Smooth rifles, were they made as new guns?

[tenngun]

I do not doubt you in the least. But I am a 75 YO curmudgeon who has had a life long love affair with the English language. The term "smooth rifle" makes my head ache. Reads like an oxymoron.

Do you eat Shellfish? They ain’t fish
Did you ever hear we fought the Germans in WW2? We fought no people that called themselves that
In New Mexico we could pick Mormon Tea. Good drink in camp, it wasn’t tea.
In New York you can buy an egg cream. It won’t have any egg or cream in it
You ever see Birds Eye maple? Talk about oxymoron

 

[Quicksilver]

I do not doubt you in the least. But I am a 75 YO curmudgeon who has had a life long love affair with the English language. The term "smooth rifle" makes my head ache. Reads like an oxymoron.

Personally I like smoothbore or smoothbore musket.

 

[Quicksilver]

I would think you would have to define/specify “wear out”

To cause (something) to become damaged, useless, or ineffective through continued use, especially hard, heavy, or careless use.

 

[stephenprops1]

I do not think it is too far fetched to think that a gun maker might make a stock with a Roman Nose style and also have some one ask him for a stock with out the Roman Nose but more straight. I also think it is not unfathomable for a gun maker to get requests for a different style butt plate or trigger guard just to set the rifle apart from others, that the owner may have requested. It also could be that the gun maker has his own ideas and wants to see how they turn out. The gun maker may just get bored doing the same thing over and over. Who can truly say.

I would imagine a gun maker would build a few generic guns to have available for a customer that had to have a gun right now. As most of you should know, custom guns take time to build. Someone might buy a generic gun to get them by until the custom gun was finished.

 

[Stantheman86]

Crazy how someone on a forum will come to conclusions about what was posted without even knowing all the facts or the person.
Look the gun had the lead stripped out of it a few times before it was retired. The gun had a round count of around 100,000 down the pipe. This is a estimate. How would I know this you might ask? Well I’ll tell you.. I spent my allowance on 100 round boxes of cci mini mags. Most weekends I was able to buy 10 boxes. Not much else to do being a kid growing up in the back woods of the Sierra Nevadas. I think you need to find a hobby Mr. @M. De Land

I agree, for the "it's hard to shoot a rifle out" people ....in my early 20's , back when you could get a 1200 round case of 8mm Mauser for about 50 bucks, I'd pack lunch, and dinner, and a Turk 8mm Mauser or some other kind of 8mm, and just hang out at my gun club shooting. Sometimes I'd burn a whole case in one day.

One particular rifle I fired until bullets started hitting the paper sideways. It really didn't take all that long relatively

 

[BadDaditood]

7 pages ago I heard Smoothbore.
If I’m not mistaken Kibler was working on a smoothbore but decided the woodsrunner would be quicker and easier to bring to market.
I haven’t kept up because I’m not in the market just yet (I have a second SMR and a second colonial to build first) but I think the smoothie will be out next?
Perchance this year?

 

[Jedidiah]

Not necessarily if you know what your are looking at. Not trying to be negative honestly. I'm glad you got into muzzleloading this week. Listen and learn some more.

I would imagine a gun maker would build a few generic guns to have available for a customer that had to have a gun right now. As most of you should know, custom guns take time to build. Someone might buy a generic gun to get them by until the custom gun was finished.

I think what we consider a 'custom" gun was a semi rare item. Unless you were well of landed gentry, most avg. schmucks could not afford a "custom" engraved, carved etc. firearm. They needed a utility arm that put meat on the table and could stand in for defense if needed. Many high end arms belonged to an "elite" section of the populace that had the means to afford such things, and were considered a status symbol, and signs of wealth or position in the community. etc. IMHO.

