The first poor boys

[StarnesRowan]

I know well that what we call Poor boy style surfaced around 1800 but there had to be a precursor. could it be possible that people of low income were using brass mounted rifles with no patch box, nose cap, and or side plate in the 1770s

 

[sussexmuzllodr]

I know well that what we call Poor boy style surfaced around 1800 but there had to be a precursor. could it be possible that people of low income were using brass mounted rifles with no patch box, nose cap, and or side plate in the 1770s

My guess is that it would have to be what materials were available and what one could afford.

 

[Jakeytoo]

I know well that what we call Poor boy style surfaced around 1800 but there had to be a precursor. could it be possible that people of low income were using brass mounted rifles with no patch box, nose cap, and or side plate in the 1770s

They were called “Schimmels” or ”barn guns” in Pennsylvania.

 

[oldwood]

Yes they were using an occasional gun made of salvaged parts , or any other combination of gun parts to make a usable gun . I've seen a few examples over the last 50+ years. In the 1980's , we used to attend the Baltimore antique gun show. There was always one or so Lock-Stock_N-barrel originals there. I never purchased any of them , because to me, they were a little pricey for the amount of effort it would take to restore them . These old guns were mostly "used up" and ended up in some corner in an unserviceable condition . Other times , they had broken locks , and were stored in grand pa's hot attic until the wood was dried out and cracked. They were out there in the old days. One thing i've heard too many times said by "experts" , is "they didn't do that" , or it couldn't possibly have been that way. There's too much evidence to suggest otherwise. Because the proof is there , as seen w/ my own old eyes , I'm absolutely guilty of seeking out old parts and reusing them on poorboy guns. A poor boy will kill game and targets just as dead as a $ 1o,ooo rifle. Been there , done that. ........oldwood

 

[troy2000]

Yes they were using an occasional gun made of salvaged parts , or any other combination of gun parts to make a usable gun . I've seen a few examples over the last 50+ years. In the 1980's , we used to attend the Baltimore antique gun show. There was always one or so Lock-Stock_N-barrel originals there. I never purchased any of them , because to me, they were a little pricey for the amount of effort it would take to restore them . These old guns were mostly "used up" and ended up in some corner in an unserviceable condition . Other times , they had broken locks , and were stored in grand pa's hot attic until the wood was dried out and cracked. They were out there in the old days. One thing i've heard too many times said by "experts" , is "they didn't do that" , or it couldn't possibly have been that way. There's too much evidence to suggest otherwise. Because the proof is there , as seen w/ my own old eyes , I'm absolutely guilty of seeking out old parts and reusing them on poorboy guns. A poor boy will kill game and targets just as dead as a $ 1o,ooo rifle. Been there , done that. ........oldwood

Yep. As a general rule of thumb, anyone who says. 'they never did that' about anything - guns, tools, cooking, sailboat rigs, whatever - is going to be wrong. It may not have been common, but someone somewhere most likely did it...

 

[oldwood]

Troy , yur 100% right .......oldwood

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Yep. As a general rule of thumb, anyone who says. 'they never did that' about anything - guns, tools, cooking, sailboat rigs, whatever - is going to be wrong. It may not have been common, but someone somewhere most likely did it...

Correct the word "never" should not be used... BUT supposing that something "could have" been done and therefore "was done" is equally wrong.

Classic example, they had tea, sugar, and lemons in Britain, but they didn't put lemon into their sugared tea, until After the Russians started doing it. OH and add to that they had glass in the UK and in Germany, but making a glass teacup with a metal holder...for the sugared tea with lemon..., another Russian innovation.

My standard example is they had all the needed materials and tech, and they even had contact with the Orient so some sailor somewhere had to see a wok being used..., but no stir fry in a wok in the UK or American Colonies in the 18th century as far as we know

They were called “Schimmels” or ”barn guns” in Pennsylvania.

According to Dixon's but..., I don't think an 18th century Schimmel exists, nor does a record using the term applied to a rifle or gun from that time period exist. I think there is one "example", but it's dated post 1801.... and the problem one has is if you obtained a rifle for lowest cost, would you fashion or add parts later? So then you added parts or a different builder later added parts, if the time period between purchase and added parts was very short say maybe a couple years or less...., HOW do we tell? "That's a rifle from reworked used parts"..., OK, but was it made then as it is today or was stuff added over time? Was it a full set of unused parts or is this a home-upgraded-schimmel? How do you know it wasn't a complete rifle but hard use lost/damaged some of the hardware, and it was later replaced by dissimilar stuff?

