Poorboy style Flintlock

OOPS! P.S. A final comment: quite a few of the rifles pictured in the various books are not as they were originally. It was common for dealers and collectors to "upgrade" plain guns by adding patchboxes and carving, etc. to attempt to increase collector value and interest...the insiders know this fact. Some very famous examples copied by modern makers are basically 'fakes' with so much added as to hide the original gun!

 

[tg]

". However the prevalence of one or the other would be more historically accurate." I think you are getting more into commonality, something can be PC/HC but common or uncommon that is the point where many make the distinction.

 

[Twisted_1in66]

The records I have seen indicate that a "fine" rifle costs at least 50% more than a plain rifle. The old records clearly indicate at least two grades of rifles and the 'fine' ones are numerically fewer in purchase lists. Remember that the average joe in the mid 1700s made only a few cents a day, if that. A fine rifle may have been as much as a years cash income for many people. So, I am being told that they would opt for a half years wages upgrade on their hunting rifle? I think not. The Squires and the occasional hunter with extra cash and no family, maybe.

FYI regarding wages during the revolutionary war: Vermont paid her Green Mountain Rangers 1 pound per month (our unit's historian has dopies of the payroll and the pension records). A penny was a fairly valuable piece of currency at the time.

 

[Twisted_1in66]

**SNIP**(our unit's historian has dopies of the payroll and the pension records)[/quote]

Obviously that was supposed to be "copies" of the payroll and pension records...I guess I should start using the spell checker
:crackup:

 

[Stumpkiller]

True, but a hunter could bring in "12 bucks" in meat and hide in one season and pay for that rifle, making it a very worthwhile investment. No coincedence that the term "buck" came about. And you wanted something accurate enough to take the head shot, so your hides fetched a premium (though I do not recommend headshots, I'm not a professional hunter and don't care if I put a hole in the body).

I never heard the distinction that a plain rifle went for half. A musket went for about $7.50 when a rifle was going for $12 in 1780. The metal in the barrel is where the money was. The pretty stuff served as advertisement before billboards and TV for the smiths. No self-respecting smith would sell an ugly gun. People were probably more appearance conscious then than we are now. Look at the heavy clothes worn even in the summer! These folks were insanely appearance conscious. "Poor boy" was an insult, not a term of endearment. If it could be avoided it was. My widowed sister-in-law scratched together enough to raise four kids on her own. What is THE FIRST THING her youngest buys when he gets his first 40 hr. paycheck? Nice clothes. You just get sick of looking poor. And it was a smart buy. Appearance is what gets you better jobs, better treatment, better friends. Works for birds, works for humans. That's show biz, kids, and all the world's a stage.

Craftsmen of the day worked in wood, metal, glass or clay. The latter two aren't much good for guns. So, you want a cheap gun you find some parts and go to the local cabinet maker or the furniture maker, or the gunsmith might have his apprentice or indentured boy work at it on the cheap. But when your life depended on it every day you would not want the cheap stuff.

 

well, we're beating this to death. (1)A plain gun isn't necessarily an ugly gun, and adding a bunch of brass and carvings to an ugly gun does not make it pretty. (2) the lists I have seen usually just say "rifle" and only occasionally say "fine rifle". When the fine rifles are listed they usually cost 11-12(units of currency) as opposed the the "rifles" which cost 6-7. The currency may change, but the ratio seems the same. I don't know for how long a period this is true offhand, I'd have to go back to my sources, which are scattered. A fine rifle seemed to have cost about a years pay for most folks--or a years worth of trapping and hunting. The surviving examples and our own mythologies have led us to think of the carved, inlaid rifle as the norm. Those that want to cling to that notion: have fun with it. I too love these beautiful works of art and have made some myself. Nothing wrong with admiring and collecting and using the fancy guns. "History" is usually as much a set of beliefs as facts. Believe what you want.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Exactly. These plain rifles would have been a gunsmith's bread and butter. I don't see a smith refusing to make a gun because the new owner couldn't afford a fancy one. Even old flintlocks were converted to percussion to save some expense. And it isn't improbable that after a couple of years, a poor owner might take one of these basic guns back to the smith to have a butt piece fitted to prevent chipping
or add on another ferrule for the ramrod.

 

[riverrat43]

I hate to think that 300 years from now folks will be wondering the same thing about the guns we use now. Guess, I'll use my patchbox after all. In it I'll put:
2 flints wrapped in leather
2 Patches
2 pre measured powder charges
A note explaining who made the rifle,when, why, cost, what the rifling is, what kind of powder that is, what type flints, the fact that the inlays etc. on the rifle have no special meaning, my annual salary, and an explanation that my friend has a rifle like this but with no patchbox, no butt plate, no toe plate and no thimbles. He's not poor, he just wanted it that way. LOL

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Good luck explaining all those stainless steel, plastic stocked in-lines. Sad to say, but 300 years from now they, too, will no doubt be cherished antiques and family heirlooms. Yikes!

 

[loojack]

Guys, go to TOTW's website, under flintlock rifles is a great copy of the Neumann rifle! It has the square breech and all! Follows the print, except it has a butt plate....loojack