The Carolian type G, Southern rifles and the Golden Age

[54ball]

Theory....

The Carolina Trade Gun Type G being very slim influenced the gun makers of the South West, frontier Virginia, North and South Carolina, Tennessee and possibly Georgia, to produce a very slim rifle for the Indians and the Deerskin trade. These very slim rifles were carried by men from this region in rifle companies during the Revolution.

The Pennsylvania makers, seeing these slim type Indian or Over the Mountain type rifles incorporated that slimness into their designs, thus starting the Golden Age.

I know that there were many other factors but does this have any merit?

 

[jdkerstetter]

So, let me see if I have this right.

Your contention is that the Pennsylvania makers were influenced to change the architecture of their rifles based on the influence of Southern gun builders instead of the commonly excepted evolutionary theories.

Is that your theory?

I would like to participate in this debate but first, can you give me some published examples of which of these Southern Revolutionary War guns you are reffering to for comparison, i.e. numbered guns in the RCA or KRitGA Books or other books?

Thanks, J.D.

 

[54ball]

I'm not trying to re write history. As a matter of fact I accept the history of the longrifle.

There are many mysteries in the development of these arms. I just asked if my view had any merit.

This would be a good verbal conversation, but due to the complexity it's hard to type it in these little boxes without typing War and Peace.

I will omit Georgia as there are no known rifles from there until the 19th Century.

So I will break things down and get in a little more detail.

1. The Moravains and Pennsylvania Dutch of German descent brought the rifle culture to America.

2. The years between the French and Indian War and the Revolution saw great migration and development in the American rifle. It was during these years that many from the Penn. area traveled south and west, down the Great Wagon Road. For instance Boone traveled to NC and eventually Kentucky many gunsmiths traveled also. Both 1. are 2. are verbatim for any basic history of the long rifle.

3. These years were the height of the deerskin trade. The primary harvester for deer were the Indians and secondary to them the white market or long hunters. As the skin trade escalated rifles became the more preferred arm for Indians and whites.

4. For decades the English imported very slim long barreled trade guns into southern ports, namely Charleston. These trade guns later known as the Carolina were very slim and long of barrel. I've handled one, a gun with a 46" barrel and weighs less than 5 pounds is slim indeed.

5. The gunsmiths in the Valley of Virginia and the Carolinas who had the most contact with the Southern tribes and a Moravian rifle culture of their own,possibly produced slimmer rifles to suit their customers, Indians and hunters.

A note on Indians, The Creeks were a Southern tribe. They had close ties to the Shawnee. As a matter of fact a southern band of Shawnee lived amongst the creeks in the 18th Century. Looking at a map Creek territory starts on the Gulf Coast. Cherokee territory starts roughly north of the Tennessee River and north into Kentucky. Shawnee territory is north of Cherokee country into the Ohio Vally. The Shawnee had contact with the Delaware and even Mohawks. So the deer skin trade and Indian influence is as much East and West as it is North and South, excluding New England who really had no rifle culture prior to the Revolution.

6. Rifle companies were organized during the Revolution from the frontier areas namely Virginia and Pennsylvania. These men even dressed as Indians or in the Indians style. These rifle companies traveled from the southern colonies to Canada and back. A journey that in peace time these men would have never made. In that journey ideas and culture intermingle.
The rifle companies were at times miss-used. For such a small corps they did make a good showing. The battles of Freeman's Farm "Saratoga, and later Kings Mountain, Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse were battles where rifles played a decisive role.
The riflemen did their best when they fought in the Indian style. Suggesting that the rifle was a Indian weapon.

7. The Golden Age my most Scholars starts in 1780 and ends around 1820-25. Golden Age rifles are known to be slimmer and longer. A good number of great Pennsylvania schools did not come into fruition until the Golden Age. Again a Golden Age rifle is for the most part longer and slimmer than a pre-war rifle.

Is it possible that the slim frontier guns primarily from the south western frontier played a part in the development of the Golden Age Rifle?

Pre-Revolutionary
Edward Marshalls Rifle I believe its RCA# 41

The Christian Oerter Rifle from 1773

Both of these rifles are examples of pre-war Penn. rifles with a strong Jaeger influence.

The Haymaker Rifle from VA... A Rev War rifle long and slim compared to the Penn rifles.

RCA 115 A slim rifle of Southern origin.

RCA 114 A VA rifle.. The Freeborn possibly VA possibly 1777

Conrad Humble rifle of Kentucky slim, long possibly Rev War.

Jos Bogle Rifle of Tennessee may be as early as 1785...An example of a iron trimmed southern gun. Bogle was from VA

Lastly Martin Sheets
A fully developed Golden Age Rifle

 

[rich pierce]

These are good theories but they will probably always remain theories. We don't have and won't find a 1750's Guns and Ammo magazine with an article on "The New Slim Rifle Preferred by Longhunters" that doucments trends of the time and what is causing changes in guns. There are no 1760's magazine articles comparing Moravian rifles versus Valley of Virginia rifles, as we might see in a 1970's Guns and Ammo article comparing the Winchester Model 70 with the Remington Model 700. So we speculate and theorize, and some arguments rise and wane over time as new rifles emerge to reinforce one writers' conclusions or another's.

