Smoothbore vs. rifle in colonial America

[capnwilliam]

Does anyone have any info on the percentage of rifles vs. smoothbores in the American colonies? I heard that a Kentucky / Pennsylvania rifle cost about half a years wages for a typical American of that era.

If that's so, I can't imagine that they were so common an item for the average farm family as Hollywood would have us believe. (?)

Capt. William

 

[Stumpkiller]

Did you get a figure for what a smoothbore cost by comparison? Seems like I've heard rifles were going for $11 or $12 while muskets were fetching $7 or $8 around the time of the Revolution.

 

[tg]

I have seen several estate inventories that give values of rifles at 1-3 pounds and smooth bores at 1-2 pounds, much might depend on the quality/maker one entry lists 9 new rifles at 23 pounds and 10 smoothbore guns at 22 pounds
this is from the last 1/4 of the 18th century, other items mentioned for comparison were an anvil for 3 pounds, a gunsmith billows for 2 pounds a slave with a trade as carpenter for 400 pounds, there are also cases where smooth bores are valued more than rifles, records show that some gunsmiths charge several hundered pounds per year for work on public and Indian guns, I do not know what the average wage was but I do not think that a gun rifled or not would be a years worth unless you were in the poverty level????

 

There are a lot of factors at work here. One is location. This appears to be the inventory of a gunsmith in a northern colony, otherwise the carpenter trained slave would have a much higher value.
One must take the fluctuations of currency value into consideration also. Money does not retain its value consistantly. I know that during the Jacksonian era(1820-1850) the average cash income was around $12 a year. That is not total income, since trade and barter was a large part of the economy. Cash was scarce. Spanish and French coin was legal tender until 1838.
I have seen several gunshith account books that listed the value of a new rifle at $17-$20, a smooth rifle at $12, for new work, soon after the revolution.
Inventories at probate were often inflated figures, valuing furnature and clothing at more than it's value when new since they were being done for tax of inheritance purposes.
I know that on the middle ground frontier, middle TN espically, there were more guns than there were people. Smoothbore muskets were valued in cents rather than dollars.
By the beginning of the 1800s there was no shortage of rifles. They were being mass produced in the shops of Lancaster. Thousands of pattern rifles and smoothbores were being produced for the Indian trade. Citizens were gripping about the polution of the waterways by the barrel grinding shops.
Supply, demand, peacetime or war, availability of raw materials, availability of riflesmiths, they were all factors on the everchanging price of weapons.

 

[Greenhorn]

As far as I heard it was less a question of the price to choose a smoothbore. With a patched ball there's little difference up to 50 yards, but the smoothbore offers the flexibility to fire shot, it's easier to load, and if nothing else is at available, a hand full of small stones would do. So if one didn't want to carry two guns, the smoothbore was the better choice in many cases...

 

[Doc Arroyo]

Capt. William-

I seem to remember an article by Charles Hanson on this very subject in the Book of Buckskinning series. I don't have it in front of me, but I seem to remember a 10 or 12 to 1 ratio. I think that I got it from Mr. Hansons article.

One thing that skews the number is the militia. Rifles were not acceptable for militia service in many companies. The musket was required, and surplus muskets were supplied or sold to the colonies.

I have also handled three examples of firearms that were made by a less than honorable gunmakers. We call them cheater rifles. All three have grooves cut in the muzzle for about 3 times the bore diameter into the barrel. With a passing glance, they look to be rifles. But with a bore light...the truth comes out. ::

 

Isn't that interesting - sort of an early Paradox rifle. By that I am referring to the British and African Dutch Colonial guns that had riflng only at the muzzle. These, as I understand them, were designed that way and were true Rifled Chokes, in that the rifling was tighter(smaller dia.) than the bore and worked with ball, but really didn't destroy shot patterns due to the help from the choke effect overcoming the twist given by the rifling.
: I wonder if the English Paradox came from the false rifles - or if they are connected at all. The Paradox, of course was a very late 19th Century inovation and was only used on Black Powder breechloaders.

 

[Doc Arroyo]

Daryl-
I didn't even make the connection with the Paradox! Duh!

But one of them a friend bought to shoot in an originals match, and couldn't figure out when in the H--- it wouldn't group. Repectable at 25yds, poor at 50 and horrible at 100. No matter what the load combination. Then we looked closer...

With the correct magnification we could see the file marks! Yep, the gunmaker took a small file and cut the rifling in it for about 1 1/2" in a .50 caliber. It was in a halfstock percussion with a Golcher back action percussion lock built around 1845 to 1860. My friend made money on the deal by seeling it to a smoothbore collector! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[RussB]

Capt. William-

I seem to remember an article by Charles Hanson on this very subject in the Book of Buckskinning series. I don't have it in front of me, but I seem to remember a 10 or 12 to 1 ratio. I think that I got it from Mr. Hansons article.
::

Doc Arroyo....I think you are right on this. And, I also believe it was Charles Hanson. It also appears that during the Fur Trade era the "majority" of guns sold were made abroad. One especially comes to mind and that was the BARNETT, which was made in Birmingham England. This company was the one to use the "Sitting Fox" logo as represented in my own avatar.
The company was know in England as the "slaughter house" because the press, much like today, lead everyone to believe there was a mass slaughter going on in the Americas, from Indians to Wild Game.
It seems the first 40 years of records for this company has never been located, but from 1815 to around 1840 it seems they sold thousands of smoothbore muskets at a price of around $9.00 while an Eastern made (probably Pennsylvanian) was "thrice the price". I suppose $27.00 was at least a years salary for many at the time.
Anyway, it all made for a wonderful read, and kinda broke my bubble, because I was hoping to see more on the Kentucky.
I also think, 10 or 12:1 is a right figure.
Russ

 

[RussB]

I forgot to add it was strictly the utility of a smooth bore that promoted such sales. A man's gun, for the most part, was his life.
Charles Hanson also disputes the legands of accuracy that has been prevelant for many years. It just wasn't there! No matter how well the man knew his gun.
Some were better than others, but most were sadly lacking in the skills to use their guns.
Practice was not at all a common thing, but the taking of game for subsistance was a common thing....go figure. This tells me "Buckshot" or "Buck and Ball" was the load.
Russ

 

[2172]

This all got me to thinking about the value of money in the Colonial era...the British Inst. of Natl Stat. says that there has been an inflation rate of x140 between 1750 and 2003, in other words, what one pound bought in England in 1750, it would take 140 pounds to buy last year. A Dutch source says the guilder's inflation for the same time period was roughly x200. These figures are not directly convertible to Colonial America, as there was a constant shortage of currency...French and Spanish coins were legal tender until 1838 in the U.S.
Probably the best way to deal with relative value of money is to think in terms of "work units" i.e. how much effort is put forward to earn something...how many hours of[url] labor....in[/url] the Pepys Diaries (1660-69), he is paid 350 pds a year as a medium level government official, and pays his most expensive servanct 12 pds a year, plus food, clothing and lodging...these are probably worth an additional 36 pds a year, so this servant cost him about 48 pds a year, and that would convert to 48x140=6,720 pds....I would consider this job, if it existed to day, in a workshort labor market, to be worth perhaps $30,000...I don't think you can make a direct conversion into today's purchasing power, at least I can't but I'm going to keep digging...I'd appreciate input, including pointing out errors, from anyone who is interested...Hank

 

Hank this is a very difficult bit of translation, almost an impossibility. For one thing items are valued differently in different areas at the same point in time, even today, due to supply and demand. Our nation always suffered from a shortage of labor in general, but towns often had labor surpluses. That ment that farm labor sold high, but manual labor in an urban area sold low. Even "work units" sell for different amounts, so that dosen't work either. Not suprising since today gasoline in California sells for $2.25/gal while I pay $1.75/gal in KY. I also doubled my income for doing the same job by moving 300 miles.

I did a workup along the same lines about ten years ago for a paper in grad school. The gun that cost $9 in Birmingham, England in the late 1700s actually sold for the equivelent to $950 in furs at the trade post in the wilderness. That is why people got into the fur trade! The Dutch in New Amsterdam actually instituted the death penelty for trading guns to the Indians and still could not stop the trade. Due to such high profit margins people considered it worth the risk.

The British governers attempted to set standards of value to maintain good relations among the tribes during the colonial era. The Indian Intercourse Act (nothing to do with sex) of 1797, set strict standards of exchange between furs and goods at the U.S. run trade factories and set quality standards for the goods. This is the outlet for the famous Wheeler, Leman, Deringer, Tyron trade guns and rifles more than the trapper's blanket in the mountains. The settlers put up quite a fuss because the Indians could buy better stuff at cheaper prices than the white population!

Oh ya! That sitting fox was the trade mark placed on all guns sold by the Hudson Bay Company. Hamilton does a pretty thorough workup on that in INDIAN TRADE GUNS.

 

[RussB]

Very good post ghost.

The "mark-up" mentioned was indeed the thing that created most problems on the early frontier. There was never any standards on trading, as EVERYTHING was sold at what the market would bring.
The cost of these guns was a mere pittance, when leaving the shops of the East, compared to their final trading cost.
One can readily see the mark-up achieved by the time a "sale" was consumated in goods. Cash was something to be wary of and was seldom used in these transactions, simply because it's "value" was never completely understood. A single musket could bring three, sometimes four, "Buffalo Robes". or, 20 "Beaver"..... And occasionaly it brought forth an Indian Maiden, all within the spirit of free trade.

