Smooth rifles, were they made as new guns?

[rich pierce]

From a previous thread "Use of shot not permitted"

"Note that he says a smooth bored gun was a rarity, this was in the 1839-to-1842-time frame in your neck of the woods Arkansas.

This persistent opinion is wishful thinking of those who prefer smooth bores not supportable by documentation.

In the course of the day, we had seen a man pass by with a smooth-bored gun, and as such a thing was a rarity in the backwoods, the conversation turned on this circumstance.

Gerstäcker, Friedrich. Wild Sports in the Far West (p. 212). Good Press. Kindle Edition.

Here is primary documentation that a smooth bored gun was a "rarity"

Everyone of you guys that say smooth bore guns were more common always come up with theories as to why it was so (insert your reason based on 20th century thinking) but I have yet to see any documentation to bolster your argument.

Just because you wish it was so does not make it so.

One place, one time, one set of folks, one writer.

 

[French Colonial]

One place, one time, one set of folks, one writer.

Several places over several states over several years meeting lots of people, and one writer

And while we're at it, military guns while plentiful were not privately owned and were expected to be returned at the end of a conflict.

 

[Jedidiah]

Several places over several states over several years meeting lots of people, and one writer

And while we're at it, military guns while plentiful were not privately owned and were expected to be returned at the end of a conflict.

LOL, expected to be returned? I wonder how that worked out.

 

[rich pierce]

Several places over several states over several years meeting lots of people, and one writer

And while we're at it, military guns while plentiful were not privately owned and were expected to be returned at the end of a conflict.

If we want to ignore all evidence including period advertisings in newspapers and gunsmith records, that specifically mention smooth rifles, as well as the many extant examples, and have a story tip the scales, well, I have different standards. But, it’s just a hobby, and not a big deal. I just don’t like people misinformed.

 

[smoothshooter]

This may be a stupid question… but a shot-out rifle barrel would be a smoothbore. (?) wouldn’t some rifling be better than none or would it make such a difference that it’d need to be bored smooth? Considering the cost issues discussed, I’d think switching to a different ball/patch would get you to 50 yards.

I’ve never shot one anything that many times. Maybe a .22 or a shotgun, but I usually end up buying something new for fun before I get that far.

Pitting from poor cleaning is probably what ruined rifled bores. A lot of cleaning was done with tow in the flint era. Tow leaves a lot to be desired as a cleaning material. Scours out most fouling decently, but is poor for drying water out of the bore.
It was also common practice to load a fouled bore and not fire it again for days and months at a time to avoid wasting powder and shot/bullets.
Remember, human nature does not change, and people who should know better do not and did not always take care of guns and tools, even knowing their survival could be in jeopardy with poorly maintained equipment.

 

[smoothshooter]

I've never heard anyone address the fact that maybe some gun builders really only built one style of gun. I have never dug into this too deep but I wonder how much truth could be in it. Today's contemporary builders are adept at creating guns from many different schools. That wasn't the case in the 18th and 19th centuries. A gun maker in Reading was taught and used to shaping a rifle stock with a Roman nose profile. Slightly different technique than shaping a Lancaster style gun. So how many gun makers really only knew how to shape one style of stock? And remember they had apprentices working for them possibly doing the rough work. So possibly the guns looked the same other than if they were rifled or not. This is more of a question than stating facts. Have never heard this theory but have pondered it. How many of the well known makers have existing examples of an obvious fowling piece compared to the rifles they were known for? Has anyone ever seen a fowling piece that came out of areas like Lehigh Valley? Or just smooth rifles?
James

I don’t think most gunsmiths were strictly wedded to only one style of rifle.
He may have a preferred style of architecture that preferred working with, but a decent stock carver should have been able to make anything the customer wanted, within reason.
If a gunsmith had previously worked or trained in PA, and later moved to NC, he might continue to make some. Lancaster styled guns, and southern mountain style or VA type ones if requested, if he wanted to stay in business.
Or a conglomeration of styles incorporated into a single gun.