LD

 

[ekettenburg]

Chuck has or had at least one "schimmel" as he called them (he started calling them that in the 1970s, it's not a historical term) that probably dates to the 1790s out of the Bucks Co. area. No way to precisely date it, however.

George Shumway had pictures of a big old rough rifle that would fit the bill with a legitimate squared breech, was probably earlier and may have been War-era. I know he published them somewhere, I saw the gun once about 15+ years ago but I don't remember where it's been published now. Might have been published in one of George Neumann's old books too.

Then I guess if you really want to talk about 'parts' guns or utility guns, well there are plenty of old doglocks and other assorted muskets that were stocked here ca. 1700-1750s that were just a lock/stock/barrel with a guard, sans buttplates or sideplates etc.

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

Here’s an Allen Martin Schimmel:

 

[Notchy Bob]

Eric (post #8) was thinking the same thing I was.

This is "the Square-Breech Rifle":

I think the term, "poor boy," is probably a phrase coined by modern collectors (like "plains rifle"), but if this one doesn't qualify, I don't know what would. The accepted date of its construction is in the 1760-1770 range. It is believed to be American-made in one of the southern colonies out of recycled foreign parts; English lock, French triggerguard, and Dutch barrel. It is reportedly .66 caliber, rifled with eight grooves. The barrel is said to be 39.5" long, and the breech end of the barrel really is square, not octagonal, for the first nine or ten inches. It has no buttplate or patchbox, but you can see it has a "tallow hole" in the butt.

It is noteworthy that the ball for this rifle would have weighed about an ounce. That's a big ball, but I have found several references from the 18th and 19th centuries that mention rifles (not smoothbores) of this caliber. They did exist. I would like to point out that a lot of hunting rifles were commonly of much smaller caliber or gauge, but as people started moving west, they encountered more big game. Kentucky was said to have been rich with bison in the mid-18th century, and people were beginning to move there about the time this rifle would have been assembled. The other thing is that horse-mounted cavalry was an important arm of every military organization, and rifled military weapons were typically made in calibers capable of downing a horse, right up into the early 20th century. If you take out the horse, you effectively take out its rider, and the horse is a bigger target. This particular rifle is usually associated with the American War for Independence. I don't know that it was made specifically for war or for hunting big game, but I do think either of these concepts are worthy of consideration in speculating on the reasons for this large caliber.

What you can't see in this photo is a very Germanic or Scandinavian styled curving cheek-piece. It does have a musket-type sideplate, and a flared tang. The ramrod pipes are recycled. I don't think it has an entry pipe, just the two farther up the forend. I didn't remember a nosecap, but there appears to be one, and I think it looks as if it was cast in place.

There are a few more photos of the original, with some descriptive notes, right here: The Digital Vault: American Rifle

There were at least two accurate copies of this rifle made some years ago, one by a Mr. Dodd. I think @dave_person may have photos of the Dodd copy. It is my understanding that Don Getz made both of the barrels. If you search "square breech rifle" on this and the ALR forum, you might find more about it.

I had a set of full-sized, exquisitely detailed drawings of this rifle, that I bought some time in the mid-seventies, but I lost the drawings in a move about 30 years ago. I'm still convinced they are someplace on the family property... I just don't know where. The drawings were by a Mr. Curt (or Kurt) Hemlepp. I wish I could find them.

Anyway, back to the original question, this rifle is one example of a very simple, unadorned rifle which was put together at low cost. In my mind, those two criteria (simplicity and low cost) pretty much define a "poor boy" rifle. Chuck Dixon wrote a nice article about schimmels which I don't think was formally published, but I was given a copy of it by a member of another forum. Mr. Dixon's thesis was that old-time riflemakers would put together a few rifles "on spec," when they had time, but leave them unadorned and unfinished, with the bare minimum of furniture. Customers could look them over, pick one, and dictate how they wanted it embellished with carvings, inlays and so forth, and how they wanted it finished. The 'smith would then complete the rifle to the customer's order, plain or fancy. Customers with limited means could have a rifle made simply, but with the same quality lock and barrel as the more expensive guns. This may have been how schimmels came to be.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[Crow-Feather]

Yep. As a general rule of thumb, anyone who says. 'they never did that' about anything - guns, tools, cooking, sailboat rigs, whatever - is going to be wrong. It may not have been common, but someone somewhere most likely did it...