Most of us today consider guns as expensive....and they are. But they are nowhere near as expensive, comparative speaking, as they were 200 years ago when they were a necessity.

Russ

 

[2172]

Ghost, RussB, Thanks. I recognize that the location of the trade would be central to the pricing. I guess what I'd like to do is work up some kind of comparison based upon a laborer in town, and one in the settled country....and I recognize that'd be flawed, if only because so much of commerce was[url] barter...in[/url] any event, it'd be interesting to the re-enacting brethren as one more facet of their chosen century was exposed.....I suspect that whatever I come up with will be severely flawed, but I just might keep at it a bit more....my back aches and I can't do any outdoor stuff at the moment...Hank
I did come across a site that gave me a detailed list of the cost of groceries for Aug 21, 1625 in Southhampton England...example, "a full pound of butter, sweet and new the best in the market....3 1/2d" and so on. Same site gave a 1630 estimation of costs and items needed for emigrants to New England...while it called for three suits of clothes, it only said one shirt...smelly buggers..

 

[RussB]

Hank......... I, for one, would welcome your effort on this project. It would be most interesting if "something" could be established. It would IMHO bring things into a better prespective. A good example would be that "full pound of sweet butter" you mentioned. Perhaps we are better off today than we like to think. I would be living in total poverty if I had to "barter" for everything. Guess I'm just a soft touch when it comes to things I "think" I need.
Bet-cha a bartering system would set me straight though!
Please keep a post going on your research reading. I will be doing some reading on my own, as you have certainly got my interest stirred.
Russ

 

The smooth bore was commans weapon for the comman man and most farmers and woodsman liked them for there double duty. Much like the single barrel shotgun of today in the barn or close to the door. Buck-ball was effective manstopper and animal stopper. EVEN OLD DAN BOONE HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED USING ONE AFEW TIMES. GOOD FOR THE CANOE LOADED BUCK-BALL. THE MAIN WEAPON IN THE REVOLUTION WAS THE SMOOTHBORE NOT THE RIFLE. EVEN THOU THE RIFLE WAS USE TO GREAT EFFECT ,IT WAS THE SMOOTH RIFLE AND VON-STUBEN THAT WON THE BIG BATTLES WITH RIFLE COMPANYS IN SMALL SUPPORT. The vision and rumor of woodsman clan in frocks running from tree to tree did not win the war,it was battleformations of trainedsoldiers on the battlfield with smoothbores and cold steel.

 

[Stumpkiller]

. . . it was battleformations of trainedsoldiers on the battlfield with smoothbores and cold steel.

'S true. But . . . a musket was a state of the art battlefield weapon and took a lot of feeding, just as the Squad Automatic Weapons or 20MM vehicle cannon of today. Not the best choice for a hunter that doesn't have the deep pockets of a government depot to help him feed the beast or want to blow a huge hole in the side of a hide he wishes to sell or market. Lobsterbacks aside, the enemy (Indians) were armed with rifles, and could stand-off and pot shoot a fellow armed with a smoothbore (per Joseph Ruckman Recreating the American Longhunter).

In the 56 years between 1757 and 1812 there were perhaps 10 involving massed groups of soldiers firing in ranks. The rest was little groups in quick skirmishes.

And a guy with a rifle was 'stylin while the guy with the smoothbore was dullsville. Image was as much then as it is now. Patchboxes and inlays were the fins on the 55 Chevy and the peacock swords that said "Lookie here! I've made it."

Look at kids sneakers for the last 30 years. It's not practical and sensible that seperates prey from predator. It's cool, glitzy and pricy or else. Take this from someone who finally got UP to a pair of Chuck Taylor's . . . 15 years after they were pass

 

[LSU TIGER]

Look at the uses of a smooth bore as opposed to a rifle. With a smooth bore one could hunt fowl, large game with a patched ball, and fulfill your militia requirement. A rifle couldn't do that.

 

[Stumpkiller]

It's easier to take waterfowl with a rifle. You just shoot them on the water at first light or from the edge of a field. For larger flocks, you throw 1/2lb of shot and 120 drams of Fg in the 2" bore punt gun and take a couple dozen, then row out and scoop them in.

Quotas and game 'ethics' are fairly modern inventions in the USA.

 

Best recorded kill was 103 ducks with one shot using #1's from a 2" punt gun. I believe the shot charge was 2 lbs. The range was over 90yds., on the water, of course.