 

[tenngun]

I think what we consider a 'custom" gun was a semi rare item. Unless you were well of landed gentry, most avg. schmucks could not afford a "custom" engraved, carved etc. firearm. They needed a utility arm that put meat on the table and could stand in for defense if needed. Many high end arms belonged to an "elite" section of the populace that had the means to afford such things, and were considered a status symbol, and signs of wealth or position in the community. etc. IMHO.

I am drawn to agreement with you. Yet I am forced to wonder.
The king wanted cheep muskets for the men, but even so the bess, or the Charlie had molding and in the case of bess a complex inlaid wrist plate.
Looking at high end British fowlers we see a lack of decoration, except for some metal engraving and that’s pretty light.
The sea serpent-dragon side plate on the NWG was a complex inlay, even though there are some cheep features on this gun type.
Ships, even the cheapest costal trader and fishing boats came with some gingerbread.
In the nineteenth century we see the rise of plain lines reaching its peak with Shaker style. And in military we see our first musket as a near copy of charley then becoming plainer in subsequent models
We see this too in bess. The India pattern giving way over the years to the very plane and utilitarian enfield style
I like ship models. Models at one time were the plans for the ship. And in such yard models we have found using endoscopes that the inside, never seen is fully finished, down to carved stacions inside.
My Lancaster smoothbore is very plain, but I think this incorrect.
Just looking at plain Jane homes and public houses we see a lot invested in carving
I often felt that the metal drives of the wars destroyed a lot of plain guns, but all and all I wonder if we don’t over represent plain Jane guns and barn guns. I wonder if historically they ever existed in the eighteenth century

 

[Jedidiah]

I am drawn to agreement with you. Yet I am forced to wonder.
The king wanted cheep muskets for the men, but even so the bess, or the Charlie had molding and in the case of bess a complex inlaid wrist plate.
Looking at high end British fowlers we see a lack of decoration, except for some metal engraving and that’s pretty light.
The sea serpent-dragon side plate on the NWG was a complex inlay, even though there are some cheep features on this gun type.
Ships, even the cheapest costal trader and fishing boats came with some gingerbread.
In the nineteenth century we see the rise of plain lines reaching its peak with Shaker style. And in military we see our first musket as a near copy of charley then becoming plainer in subsequent models
We see this too in bess. The India pattern giving way over the years to the very plane and utilitarian enfield style
I like ship models. Models at one time were the plans for the ship. And in such yard models we have found using endoscopes that the inside, never seen is fully finished, down to carved stacions inside.
My Lancaster smoothbore is very plain, but I think this incorrect.
Just looking at plain Jane homes and public houses we see a lot invested in carving
I often felt that the metal drives of the wars destroyed a lot of plain guns, but all and all I wonder if we don’t over represent plain Jane guns and barn guns. I wonder if historically they ever existed in the eighteenth century

I can't say for certain one way or the other, but especially when you look at certain areas of the country, like the SMR, very few are ornate in any way. Hawken styles are usually plain. NW trade guns had the side plate, but not much else, I think it was some "bling" to keep the customer, which was often our Indian friends, happy, much like beads, shinny objects etc. ? Fowlers seem to be fairly plain, but certainly their are more ornate examples. I think the "thumb, wrist plate on a Bess or musket was for Martial unit markings etc? I have Lancaster, Dickert and Haines style Longrifles and they are only moderately carved and engraved as opposed to some that look like works or art? SO, I don't really know what was the most prevalent. I just think that many people, especially those on the frontier, were there for a reason and that was usually cheap or free land, hence they were not well off, and that they would probably not be willing to pay for ornate carving etc. However, maybe some Gunsmiths started to throw in some carving or engraving to help set their rifle apart from others and help sell them? I really do not know, just food for thought! I also believe there was a lot of pride in workmanship back then. People were often apprentices for Years, and a wood worker, metal worker etc may take decades to be a "master" in a Guild etc. That's is what is great about this whole line of thought, we will never know for certain and can therefore entertain all sorts of possibilities! IMHO

 

[ronaldrothb49]

I think what we consider a 'custom" gun was a semi rare item. Unless you were well of landed gentry, most avg. schmucks could not afford a "custom" engraved, carved etc. firearm. They needed a utility arm that put meat on the table and could stand in for defense if needed. Many high end arms belonged to an "elite" section of the populace that had the means to afford such things, and were considered a status symbol, and signs of wealth or position in the community. etc. IMHO.

