Rifles of the frontier militia?

[kswan]

Hello.

Ive just finished the book The Frontiersman and am now half way through The Dark and Bloody River. Fantastic reads. Im looking for some advice on building another rifle that would best represent what would have been carried by the militia at this time. Last winter I built a Tennessee rifle but I think that would be in a latter period perhaps.

Thanks.

 

[SgtErv]

Howdy,

I've studied the frontier militia of western Virginia and Pennsylvania for a while, really starting back in 2008 when I did a thesis. Recently really delved back into it deep for something I'm writing as well as my militiaman impression for historical interpretation at Prickett's Fort here in WV.

That being said, it's amazing what details I haven't found, detailed descriptions of rifles used being one. The lions share of things mentioning rifles concerns what these men did with them rather than what said rifles features were.

Joseph Doddridge's Notes on the Settlement and Indian Wars of Western Parts of Virginia and Pennsylvania mentions some tidbits like how they preferred decent sized calibers and shooting from rests. In random Draper Manuscript entries you see mentions of patch boxes getting hit with enemy bullets, etc.

There are many books devoted specifically to frontier weapons, like by George Shumway. (Some fellas on the forum are well versed with his work).

The rule of thumb is the earlier the better. Say you're thinking 1778. That rules out Federal period guns and some of the later Golden Age rifles like Lehigh Valley. You're safe with early Lancasters or Jaeger rifles though. Isaac Haines, Dickert, Christian Springs, JP Beck, all pretty much cream of the crop for the time.

Truth be told - they'd have used whatever firelock they could have obtained. They'd have preferred a nice Pennsylvania rifle but might make do with a fowler from the 1750s.

Lots of veritable experts on this forum can tell you better than me. Good luck! Glad to see another history enthusiast!

 

[kswan]

Thanks very much for your input.Great to have a historian who has studied this topic send me in the right direction. I think, with that an early Lancaster in a larger caliber will be the way to go for my next build.

 

[SgtErv]

Absolutely! We love talking history here :grin:

This post here is a really great wealth of info wherein several experts of the forum weighed in

1770s flintlock rifle

 

[nchawkeye]

The gunsmiths that set up shop in the frontier of Carolina were much like those in the Pennsylvania area at the time...The Moravians bought almost 100,000 acres before the Revolution and were making guns before it broke out...Look into Christian Springs rifles and you are looking at the same style stock as would have come out of the Piedmont of NC and carried over the mountains..

 

[steve free]

Those are great books, that had a big impact on me getting into this hobby. I agree with SgtErv. Go early and you won't go wrong. :thumbsup:

 

[kswan]

A very informative post. Thanks

 

[kswan]

Im a bit limited in what I can get as Im left handed and seems some companies dont ship to Canada anymore.

 

[Onojutta]

Not sure if you are concerned with a particular decade of frontier history, but I have read a lot about the Indian attacks throughout central PA in the mid 1750s. I have often come across terms such as "rifle gun" when reading historical accounts and writings. This is earlier than we might expect rifles to be prevalent on the frontier, especially the Lancaster school. They could have been early Jeagers, but as these Delaware and Shawnee Indians were operating out of the Kittaning area and were being supplied by the French along the Ohio, does that align with the availability of jeagers or other early rifles?

I suspect those Indians were armed with french trade muskets for the most part. Sure any gun could wind up in the hands of anyone through any number of imaginable interactions, but when I come across these uses of the word "rifle" in those contexts, I often think that term may have been used generically as a synonym "gun" or "musket". I don't know if there is anything to my theory or not, but if it is true I find it interesting that even that early on, the term "rifle" would have been common enough to be used even generically.

 

[SgtErv]

You may be on to something there. It's really hard to tell.

In my research I found the Continental Congress resolved in April of 1777 to send 1000 "rifles" to Fort Pitt. As far as I know, nothing came of the resolution. I really don't know if they intended them to be rifles or muskets. They were to be used by area militia.

Col. William Crawford, at the same time, also told Congress that he was in desperate need of arms, as 2/3 of his battalion recruited there at Pitt lacked guns of any kind. (Which muddies the waters of the notion that every frontiersman was well armed).