I'm a little cautious about the idea of Carolina guns influencing rifles of the time, which rarely weighed less than 8 pounds, and which often reached 10 pounds (RCA 42). The "Woodsrunner gun" which has been proposed as a 1760's rifle does not have features that would make me conclude it is pre-1770. The Haymaker rifle is a robust gun of about 1770 in my estimation. The Humble rifle is quite later by any measure of style and components. The Faber rifle is quite a handy piece. It looks robust in pictures but there is not a sliver of extra wood on that gun.

There is always a desire to early-date some rifles, because we wish we had some really early rifles we could base our builds on and say, "that's a 1750's rifle".

I will be brave or crazy and list some early rifles and my rough estimates of when they were made, and when they could not have been made. I do this recognizing it is difficult to pin a date down on an unsigned rifle and that it is possible to be off by 10 or even 15 years. Trying to provide the basis for good debate. "RCA" means "Rifles of Colonial America" volumes 1 or 2 by Shumway.

RCA 17 and RCA 19: late 1750's-1770.

RCA 20:1750's-1760's.

RCA 40: 1750's-1760's.

Marshall rifle (RCA 41) probably re-stocked in the 1760's, but the original was probably 1750's. Not a 1770's rifle.

RCA 42: 1760-1770.

RCA 48 & 49: Earlierst Dickerts? 1765-1775.

RCA 52: this rifle has always intrigued me; I know there is a lot of debate. 1765-1775.

RCA 73; Newcomer rifle 1765-1775.

RCA 83: Berlin rifle, 1765-1775.

RCA 84: Recognizing the secondary work done on this rifle during it's working years, still a big step-wristed rifle, 1765-1775.

RCA 87: J Graef, the Christians Spring box places it as an early 1770's rifle.

RCA 90: Schroyer attributed, 1765-1775.

RCA 92: Schroyer-attributed, so robust. 1765-1775.

RCA 103, the brass barreled rifle, now with a date of 1771, I believe. but it looks earlier, so this is a lesson as we estimate other rifles.

RCA 104- a weird rifle with all that drop at the heel. Is it a restock of Euro parts? Furniture suggests it's a 1760's rifle.

RCA 106: whattizit? Much of it looks so early but the sideplate looks American so 1770's.

RCA 108: huge rifle probably captured during the Revolutionary war and taken to England. Huge. But the guard does not look 1760's to me.

RCA 110: probably a European rifle and if Scandinavian, could be 1770's.

RCA 111: a weird little rifle. I've handled this one and it's maybe a European 1740's-1760 rifle.

RCA 114:Free Born: 1765-1775. I have a hard time seeing a well-evolved cross-hinge brass box as earlier than 1765. Plus the sideplate is not early in design, nor is the guard particularly early-looking.

RCA 117, Faber rifle. As stated above, there's nothing there that makes me need to eliminate the 1750's for this rifle, but it could be well into the 1760's.

RCA 118: this is a rifle nobody talks about but seems to me could be the elusive English influenced Southern rifle of the 1740'-1750's. This gun is worn OUT and has unique features that are fascinating. a nailed on buttplate, a fowler style guard, and weird carving.

RCA 124: love this early rifle and it could be earlier but some features look "evolved" to me so 1770-ish. 1765-1775.

RCA 127: 1770's restock of an earlier rifle.

RCA 131: Adam Haymaker rifle. Looks 1770's to me (curvature of the buttplate, looks evolved). As I understand it the owner died in 1774 so must pre-date that.

RCA 132: a shortened rifle, wonderful early robust architecture, 1765-1775.

RCA 142: 1740's-1770's. We know it was built of used parts some of which were much earlier. If it was stocked by a guy making muskets during the Revolutionary War it could be that late as many parts guns of that era look similar. But there's nothing there to preclude it being much earlier.

Musician's rifle: 1755-1765. Not a 1770's rifle, not a 1740's rifle.

Woodsrunner gun: 1765-1775. Some will argue that Southern rifles evolved faster but without dates and names, this is speculation.

Deshler rifle: mid 1760's to mid-1770's. Why a narrow range for this rifle? Because the evolution of the side-opening brass patchbox is pretty well documented.

Any more you'd like to dicuss? My estimates will change over time as new data emerges.

 

[gearheart]

I find it amazing that you would include the natives in the deer skin trade. Wasting a food animal just for the hide is so contrary to their culture. This practice of the long hunters was probably the source of great friction between the tribes and the whites. Just my $.02 and likely over valued.

 

[rich pierce]

Natives were selling deer hides by the ton to traders. I'm not sure we can generalize Native American beliefs and culture, especially after European contact and dependence on trade goods.

 

[LRB]

Yep. The noble, one with nature red man also craved material goods, and deer skins were traded to get them.