Have to agree with you on this. If you look in Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in the Golden Age Kindig list information from Leonard Reedy's Journals. He even comments on the low prices of most of the rifles that Reedy made. The more expensive carved and engraved rifles that we all love would seem to be a minority of what was being made. Would love to see complete copies of those journals, just the info that Kindig lists give a good idea of what life was like 200 years ago.

 

[SOLANCO]

"The more expensive carved and engraved rifles that we all love would seem to be a minority of what was being made. " Doubtless this is true. That said, they are a majority of the guns of that period which survived intact to today. They were made for established, wealthier patrons with the means to keep them properly stored and cared for. And were passed on as valuable assets in their estates. The barn guns of that era are rare today.

 

[Jedidiah]

"The more expensive carved and engraved rifles that we all love would seem to be a minority of what was being made. " Doubtless this is true. That said, they are a majority of the guns of that period which survived intact to today. They were made for established, wealthier patrons with the means to keep them properly stored and cared for. And were passed on as valuable assets in their estates. The barn guns of that era are rare today.

Very good point, The "plain" firearms got used, probably daily, the ornate ones, not so much.!!

 

[Stantheman86]

If it takes 10,000 rounds to start to "wear" a muzzleloader, you're probably at, at least 3 or 4× the cost of your rifle at that point in components burned .

Even if I cast my own bullets or balls and regardless if you pop a 5 cent cap or strike a flint that costs money and has a lifespan...plus your "prime"....you're currently still looking at probably about 50 cents per BOOM these days

So I doubt that I'll put 10,000 Minies or round balls, bullets etc through any of my rifles anytime soon when I consider it a good month if I fire 200 rounds through any particular rifle

If I do invest the $4-5000 needed to put 10,000 through a rifle and accuracy falls off, and the lock still works, I guess I'll just hang it on my wall and retire it. Even my "best" muzzleloading rifles are probably worth just under $2000 so if I get 10,000 through them before I die, I guess I win

 

[Jedidiah]

If it takes 10,000 rounds to start to "wear" a muzzleloader, you're probably at, at least 3 or 4× the cost of your rifle at that point in components burned .

Even if I cast my own bullets or balls and regardless if you pop a 5 cent cap or strike a flint that costs money and has a lifespan...plus your "prime"....you're currently still looking at probably about 50 cents per BOOM these days

So I doubt that I'll put 10,000 Minies or round balls, bullets etc through any of my rifles anytime soon when I consider it a good month if I fire 200 rounds through any particular rifle

If I do invest the $4-5000 needed to put 10,000 through a rifle and accuracy falls off, and the lock still works, I guess I'll just hang it on my wall and retire it. Even my "best" muzzleloading rifles are probably worth just under $2000 so if I get 10,000 through them before I die, I guess I win

OMG, 10,000 rds through a ML??? Not in my life time!!!

 

[ronaldrothb49]

If it takes 10,000 rounds to start to "wear" a muzzleloader, you're probably at, at least 3 or 4× the cost of your rifle at that point in components burned .

Even if I cast my own bullets or balls and regardless if you pop a 5 cent cap or strike a flint that costs money and has a lifespan...plus your "prime"....you're currently still looking at probably about 50 cents per BOOM these days

So I doubt that I'll put 10,000 Minies or round balls, bullets etc through any of my rifles anytime soon when I consider it a good month if I fire 200 rounds through any particular rifle

If I do invest the $4-5000 needed to put 10,000 through a rifle and accuracy falls off, and the lock still works, I guess I'll just hang it on my wall and retire it. Even my "best" muzzleloading rifles are probably worth just under $2000 so if I get 10,000 through them before I die, I guess I win

Don't know how many rounds I put through it but I have worn out a Douglas .40 caliber barrel which was the first rifle I made from scratch back in the late 70's. If you go by your numbers of an average of 200 rounds per month then you are only talking about 4 years to reach 10,000 rounds which is about the time that I was using that rifle exclusively. I was a very active match shooter and shot somewhere every weekend plus would practice a couple days a week.