At the same time, they usually make special remark that certain companies of regulars or militia were armed with rifles. It is really hard to tell sometimes.

 

[tenngun]

All of our little cubbyholes to put rifles in are just artifacts of collectors today. Back in the day they wrote 'rifle or rifle gun' or some such term. The idea of a late Virginian or early southern was unknown to them. Today we can look at style of guns that survived and draw conclusions if general guns in an area at a time.
The frontier was fluid. A Virginia militia man could well have moved there in the last few years from New York or South Carolina. He could have been born to a family two or three generations frontiers men, or not been in the colonies for long.
We know that Indians were restocking and repairing guns, such a thing was well with in the skill of a borderland gunsmith or carpenter or even black smith. Mixed parts and styles is not out of the question.
A fourty year old gun isn't out of the question. An while we would want a rifle reflective of the time and place, Virginia stock shape with Pennsylvania parts on a plane cherry or even beech or ash isn't out of the question.

 

[satx78247]

One of my ancestors, ENOS HENRY PARKER (1748-1804), was an "over the mountains" militiaman at King's Mountain & was wounded in the left hand during the battle.
His rifle (according to a diary entry, when his grandson "took it to war" in 1861) was a "plain, long-barreled Southron rifle of about 50 gauge", i.e., about .40 caliber.

I suspect (at least for a Southern) militiaman of the AWI-era, any plain, relatively small-bore, flinter (that looks like it could have been built by a local gunsmith) would be appropriate to the period. = MOST frontiersmen were POOR & couldn't have afforded a fancy rifle had they wanted one.
(Our "plain country folks" family at that time were "better off" than many a frontier family, inasmuch as if you raise swine & make "white likker" you are unlikely to "go to bed hungry".)

just my OPINION, satx

 

[satx78247]

100% TRUE.
(A lot of "country rifles & smoothbores" can be fairly called "assemblages" rather than "originals", as hardly anything usable was "trashed" on the frontier; instead, it was "recycled" into something else useful.)

Note: The "locally famous" & "converted from flintlock" rifle of Harriet Anne (Ames) Parker, the "most beautiful woman in Texas", healer, "noted huntress", reputed "witch" & "our very own northeast Texas wildcat" was made from at least FIVE broken firearms by a blacksmith in Nacogdoches, TX in the 1830s.

yours, satx

 

[54ball]

Think about this for a moment.
What was the economic base of the Western Frontier in this period?
The deerskin trade,so much so a buck still means a dollar.
Who were the master of the the deerskin trade?
Indians
Who's economic wealth, culture and very way of life depended on this trade and the firearms that provided it?
Indians
What weapons or arms development just so happens to coincide with the height of this trade?
The rifle.
What arms or weapons extends range and is more efficient?
The rifle
What does Jaeger mean?
Deer
Who did the Virginia/Pennsylvania riflemen base their dress and tactics from?
Indians
Who do you think all these rifles from all these gunmakers went to?
Some to hunters (longhunters) some to settlers but I think a large portion went to the Indian trade.
During the Revolution when the British were producing rifles to trade who demanded Pennsylvania features on these trade rifle?
Indians
Who copied some of these British improvements to these trade rifles?
American rifle makers.

I know at times laws were passed to prevent the sale of rifles to the Indians but who were the laws protecting?
The settlements or Royal commissioned traders?
Guess what was found in 1770s Cherokee graves in North Alabama in the 1950s?

Two fine Pennsylvania longrifles.

A rifle in this period was a working mans arm. A middling class tool whether owned by Indian or white. Was it highly desired? Yes.

You know a back hoe is expensive. Is a back hoe a vehicle of the rich? Maybe so but most back hoe owner operators are not what I would consider rich...it's a middling class tool.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

What weapons or arms development just so happens to coincide with the height of this trade?
The rifle.
What arms or weapons extends range and is more efficient?
The rifle
What does Jaeger mean?
Deer
Who did the Virginia/Pennsylvania riflemen base their dress and tactics from?
Indians
Who do you think all these rifles from all these gunmakers went to?

Um...., rather too general and full of suppositions I'd have to say, imho.