 

[JamesT]

I don’t think most gunsmiths were strictly wedded to only one style of rifle.
He may have a preferred style of architecture that preferred working with, but a decent stock carver should have been able to make anything the customer wanted, within reason.
If a gunsmith had previously worked or trained in PA, and later moved to NC, he might continue to make some. Lancaster styled guns, and southern mountain style or VA type ones if requested, if he wanted to stay in business.
Or a conglomeration of styles incorporated into a single gun.

They were absolutely wedded to one style because that is what they had apprenticed to and knew. A gunmaker in Womelsdorf did not make York Co. style rifles. You can't look at this thru 21st century eyes. However, I can look up a Lancaster trained smithy that moved into Tennessee and started making East TN style rifles. That was his customer base. I don't recall his name but quite known. Generally men trained on and built what they knew as a rifle. It was not gunsmiths making rifles of different styles. If that was the case we wouldn't have the distinct schools we have today

 

[DuncNZ]

A smooth bore is not always a smooth rifle , but a smooth rifle is always a smooth bore

Ps read page 197 onwards in Tom Grinslade's book on Flintlock fowlers , he talks about the Kentucky Fowler . If some one had a picture of one of these firearms and put it on this Forum with a " Guess what this is " most would say it was a rifle .
Look at Jim Chambers catalogue to see his description , Jim Chambers Flintlocks and Jim Chambers Flintlocks

 

[smoothshooter]

One place, one time, one set of folks, one writer.

. . . who may not have spent much time in America.
There is no way that observer, or anyone else, for that matter, could have always known whether or not any long gun ( with the obvious example of military muskets ) within his line of sight was rifled or not.
I have a .54 smooth rifle, and I would defy anyone to identify it as being a smoothbore even at a distance of 3 feet with a good view of the bore.
His idea of a smoothbore may have been a gun configured as a fowling piece or Northwest trade gun with the oversized trigger guard and 24 gauge and larger bore.

 

[JamesT]

. . . who may not have spent much time in America.
There is no way that observer, or anyone else, for that matter, could have always known whether or not any long gun ( with the obvious example of military muskets ) within his line of sight was rifled or not.
I have a .54 smooth rifle, and I would defy anyone to identify it as being a smoothbore even at a distance of 3 feet with a good view of the bore.
His idea of a smoothbore may have been a gun configured as a fowling piece or Northwest trade gun with the oversized trigger guard and .54 caliber and larger bore.

Huh what?

 

[French Colonial]

We have a guy who traveled for several years through several states and lived by hunting exclusively, he met many people and while he slept many more times outdoors (even in winter) than indoors he did stay with friends in different places for the night etc. and met and interacted with a lot of people.

A smooth-bore was enough of a rarity that he and his friends discussed just what a rarity it was.

I am open to changing my mind as soon as someone provides some firsthand, or even well researched documentation from firsthand sources that says smooth-bores were preferred.

I have read research into the Draper manuscripts, the Kaskaskia manuscripts and firsthand documents such as Penicault's diary etc. etc. and see nothing that says hunters of the period preferred smooth-bores....NOTHING.

READ THE BOOK (its free) and THEN refute what he said with some DOCUMENTATION from reliable sources.

 

[flintlock lover.]

More barrels were rotted out than shot out. The 30 year old gun was given to the 12 year old boy. He abused it for a while and eventually traded it to another kid for a knife. Or it got traded to a greenhorn. I’ve seen barrels so pitted you could hide a crawdad in some of the pits. So the idea that they got shot till smooth is a non-starter.
When a rifle got worn out and was converted to smoothbore, this is what happened. B1 below.
1) Rifle bore gets worn and rusty and pitted.
A) It gets freshed out and remains a rifle.
B) It gets worse till nobody can load and shoot it.
1. Somebody wants it restored to shooting condition on the cheap. Gunsmith drills and reams it. What was a rifle has become a smoothbore.
2. It gets junked or becomes a wall-hanger “ used by my ancestor at Bunker Hill”.