 

[tenngun]

I can't say for certain one way or the other, but especially when you look at certain areas of the country, like the SMR, very few are ornate in any way. Hawken styles are usually plain. NW trade guns had the side plate, but not much else, I think it was some "bling" to keep the customer, which was often our Indian friends, happy, much like beads, shinny objects etc. ? Fowlers seem to be fairly plain, but certainly their are more ornate examples. I think the "thumb, wrist plate on a Bess or musket was for Martial unit markings etc? I have Lancaster, Dickert and Haines style Longrifles and they are only moderately carved and engraved as opposed to some that look like works or art? SO, I don't really know what was the most prevalent. I just think that many people, especially those on the frontier, were there for a reason and that was usually cheap or free land, hence they were not well off, and that they would probably not be willing to pay for ornate carving etc. However, maybe some Gunsmiths started to throw in some carving or engraving to help set their rifle apart from others and help sell them? I really do not know, just food for thought! I also believe there was a lot of pride in workmanship back then. People were often apprentices for Years, and a wood worker, metal worker etc may take decades to be a "master" in a Guild etc. That's is what is great about this whole line of thought, we will never know for certain and can therefore entertain all sorts of possibilities! IMHO

We do have to look at time frames with that however.
1750s guns were still very German looking. Twenty years later we see the true American long rifle. Twenty years again the Pennsylvania style became slim even dainty. This was about the same time the SMR was really meeting our definition of SMR. While it developed plain, the Pennsylvanian guns were going ‘all out’ on inlays and decoration
Two very distinct styles
Twenty more years we see the rugged Hawkens
I don’t know if we can look at a Hawken or even a Western rifle builder in Pennsylvania like Henry or Derringer and compare them to rifles forty years before their time
Henry’s English style trade rifle looks, to my eye anyway, as a civilian adaptation of the Baker Rifle pattern of the British army
The time between Hines and Hawken saw a distinct change in fashion at just about every level from clothing to furniture
Just stuff I contemplate on treks.
Things that make you go hmmmm

 

[user 34486]

To what style a rifle was built doesn't have anything to do with the OP's question, which has already been answered.

Some people I shoot with regularly rebarrel no less than every other year, but that's in regards to professional shooters using modern chamberings causing muzzle velocities well above 2700 fps with copper jacketed pills. We expect about 5,000 good rounds in a lifespan, and usually more on a pumpkin chunker. Modern smokeless platforms are only cleaned when degradation in accuracy arises or some other rarity necessitates it, otherwise a simple wipe and lube job is all that's required. As an NCAA rimfire shooter, cleaning never happened.

These barely sonic soft lead balls yall are throwing aren't tearing up a bore in your lifetime. If you're wearing out a barrel, it's probably you cleaning it. I've seen people ram their rods 6x than necessary, fowling shots, swabbing between shots, and over cleaning. Get out the gunk and lube. It'll be fine. Water dissolves salt, oil creates an O2 barrier... Not endless masturbation. You're going to have to shoot no less than 83 rounds a month for a century to get 100k down the tube.

We have extant primary data that proves fowler barrels were stocked as rifles, and that this practice was at least moderately common. For the illiterati, smooth rifle, rifle gun, and rifle are colloquially predicated in the 18th c, not just by the twist of the barrel, but by the architecture of the stock as well.

 

[Jedidiah]

To what style a rifle was built doesn't have anything to do with the OP's question, which has already been answered.