The rifle was long established in Germany, with long barrels, prior to America. The so called transitional styles of North America are Germanic hunting rifles being modified for the hunting conditions in North America, by applying techniques already known in Germany. And Jaeger in German means hunter, not "deer". :wink:

George Morgan in Kaskaskia was ordering rifles from Philadelphia in 1768. They cost between £6 and £7.10, and hunters were paid from £3 to £7 pounds per month. The most expensive fusils cost about £2. Plus, Morgan's customers for rifles were white men.

One forgets that the folks trading to the Indians, first had to lay out the cash for the guns, then transport them, then sell them. Not to mention the folks trading with the Indians knew the advantage of rifles vs. fusils, and understood not selling them state of the art weapons. :wink: So you will find that fusils were cheaper and more often traded with the Indians than rifled guns.

Further you can look to the French in Canada (the French were not oblivious to rifling at the time), where the fusil was the much preferred weapon of both white Coeur-du-Bois and Indians, as well as the British colonies in New England (who could have ordered rifles from Philadelphia as well as Morgan could), or in the following century, the Hudson Bay Company trading trade-guns in the Western part of Canada, rather than rifles.

Rifle production in the British colonies was rather restricted leading up to the AWI considering the geography where they were produced. The reason Congress raised rifle companies in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia alone was not one of omission of other "rifle" areas.

In answering the OP, a simple, well made rifle, in at least .50 caliber (though .54 is thought to have been more popular leading up to the AWI...from what we know right now) would be your best bet. Brass was more popular for the external hardware for most of the rifle builders as well, prior to the AWI. I'd suggest a swamped barrel, but it doesn't have to be so. They really didn't make many left-handed rifles..., but this is a pretty big investment so get what you will shoot well. Folks will overlook the left-handedness, or sinister [another term for a lefty] rifle and it's owner, these days.

LD

 

[Onojutta]

Indians no doubt had the means to acquire firearms, whether by purchase, trade, or plunder. But the OP asked about militia men. In my previous post about the mid 1750s, my point wasn't that the Indians had rifles, my point was that the term "rifle" was being used on the frontier during a time frame that generally precedes what we think of as the rifle's prevalence.

But on that point, consider this about the Indians. The accounts I have referred to using the term "rifle" were written by scotch-irish settlers, not by Indians. It was the written accounts of these english speaking settlers that referred to rifles. So, whether or not the Indians had or used rifles is one thing, but the use of the term "rifle" by the settlers suggests that this was a term familiar to them, maybe from their own firsthand experience with them. Or perhaps 250 years ago the term rifle had a different meaning. I don't know the etymology of the word, but maybe it was more generic back them and came to mean exclusively a barrel with twist in later times. So let's say for the sake of argument that the Indians only used used muskets provided to them by the French, but the settlers referred to these guns (and their own sometimes) as "rifles" or "rifle guns". Would this commonness of the term mean there might have been more rifles on the frontier earlier than we think today, or is this simply the result of an 18th century vernacular? I have no idea, just a couple of theories that are fun to ponder on when I'm sitting in an airport terminal.

So back to the OP. I still don't think you've specified a specific time period for "the frontier". If it is the mid to late 18th century you are interested in, have you considered a smoothbore? Nowadays there is a lot of allure to the Pennsylvania or "Kentucky" rifle. It has become an icon of our colonial heritage. However, from the research I have done, I have come to believe that smoothbore guns (i.e. musket/fusil/fowler) were much more prevalent on the frontier in those days. First of all they had been around long enough that there would have been ample supply, they were probably much more affordable, and they were arguably more versatile on the frontier, doing triple duty as a weapon, big game "rifle", and small game shotgun.

I recently built my first rifle which is an early Lancaster inspired by my fascination with mid-18th century history in and around the area where I'm from. I chose a rifle because at the time that seemed to me to be the quintessential colonial firearm, probably due to my exposure to all the allure over the years (ok, and because I am an avid deer hunter). But the more I have learned, I think a smoothbore would have been more representative of a "generic gun carried on the frontier" and that is what my next build will be. So anyway, just something to consider.

 

[Artificer]

OK, one thing is important about period quotes is we should not put a modern twist on them. People today often use the term "Rifle" when they are talking about muskets OR use the term "Musket" when talking about Rifles.

In the period and when they wrote, "Riffle," or "Riffled Gun" or "Rifle Gun" or "Rifled Gun," etc. they almost always meant a gun with a rifled barrel. However, there were some of what we today call "Smooth Rifles," which were built like a rifle and had both front and rear sights, but the barrel was a smooth bore. Some times that comes out in the description and sometimes it does not. However, I may be going WAY out on a limb, but I don't think these Smooth Rifles were very common compared to true Rifled Bore Guns.

Also, the earliest documentation I know of about a large quantity of Rifles came from New York Governor Thomas Dongan in a letter he wrote to the Governor of Pennsylvania. I think this was in the late winter/spring of 1688. He mentioned that out of the approximate 5,500 Militia Men gathered the summer before, about 10 percent had rifled guns. That means a total of around 500 to 550 Rifled Guns and that is a HUGE number of rifles for that early in the period. However, Dongan did not describe the rifles; so we don't know if he meant Snaphaunces, Dog Locks or true flint locks.

I had this documentation on my old computer before it crashed, but have not been able to find it again since I got this replacement computer.

Gus

 

[jbwilliams3]

You may be on to something there. It's really hard to tell.

In my research I found the Continental Congress resolved in April of 1777 to send 1000 "rifles" to Fort Pitt. As far as I know, nothing came of the resolution. I really don't know if they intended them to be rifles or muskets. They were to be used by area militia.

Col. William Crawford, at the same time, also told Congress that he was in desperate need of arms, as 2/3 of his battalion recruited there at Pitt lacked guns of any kind. (Which muddies the waters of the notion that every frontiersman was well armed).

At the same time, they usually make special remark that certain companies of regulars or militia were armed with rifles. It is really hard to tell sometimes.

I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of instances where “rifle”, “rifle gun”, “rifle gunne”, etc. show up in an 18th century context they are specifically referring to rifled arms. There is too much variation of terms, fowling piece, musket, musketoon, fuzee, carbine, rifle gun, trade gun, etc., etc., and no real evidence that I can tell that anyone was loose with the term rifle in the second half of the 18th century like some of us are today. The rifle, being a very specific (and more expensive arm) wasn’t even widespread enough to become a generic term in the vernacular. I just don’t see it. Since the mid-19th century or so, “gun” has become ubiquitous with any type of firearm regardless of the condition of the bore. By the mid-19th century, even rifled cannons and muskets are being called guns, but that is because at that point a firearm on the battlefield is more likely to be rifled and therefore the need to specify was no longer necessary.

The frontier rifle culture was alive and well by the 1760’s though it’s difficult to nail down specific idiosyncrasies in regional rifle features in areas south of PA before the AWI (though Wallace Gusler has done a great job on VA rifles- if he will ever finish his book!!!) This article from Gussler includes some great early VA guns which can give you an idea of some characteristics that gunsmiths south of PA might have been working with prior to the revolution. I don't know much about the even more rare N.C./S.C. and Georgia-made rifles. Though there is evidence that many rifle-armed folks south of PA were carrying PA-made rifles. The one instance that comes to mind is the veteran penchant claim from King's mountain that mentioned that they all were carrying Dickert rifles (I think they used a variant spelling like "Deckert") so it appears that at least some frontier militia carried rifles made outside their own regions. Then there are the many rifles which were made specifically for the North American trade by companies such as Wilson in London. They were sending rifles to the Indian market by at least the late 50's. I imagine at least some white frontier folks possessed trade rifles. There may even be evidence to back that up. They were definitely cheaper.

 

[kswan]

This is all very fascinating. Im looking specifically around the AWI and just after.

 

[jbwilliams3]

Oh, and BTW, if you take a look at he article I linked above, the very first rifle pictured is one that has become known as the "Faber Rifle" or the "Johannes Faber Rifle" which is the name engraved on the side plate. One of the (fantastic, top-of-the-line) kits that Jim Chambers sells is based off that very rifle. It's called the Mark Silver - Virginia Rifle. Gunmaker Mark Silver made the template for the kit. Any competent maker can turn that kit into a great gun.