work for just room and board. And labor in England, where most Northwest guns were produced, was NOT cheaper than in America, but it was cheap on both sides of the sea. A gunsmith did not make a whole lot more money than the blacksmith, cobbler or stablehand, thus a day of their wages could buy a day of his, or nearly so. And he would sell his time on credit.
Still, a rifle was a major purchase, rather like a car today, and all the more reason that, one may try to keep cost down, but some corners are not worth cutting, they degrade the piece more than the price.
Let's take another example. By the 1830's most rifles sold in the western fur trade were produced in factories such as J.J.Henry's with as many cost cutting measures as could be employed without sacrificing utility. With all hardware, including patchbox and wristplate, ball mold, wiper, and cloth case they sold for $10.00 to $13.00. How much could you have saved by leaving off the buttplate?
Somehow we have included any rifle without relief carving as being a "Poorboy". That is streching it quite a bit. The above mentioned $600.00 kit doesn't include a patchbox and of course not any carving but is still a fine rifle without those "frills". Now omit the $75.00 worth of brass and it's not anything to be proud of, especially as the unprotected butt begins chipping away, the lock loosens due to screw heads imbedding into the bare wood, ect. Those parts were NOT frills, they were standard on every rifle because they were well worth the small additional cost.
Not to say there weren't any. some were turned out by local blacksmiths or by the owner himself, but in a time where most people had few possessions and a rifle was a necessity I think most would also want it to reflect some pride, maybe not fancy, but nice.
PS, simple incised carving is not so difficult and is just as PC as relief carving. :imo: