Survival of Original Guns

[gearheart]

Folks were held up to public ridicule for not sacrificing their beautiful wrought iron fences. And old and "useless" clunker of a gun that grandpa once used wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[David W.]

I have a friend that has a most amazing collection. He has documented proof his rifles are original, all the way back from the Revolutionary war. All passed down from his family.

 

[galamb]

15 or more years back the AOLRC published, in a couple of newsletters, entries from Caleb Vincent's shop journal.

The entries were from 1865, even an entry on April 15th re Lincoln's assassination. Anyhow, the journal covers just about every day for a 3 month period.

There are numerous entries for gun repairs, restocks, rebarrel (he obtained his barrels from Pittsburgh according to an entry) and yes, a couple of "builds".

The point I'm getting at here is - "how many 17xx something rifles were rebarreled, restocked, repaired/reworked" such that they look nothing like the originals. One of his entries shows a charge of 60 cents to repair a rifle. If a new rifle was going for maybe 15-20 bucks, and he would restock for a few - out with the old and in with the (partially) new...

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Well there you have the problem of the records. Rifle, and the cost, but not exactly what was done to it, or what went into the making. At one point George Morgan sold a used rifle for less than the cost of a new fusil... so why was the cost so low? Was it a POS? Did the buyer have some gun knowledge and turned a POS into a serviceable piece? Did Morgan show a bit of kindness and let the gun go for less than he should?

Was tiger maple considered fancy in 1770, or was it considered some of the best wood for a stock and so was "standard"? Maybe walnut was the standard? Maybe cherry was a third choice? Maybe it varied by region with folks from the Western parts of Pa, VA (now WV) and MD all getting maple stocked guns, and folks closer to Philadelphia getting walnut stocked guns.

What about a maker who is using imported barrels and locks from England, and casting his own hardware? He fights for the duration of the Revolution, and then returns to building... if he continues to use his old patterns for castings, from 1770 let us say... and uses them for say 25 years, a buyer could be getting a brand new rifle in 1808 which when it survives to 2013... we date to the "pre-revolution" time period... which is in the wrong century.

We just don't know.

LD

 

[Mickc01]

What an interesting thread. I don't have any new observations to add, just wanted to say thanks to those who have made thoughtful comments... :hatsoff:

 

[galamb]

What an interesting thread. I don't have any new observations to add, just wanted to say thanks to those who have made thoughtful comments... :hatsoff:

I agree, so will add onto it a bit here to hopefully keep it going.

For the past few months I have been doing research for an upcoming build - a Christian Hawken rifle (Hagerstown, MD builder).

I found information/pictures on seven of his rifles which would have been built in the period 1777 (when he finished his apprenticeship) and 1821, the year of his death (which essentially predated the emergence of percussion rifles). So in part of the period called the "golden age".

The rifles ranged from a good piece of his working life which left me believing that the example were "representative" enough to get a good flavor of his style - a couple from early in his career and one certainly very close to the end with the others scattered in the middle.

Of the 7 rifles, only one (1) was not carved/engraved - the others were quite fancy and typical of (his style) as it progressed.

The "plain" rifle, which was probably built in the middle of his career (perhaps late 1790's), did have a patchbox (not engraved) and the oval inlay in the cheek piece (engraved with an eagle) which became "typical" on his later rifles (earlier builds simply had a hunters star) and no engraving on the sideplate either.

There was no carving either ahead of or behind the cheek piece, none behind the tang, no moldings etc which would have been "characteristic" of his rifles (at least the surviving ones - which may be the "key point").

One was converted to percussion at some later date and one showed evidence of a trigger/trigger guard replacement - the others "appearing" original otherwise.

So was this rather plain rifle the "exception" or was it more "typical"?

Did the "fancier" rifles tend to survive because they were fancy (and possibly more expensive in the first place) and better cared for?

Or maybe it was a case such as this - "farmer Bob" stops in the shop. He has just somehow destroyed his "varmint gun" - "Hey Chris, I need a rifle fast" - "ok Bob, I have this one - it isn't anywhere near finished, but I can throw it together for ya real quick" (?????)

Even with "shop records" unless they meticulously documented each rifle in detail, we still wouldn't know the ratio of "plain:fancy".

 

[54ball]

OK
I have not seen the rifles you refer to and honestly, even if I have I am not qualified to give a "expert" opinion.

With that said, and going back to the court reference, lets cross examine the evidence you have provided so far....

I found information/pictures on seven of his rifles which would have been built in the period 1777 (when he finished his apprenticeship) and 1821, the year of his death (which essentially predated the emergence of percussion rifles).

In this age, we are blessed by being able to view photos of arms we may never be able to see in real life. But for the builder and researcher, photographs leave a lot to be desired.

Some have the eye and are actually able to see what they are looking at. Others could look all day long, and never really see.

The great guns of this period were built with tricks of the eye in their construction. So a builder, not only needs to see, he needs to know what he is seeing and how he can replicate it.

There is no substitute for actually handling the real thing. A great example is John Phillip Beck. In photographs, his rifles look robust, maybe even heavy. Nearly all who have had the privilege to handle a Beck, have been surprised at how dainty, almost fragile they feel in the flesh.