 

[matt denison]

Rich, that's a long and interesting list. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

Matt

 

[Gordon Jabben]

There are many accounts of natives harvesting more than they could use. The Osages in my area were known to shoot buffalo and eat only the tongue on there summer voyage to the salt plains for salt. Waist probably varied with how plentiful game was.

 

[tg]

"
Natives were selling deer hides by the ton to traders.'

As I recall very early that was the source of all the French furs as they prefered to trade rather than trap their own, so the NA's obviously took much more than they needed for ther own useage, there is nothing to suggest that they really had any understanding of a "limited" resourse concept about the wildlife they used.

I really do not see enough "early" documented southern guns to make any type of judgement to make any conection of comparison to the evolution of the Longrifle, I would suspect that the Penn influence was strong in the south due to the movement of people and guns and other items changed similarly due to cross influences between some areas

 

I find it amazing that you would include the natives in the deer skin trade. Wasting a food animal just for the hide is so contrary to their culture.

Once the plains tribes got the horse and gun, they slaughtered the buffalo, taking the best parts and leaving much to rot on the prairie. Don't believe everything in the movies. Hell, they ate each other. :wink:

 

[Jim Comer]

I find it amazing that you would include the natives in the deer skin trade. Wasting a food animal just for the hide is so contrary to their culture.

Once the plains tribes got the horse and gun, they slaughtered the buffalo, taking the best parts and leaving much to rot on the prairie. Don't believe everything in the movies. Hell, they ate each other. :wink:

I believe you have my people confused with the Aztec Indians they regularly ate parts of there own not the Native Indian

 

[mtmshieldshotmail.com]

I find it amazing that you would include the natives in the deer skin trade. Wasting a food animal just for the hide is so contrary to their culture.

Once the plains tribes got the horse and gun, they slaughtered the buffalo, taking the best parts and leaving much to rot on the prairie. Don't believe everything in the movies. Hell, they ate each other. :wink:

I believe you have my people confused with the Aztec Indians they regularly ate parts of there own not the Native Indian

I believe there is significant archeological evidence as well as written accounts of witnesses that some NAs (especially tribes that lived along the Gulf coast from present day Texas to Louisiana) were cannibals, at least ritually. There is also evidence they were particularly "inhumane" in how they did it: they would slice flesh from the still living victim, who was tied to a stake, and consume it in front of him.

Regards,
Mike

 

[jdkerstetter]

I'd rather not get into the debate on who ate who. I sense tension could get higher than our usual HC/PC debates.

Back to the Type "G" Trade Guns and their potential influence on the Pennsylvania gun makers.

I don't have much to add on the timeline after Rich's comprehensive post. Thanks for the information Rich.

I don't know if the Type "G" was that much more trim than the other trade guns being offered up for trade in the North which the Pennsylvanians would have been exposed to well before the Revolution.

I could see an arguement for fowler influence but don't see where it would fit into rifle evolution.

Many of the documented early Southern guns were as heavy through the butt as early PA rifles or nearly so.

I stand with the lighter rifle coming of age with the reduction in average caliber after the decline of eastern bit game animals. Lighter caliber and subsequent recoil meant the rifles could be scaled down too.

I sure there was cross influence from North to South but I don't think it much to do with Trade Guns.

J.D.

 

[TinStar]

Interesting discussion.

What was the main English trade gun in the northern colonies? Any pics?

TinStar
Soli Deo Gloria!

 

[Shine]

There was not much trading by the english north of the mass bay colony. I would assume it would be trade guns made by the Wilsons. They had a french look to them to compete with french goods. During the F&I war most tribes north of new york sided with the french. They paid when france lost. There was a 50 pound bounty on any penobscot. The reason all of the maine tribes still live on ancestral land and were never moved?
They chose the right side in the next war. Type G parts have found as far as new york. Most everything dug up here is from St. Ettiene,Tulle.

 

[jdkerstetter]

What was the main English trade gun in the northern colonies? Any pics?

I don't recall saying anything about English trade guns in the North. I recall saying "other" trade guns.

J.D.

 

[rich pierce]

Carolina-style guns have been found in NY state. Sir William Johnson was getting a lot of English trade guns and fowling pieces for the tribes and so local colonists would have been very familiar with them.

 

[Shine]

Im feel like this today :stir: for my 1000th post. So here is this
Boston Evening Post July 31, 1749:
Lost from a House in-Boston, the 3th of this Instant, a Rifle Barrel Gun', nine square in the inside of the Barrel, and seam’d on the outside; the Barrel is about three Feet and four Inches long, with Steel mounting. Whoever will bring the Gun to the Printer hereof, or inform where it is, so that the Owner may have it again, shall have Five Pounds
Sited from Newsbank.com

 

[jdkerstetter]

Thanks Rich. I wasn't trying to insinuate that there weren't any English guns up North. I just felt I was being bated....and maybe unrightfully so....and was just clarifying my statement above.

J.D.