Some people I shoot with regularly rebarrel no less than every other year, but that's in regards to professional shooters using modern chamberings causing muzzle velocities well above 2700 fps with copper jacketed pills. We expect about 5,000 good rounds in a lifespan, and usually more on a pumpkin chunker. Modern smokeless platforms are only cleaned when degradation in accuracy arises or some other rarity necessitates it, otherwise a simple wipe and lube job is all that's required. As an NCAA rimfire shooter, cleaning never happened.

These barely sonic soft lead balls yall are throwing aren't tearing up a bore in your lifetime. If you're wearing out a barrel, it's probably you cleaning it. I've seen people ram their rods 6x than necessary, fowling shots, swabbing between shots, and over cleaning. Get out the gunk and lube. It'll be fine. Water dissolves salt, oil creates an O2 barrier... Not endless masturbation. You're going to have to shoot no less than 83 rounds a month for a century to get 100k down the tube.

We have extant primary data that proves fowler barrels were stocked as rifles, and that this practice was at least moderately common. For the illiterati, smooth rifle, rifle gun, and rifle are colloquially predicated in the 18th c, not just by the twist of the barrel, but by the architecture of the stock as well.

Glad you could join in.

 

[Stantheman86]

Don't know how many rounds I put through it but I have worn out a Douglas .40 caliber barrel which was the first rifle I made from scratch back in the late 70's. If you go by your numbers of an average of 200 rounds per month then you are only talking about 4 years to reach 10,000 rounds which is about the time that I was using that rifle exclusively. I was a very active match shooter and shot somewhere every weekend plus would practice a couple days a week.

I was just doing this math in my head yesterday.....I was thinking, if I just picked one of my rifles and used it exclusively, and took it to the range for 50 rounds per week . It wouldn't take much to wear the bore out

In essence I'd be left with a weakly rifled weapon with something in between a smoothbore and a rifle that could still probably put round balls into a group at 50 yards.

For most of us, it would take some dedication to really shoot 1 rifle all the time. You would have to do what you did and be a dedicated match shooter and practice constantly

I'd be proud of myself if I wore a barrel out in a muzzleloader

 

[smoothshooter]

And Jim Kibler is from the here and now. With access to research information, extant rifles from different areas within the original guns' time period, and the ability to travel easily to just about anywhere to see such guns or have them shipped to him, or even for customers or friends to bring guns to him from almost anywhere.
Seriously, what makes you think this was the case for a gunsmith in almost any location during the muzzleloading era? Do you have an example of a Lehigh style gun made by a known builder in Lancaster? How about an example of an SMR made in Bucks County,,,, during the time period? Or better still,,, because ot would change a lot of accepted gun knowledge about the period,,,,, how about providing an example of any style rifle, smooth or rifled, associated with anywhere from New York on south that was made by a New England gunsmith? Let's see that colonial New Hampshire or Goshen, Connecticut built Dickert style gun.

Kibler does extensive research so that the mass scale of products he puts out has the widest appeal to the largest number nitpickers out there.
The gunsmith of old only had to please the customer standing in front of him who likely did not care a lot about patchbox patterns or trigger guards as long as they were reasonably well made, and something he could afford. Some would have not been particular at all, having little or no knowledge of guns, merely wanting something that would shoot almost every time they needed it to,
A customer may come in with a gun and say “ make me one as close to this one as you can, but with less drop in the butt stock so it will fit me better than this one does.” Most gunsmiths I think would not turn down the work. Pays the bills.
Locks would have been something most customers would have been fairly particular about. Not so much the styling, but functionality. Just something that worked.
If “styles “ were so rigidly adhered to, why, to my knowledge at least, are there no two or more surviving examples of what we call “ Kentucky “ or “ Pennsylvania “ Rifles that are exactly alike? Very similar? Sure. They’re out there. Exactly the same? Maybe. Possibly.
If there are some they would have to be very, very few in number.