Of the 7 rifles, only one (1) was not carved/engraved - the others were quite fancy and typical of (his style) as it progressed.

Can we be sure that this atypical rifle is really genuine?

Could this be a Re-stock where a gun stocker from a later or even the same period, restocked the rifle using some or most of the original parts, especially the signed barrel?

A good stocker or gunsmith would try to capture the original hand. Some were better than others and even life long experts will disagree on the authenticity of atypical pieces.

On an online museum there is a smoothbore with a possible attribution to gunmaker John Moll. I do stress the possible attribution.

This gun has a Spanish musket barrel, built like a smooth rifle,has a provision for a bayonet and has some engraved hardware that look to be engraved by Moll.

here is a summary of the expert reveiws...

Stockwork crude compared to Moll, it looks to be a composite gun made with some parts maybe engraved by Moll.

Later restock of a Moll made gun.

This gun may be a war time made gun and since he served in the Continental Army, this very well could have been his personal gun.

Since we are are not sure of the gun, it should be accepted into the museum on it's on merit as a interesting piece with a note that this could possibly be attributed to Moll.

Did the "fancier" rifles tend to survive because they were fancy (and possibly more expensive in the first place) and better cared for?

My present opinion is this and it may change in the future...

Historically the rifle was not a a play pretty of the landed gentry. While the best makers undoubtedly had some wealthy customers during the Golden Age, the American longrifle was a poor to middling class frontier arm. Now when I say poor I'm not talking about the guy in the back alley with the tin cup. I'm talking about the frontiersman who spends a years pay on a rifle to enable him to have another years pay.
Maybe he is a middle son.
Maybe he is a farmer hunter.
Maybe he is an Indian.

So the culture thing comes up again, whats fancy and whats plain?

Why do the 19th Century plain Tennessee rifles exist at all, shouldn't they all be used up?

Why were some very "fancy" rifles literally rescued from wood piles, trash heaps and barns, shouldn't they have had a place of honor?

Why were some very plain guns kept as a treasured family jewel? I thought they were all used,up yet some exist.

So I still the think the survival rate is based on the the original production rate.

 

[Captjoel]

Speculation is about all anyone can do when it comes to this interesting topic. So far, everyone's opinions have been well thought out. Documentation that has been provided is quite scarce as to gunsmith records and such records do not really tell us much that will prove or disprove what a rifle looked like. What we do have are the actual rifle's themselves that have survived to go on. Unfortunately, I can only say that trying to get a count on how many original longrifle's that are stashed away in private collections will defy estimations. I would hazzard an educated guess that there are more original longrifles in private hands than there are in all of the museums combined here in the United States. Just looking through the auction catalog from last months (October) Julia auction. I found the majority of Kentucky longrifles sold were previously unknown, undocumented to the public eye. In my opinion, a comparison of another important (tool) item may at least give some kind of general idea about survival rates. The American automobile, from it's earliest beginnings to this day, may give us at least a clue. This, I know is like "Apple's to Oranges" but what else can be classified as a very needed tool to mankind. In production since first invented just like the long arms we are talking about. Car's that were built even in my early lifetime, 1956, are down right scarce when you compare the KNOWN production records. I honestly believe that longrifle survival rates will closely compare to survival rates of our precious cars!

 

[galamb]

OK
There is no substitute for actually handling the real thing. A great example is John Phillip Beck. In photographs, his rifles look robust, maybe even heavy. Nearly all who have had the privilege to handle a Beck, have been surprised at how dainty, almost fragile they feel in the flesh.

You are so right with that comment. The first time I encountered an original I didn't quite know how to process it.

It was "thin" and "small" - my preconceived notions based simply on pictures, descriptions etc was so far from reality.

And when you put it to your shoulder the 8 pounds of rifle balanced so well it was like it wasn't even there - "astonishment" doesn't even begin to describe the feeling.

An no, I'm nowhere near an expert - never will be, just an interested party who will probably never be able to afford an original that I would be interested in - one of the Christian Hawken's that I used in my (study) recently sold for 18K - a little out of my range - could have been worse, the John Armstrong in the same auction went for somewhat over 120K.

And likewise, I'm not with the HC/PC police force but if I'm going to build/have built/own a rifle, just to keep to my (ethics? - probably the wrong word, but best I can come up with), I don't want it if there is no existing evidence that it was ever built that way originally. I shouldn't have to convince myself that it was maybe/possible since there are so many examples of originals that could suit just about any taste.

Alot of things "could have been or might have been" but until I have seen it or it's been well documented from a reliable source (and get two of them together and you will get differing opions), I tend to stick with "existing examples".

There is a documented Hawken plains rifle with a swamped barrel - good enough, you could use a swamped barrel if you so chose.

Maybe not "typical", but at least one was made. No documented "flint" plains Hawken's.

Without starting a fight (maybe there was, probably there was, but if there was certainly none that have "survived" have turned up in "as built" condition), but without an example I wouldn't build one in flint when there are numerous other examples from other gunsmiths that could be used to get a similarly styled rifle.