I'd have to agree with most of this above.
I've bought several original 1760's to 1840's guns over the last 45 years and many have been shortened, & recrowned.
I have always believed that that would have been the fix for the ones I bought that had their muzzle worn out of round. That condition appears to have been the result of cleaning and loading over years with the lube as well as the ramrod having a fair amount of soil attached to it. When you're bathing maybe once a month or less I would expect that how much dirt is on anything else becomes a bit less noticable.
When it comes to needing the complete bore remade because it was damaged beyond repair it would have to be bored out then burnished smooth before it could be rifled. The cost of boring and burnishing being less than half of the total doing the same and then cutting the rifling grooves.
Right now I'm waiting for a barrel that is being bored and cut rifled from.32 out to.40.
It was tempting to just have it converted to a .45 smooth rifle for around $225 instead of a .40 rifled bore at closer to $500.
If I were living or hunting in the forests of frontier New England where most of my shots were under 100 yards, ever for self defense, I would balk at paying the extra money for a rifled bore.
What records we can find prior to 1790 seem to indicate that smooth bore guns were pretty common as least in the Southern colonial regions.
I think we might also consider the origins of the gunsmiths of each area. An English or French origin trained gunsmith in the colonies of 1740 - 1790 might be more prone to offering a smooth bore gun unless rifling were requested, as to a gunsmith of German background might well have done just the opposite.

 

[smoothshooter]

They were absolutely wedded to one style because that is what they had apprenticed to and knew. A gunmaker in Womelsdorf did not make York Co. style rifles. You can't look at this thru 21st century eyes. However, I can look up a Lancaster trained smithy that moved into Tennessee and started making East TN style rifles. That was his customer base. I don't recall his name but quite known. Generally men trained on and built what they knew as a rifle. It was not gunsmiths making rifles of different styles. If that was the case we wouldn't have the distinct schools we have today

Why would a gun maker only make one type of gun?
Give them credit for being more resourceful than that!
All gunsmiths would have seen virtually every style available before, during, and after learning the trade.
Most would not have been close-minded against other styles.
And what about repair work? If a customer brought in a rifle or fowler made in Tennessee to a Lancaster County gunmaker for replacement stock or broken furniture would the gunsmith have said “ Sorry, I can’t help you. I can only do Lancaster County guns”.
Really???
I am not saying gun makers did not have their preferred styles. But after a little experience a good stock maker would have been able to make almost anything.
A good friend of mine has been a part-time gunsmith and gunstock maker for many years.
He prefers the styles of Remington and Winchester factory stocks, and various custom makers, but he can make copies of European classic Mauser sporters just as easily. His work is excellent.
A lot of the old timers were just as good, and would not have turned down the work. Especially if they had a land payment due, or were needing money for a new horse or tools.

 

[smoothshooter]

We have a guy who traveled for several years through several states and lived by hunting exclusively, he met many people and while he slept many more times outdoors (even in winter) than indoors he did stay with friends in different places for the night etc. and met and interacted with a lot of people.

A smooth-bore was enough of a rarity that he and his friends discussed just what a rarity it was.

I am open to changing my mind as soon as someone provides some firsthand, or even well researched documentation from firsthand sources that says smooth-bores were preferred.

I have read research into the Draper manuscripts, the Kaskaskia manuscripts and firsthand documents such as Penicault's diary etc. etc. and see nothing that says hunters of the period preferred smooth-bores....NOTHING.

READ THE BOOK (its free) and THEN refute what he said with some DOCUMENTATION from reliable sources.

A gun owner’s preferences likely changed somewhat over the years.
He may have started out using some kind of smoothbore because it cost less.
A few months or years later, wanted to try a rifle like a friend of his had, and to be able to make longer shots.
Years later, when arthritis and failing eyesight made hunting less of a priority, and the bore of his rifle was getting hopelessly pitted, he took it to the gunsmith and had it bored out smooth.
Saved money on the barrel work, and gun was still accurate enough to hit foxes, stray dogs, skunks, and raccoons skulking around the chicken house where shots were never over 30 yards.
Still worked good enough to shoot a domestic hog in the brain at 10 feet at butchering time too.

 

[ronaldrothb49]

Why would a gun maker only make one type of gun?
Give them credit for being more resourceful than that!
All gunsmiths would have seen virtually every style available before, during, and after learning the trade.
Most would not have been close-minded against other styles.
And what about repair work? If a customer brought in a rifle or fowler made in Tennessee to a Lancaster County gunmaker for replacement stock or broken furniture would the gunsmith have said “ Sorry, I can’t help you. I can only do Lancaster County guns”.
Really???
I am not saying gun makers did not have their preferred styles. But after a little experience a good stock maker would have been able to make almost anything.
A good friend of mine has been a part-time gunsmith and gunstock maker for many years.
He prefers the styles of Remington and Winchester factory stocks, and various custom makers, but he can make copies of European classic Mauser sporters just as easily. His work is excellent.
A lot of the old timers were just as good, and would not have turned down the work. Especially if they had a land payment due, or were needing money for a new horse or tools.

In thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in the Golden Age Kindig lists from Leonard Reedy's journals that he restoked an average of 2 rifles a year. Kindig also goes on to point out there are old originals where the stock clearly shows one school but the hardware or name on the barrel is from a totally different school.

 

[JamesT]

Why would a gun maker only make one type of gun?
Give them credit for being more resourceful than that!
All gunsmiths would have seen virtually every style available before, during, and after learning the trade.
Most would not have been close-minded against other styles.
And what about repair work? If a customer brought in a rifle or fowler made in Tennessee to a Lancaster County gunmaker for replacement stock or broken furniture would the gunsmith have said “ Sorry, I can’t help you. I can only do Lancaster County guns”.
Really???
I am not saying gun makers did not have their preferred styles. But after a little experience a good stock maker would have been able to make almost anything.
A good friend of mine has been a part-time gunsmith and gunstock maker for many years.
He prefers the styles of Remington and Winchester factory stocks, and various custom makers, but he can make copies of European classic Mauser sporters just as easily. His work is excellent.
A lot of the old timers were just as good, and would not have turned down the work. Especially if they had a land payment due, or were needing money for a new horse or tools.

Before you post some nonsense go study something and learn maybe just one fact. I try my best to be understanding to most intelligence levels but not In your case. You spew total ignorance on this topic. I try not to laugh at everyone but you are the exception. Unless you can provide some factual evidence. Crickets. Here comes your loser attack.
James

 

[JamesT]

. . . who may not have spent much time in America.
There is no way that observer, or anyone else, for that matter, could have always known whether or not any long gun ( with the obvious example of military muskets ) within his line of sight was rifled or not.
I have a .54 smooth rifle, and I would defy anyone to identify it as being a smoothbore even at a distance of 3 feet with a good view of the bore.
His idea of a smoothbore may have been a gun configured as a fowling piece or Northwest trade gun with the oversized trigger guard and 24 gauge and larger bore.

LaLaLand

 

[JamesT]

Have you ever shot a flintlock? Or any other firearm in the last 5 years since high-school or just talk about it?

 

[Brokennock]

All gunsmiths would have seen virtually every style available before, during, and after learning the trade.

Um.....
How?
No internet.
No Shot Show,,,,, or any other "trade show" for that matter.
No Schumway books on the subject.
No distributor and marketing people coming to your shop in Bedford, PA. promoting and shipping, "the latest greatest design," out of Lancaster or Allentown, much less doing the same in Boonsboro or Chambersburg.

Do you have a copy of some period catalog, that no one else seems to know about, showing period builders the latest designs and parts available to build them?

 

[tenngun]

Um.....
How?
No internet.
No Shot Show,,,,, or any other "trade show" for that matter.
No Schumway books on the subject.
No distributor and marketing people coming to your shop in Bedford, PA. promoting and shipping, "the latest greatest design," out of Lancaster or Allentown, much less doing the same in Boonsboro or Chambersburg.

Do you have a copy of some period catalog, that no one else seems to know about, showing period builders the latest designs and parts available to build them?

That is worth a thought.
Smiths often made a style. And of course adapted it over the years. And the federal age saw a lot of radical design yet these were confined to a particular area. We don’t see Bedford style in North Carolina
About 1790 English smiths started making half stocks as a norm. 1803 would see the HF, and Ohio and Michigan developed their own style by the 1820s
SMR would continue as full stocks well in to the twentieth century.
Hawken brothers or Leman would continue full stocks up til the 1840s while offering half stocks at the same time
All of our regional styles descended from jager style. North or south we see a trend to long barrels, and eventually slimed butts. Yet Carolina is different from Tennessee and both different from Virginia and Maryland
And on top of that 1770 is different then 1780 and by 1820 real big differences
Makes you wonder how