Re: Correct 1760's rifle?

[JerryToth]

Hi Stumpkiller, tg, and Zonie;

First and foremost, I want to thank you fellows for the thought and research you have put into the replies that you've given me. I really appreciate it. I'm learning a lot.

What I think I'm coming up with follows:

1. I have to get my step-daughter to borrow a copy of Rifles of Colonial America, Vols 1 and 2, by George Schumway. She's a student at the Univ of Pittsburgh, and they should have them.

2. I'm aiming at 1765 through 1770. In 1765, Beck was 14 years old. In 1765, Dickert was 25 years old. Beck seems to be out by his age.

3. It seems like Dickert may have been making rifles in 1765, but we don't know what they would have been. If I'm understanding correctly, Dickert's that exist were out of the 1770's. Correct me here if I'm misunderstanding!

4. There seems to be three arguably correct 1765 directions that I've found, and probably some others. An Early Virginia such as Chamber's Mark Silver's rifle, an Edward Marshall such as Track of the Wolf's offering, and perhaps Pecatonica's Transitional.

Again, I do want a rifle, not a smoothbore. I want a 54 as I want it to double as a hunting rifle.

If any of you see any advantages/disadvantages between these three choices, or perhaps even better choices, please enlighten me!

Thanks again fellows, and please set me straight if I'm misunderstanding anything in making this summarization of what I've learned so far.

Jerry.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Are you going to try and emulate a specific personna? If you want to stick to your region of PA the Virginia style might be out, though it's not much different from some 'transitionals' I have seen offerred. Next consideration might be engraving and carving. Dickert, to my knowledge, didn't produce easily duplicated rifles. They were very well embellished. If you want a rifle that would be 'easier' to pull off the Edward Marshall, a Christian's Spring product (possibly by Albrecht), might be the way to go.

According to Jim Chambers: "The rifle is very pleasant to shoot and very handy as a hunting gun. I personally hunt with the rifle pictured here." Not a bad endorsement.

I'm going to have to plead at our local library. I've never seen RCA - just copies of selected pages. Have to hint to my wife that it would make a lovely Christmas gift. ::

Oh, by the way . . . The Jim Chambers above, and the Bill Rooks from the earlier c.1760 post are both reproductions of the same original (Edward Marshall's rifle).

I'd love to see the original, as these have somewhat different lines (as you can see).

 

[tg]

As you read throuth the books you will get a much clearer picture, there is no real firm date on the Marshall gun it is a restock and some think it could have been made in the early 1770's we just do not know, Oerter started his apprentceship in 1759 and took over the shop in 1766 so he was a quick study but it mould be a stretch to have a 1760 gun by him...maybe 1765, Even the early so called souhtern guns are dated by speculation and characteristics, there is a dated 1761 gun by Shreit from Reading in RCA it shows the general traits of the early guns and the author mentions many things to look for in early guns but some builders did not change style with the times as much as others, you are on the right track, the Marshall gun or Mark Silver are pretty much accepted as pre 1765, it would be nice if someone offered a kit for the one dated gun from that period. Good luck and I think you will find the research as rewarding as the building/buying of the gun itself.

 

[Randy]

I'm a little confused. The only Mark Silver I've heard of builds guns in Michigan, and is still very much alive. Was there an earlier gunsmith by that name too?

 

[tg]

Chambers offers what they call the Mark Silver Early Virginia it is not in reference to an 18th century builder but a contemporary one.