It is unfortunate that there is no great data base somewhere that could help determine survival rates.

Even if it was simply for Trade Guns - must have been in the 1000's originally and they were probably not a prized possession that was envisioned to be handed down - an ultimate "tool" that was to be used, and probably quite hard..

 

[btech]

I've looked at 3 on line auctions in the last week that each have over a dozen "authentic" Colt and Remington revolvers. Ain't no way all these are all real. No paperwork with any site, no appraisals, no nothing. And of course when I ask, they get offended. They're all selling at $1500-2000 and there's no shortage of buyers.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

............ Ain't no way all these are all real.

How do you know that? After all, there are thousands of original Colt revolvers of the various paterns out there,as well as others like Remington, etc. Originals are not hard to find....

 

[btech]

What are the odds of 3 different auction houses having an auction every month with a dozen "real" revolvers each time?? Pretty slim. And if originals aren't hard to find, why is it impossible to get any form of paperwork on them? Even the owners have never had the gun checked. If you owned one, wouldn't you have it appraised even for insurance purposes?

 

[AWsaddles]

I would say the chances of an auction house having an original cap and ball pistol every month could be pretty good. There is a difference in production line guns that were mass produced and long rifles that were constructed individually one at a time. Colt produced a quarter million 1851s alone. I would be leary of trying to buy one online because pics do not tell all the story. You do have to do your research and upon inspection make educated decisions on the mater but they are out there.

 

[AWsaddles]

Getting paper work on them , while not hard to get , does take time. Colt lost many records over time, once in a fire and once in a flood . They can be documented now but many times only through shipping records and they are not very detailed. You can contact Colt or other manufactuer for information on certain fire arms but that takes time and money. It can cost between 75 and 250 bucks in some cases. It also can take time. It may take 6 weeks, it may take much longer. I waited almost 10 months for paper work on a Parker shotgun once. I agree that the seller should try to get documentation and the auction house should try to authenticate it but don't be put off if one shows up in good condition. That is where you have to educate your self. Get as many books on the mater and go places and look at as many known originals as possible. Then you can spot the diferences between real and fake. It may not be hard to turn out a fake, but it takes real work to turn out a good one. Hope I didn't get to ff Sorry

 

[Coot]

A couple of personal observations:

I did not count the number of percussion Colts at the recent Civil War show in Richmond, VA but I would guess at 100. As noted, hundreds of thousands were made.

Over the years, I have purchased dozens of antique swords and most were offered without paperwork. On several with paperwork, the dealer had mis-identified the sword. A piece of paper doesn't have any meaning unless dealing with a large, well established, money back guarantee seller. For a lot of lower priced items, an appraisal does not made much sense - the appraisal is an opinion, not a warranty & could cost a significant part of the price.

To give a personal perspective re survival rates, I want to get a 1808 Starr Contract naval cutlass. 2000 were made. In 50 years of on & off collecting, I cannot recall ever seeing one offered for sale. On the other hand, Starr also made 2000 cutlasses for the US Navy under his 1826 contract. I have owned three, handled a dozen more offered for sale & seen others in museums & even on ebay.

It is amazing as to what is (and is not) out there ...........

 

[AWsaddles]

I agree

 

[faste350]

i have an, (i'll call) original remington i aquired a year ago. the barrel is stamped "remington", which from research would have been made between 1816 and 1838. in 1839 the name went to e.remington and son after the oldest son joined the business. and in 1845 his second son joined the company and the name went to e remington and sons. as far as when the actual gun was built, i don't know. the barrel is 36 cal, 25 inches long and 1 1/4' across the flats, with a fancy false muzzle. it has had some repairs over the years, but none look very recent. it was found in an attic with several other old guns. it is in good shape and shoots well. shot several squirrels this year with it. it is a percussion gun and doesn't appear to be a conversion. originals are out there, we just need to stumble onto them.

 

[tecum-tha]

American arms were surviving at a much lower rate than European ML guns, just because of the much harsher usage conditions. In Germany, a lot of people had rifles, but their use was imho mostly for sporting purposes.
There is also a good supply of originals there which are in very good shape. No way someone could copy them and sell a copy. They would loose money. Most replicas would cost more than average originals.

 

[54ball]

I'm sure you know this, but it's my understanding that the early Remington Company was more of a barrel maker than a true arms maker.
The commemorative 1816 Remington in reality represented the type of rifle a 1816 gunsmith would have made from a Remington barrel.

Does this fact diminish the significance of your rifle? Absolutely not.

 

[54ball]

In Germany, a lot of people had rifles, but their use was imho mostly for sporting purposes.

Yep, and they had a nice mountain top castle or country manor to keep them in.

There is also a good supply of originals there which are in very good shape. No way someone could copy them and sell a copy. They would loose money. Most replicas would cost more than average originals.

That's very true. I guess in the US it's the difference between collectors and shooter collectors. A Good contemporary made rifle many times sells for more than the original it's based on to the right market. Take the contemporary piece to a antique arms show and it will be proclaimed as a worthless fake. :idunno:

I think the fakery is in stuff like Indian relic guns, massed produced stuff like revolvers and Confederate guns.