Amen

 

[StarnesRowan]

somthing like lowell harrer's early sothern rifle is what I was thinking

 

[Notchy Bob]

These two rifles, from the Contemporary Makers blogspot, are modern-made, but I think may illustrate the idea that @StarnesRowan has presented to us.

This one was made in 2009 by by well-known maker, Jack Brooks:

Mr. Brooks called it a "frontier rifle," something that might have been assembled on the frontier from recycled parts. No buttplate, sideplate, or entry pipes. Lock and ramrod pipes from an English trade gun, barrel and guard from an American rifle, and a silver wrist escutcheon from a fine French gun:

The next rifle is a Lehigh-styled schimmel by Shawn Webster, another well-respected present-day builder:

No buttplate, sideplate, entry pipe, or nosecap, but it does have an iron-lidded patchbox with a whimsical "Allentown Indian" engraving:

There is a lot to like about this rifle, and I find the mix of iron and brass furniture interesting. I could do without the faked damage and "repairs," though:

I don't own either of these rifles, although I sure would like to. I think there may be a trend among today's builders to work with this concept of mixed parts and rustic construction. I find it appealing.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[oldwood]

Notchy..............I too like the challenge of making and using frontier long guns , smooth "rifles" or rifled long guns. In reading accounts of pioneer times , very occasionally , not often , the person sharing the event will make note , that the person's gun was fancy , but it seems will almost never mention a person's gun is of the plain sort. To me this shouts , the gun is a common musket ,or a poor boy long gun. I know it's not good to try to read , and predict stuff in a historical context , but how wrong can we be?? ..................oldwood

 

[kansas_volunteer]

Here is what may be the poorest of poor boy's. It was probably made in the Golden Age.

https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=2636.0
The Adam Angstadt who made it had to be Adam 1st.

http://kentuckyriflefoundation.org/pennsylvania/angstadt-family/
There are those experts here who say all historic rifles were embellished because the have never seen a surviving rifle that was not fully mounted and decorated. This Angstadt rifle destroies that know-it-all claim.

 

[oldwood]

Love the Angstadt Poor boy pictured. 15 yrs . ago after seeing a few of these Lehigh Poor boy guns , I got inspired to build a few , which I did. One item of hardware on the guns I remember was the diversity of metal protective heal device on them. I've seen square cut big head nails , blacksmith made door nail heads , ell shaped pieces of iron nailed and screwed on to the top of the butt heal. It's all fun............oldwood

 

[longcruise]

We have to consider the possible survival rates of the lesser guns. Just my uneducated opinion, but I think there may have been far more than it seems based on survival rates.

They were called “Schimmels” or ”barn guns” in Pennsylvania.

I think as stated above that Dixon either coined the term or popularized it. Wish i could remember where I saw it written by him.

I think the explanation was that Schimmel was/is a german or Dutch (Pennsylvania Dutch?) That means something old and dusty that has been relegated to or left in the barn as in simply put away there in storage. From that came the term barn gun. Least that's what I think

"Poor boy", "Schimmel", "barn gun" are terms I avoid using.

 

[oldwood]

A long time friend and KRA member I met around 1973 , had a couple Lehigh barn gun -Shimmels in his collection. My friend called the guns Barn guns , and shimmels before I ever met Dixon's . The length of pull was right for me , and so I traced the comb of the stock on one , so I could get the drop correct on the 2nd one I scratch built. ..................oldwood

 

[Notchy Bob]

I think as stated above that Dixon either coined the term or popularized it. Wish i could remember where I saw it written by him.

Mr. Dixon wrote a paper in 1981 entitled "The 'Schimmel' and Its Culture." I don't think it was formally published, but was evidently one of a series of papers he called Chuck's Notes. I don't know for sure, but I believe these must have been distributed at seminars and shows.

Mr. Dixon stated he first heard the word schimmel from another gunmaker, Richard Hujsa. He said in Dutch, schimmel means a gray horse. He clarified by pointing out that gray horses were considered less valuable than horses of other colors. I can tell you after owning horses for a number of years, including a few grays, they seem more prone to skin problems (melanoma, allergic reactions and so forth) than darker-colored horses. Maybe that's the basis of this. Mr. Dixon stated the word is used by the Pennsylvania Dutch people, who originally emigrated from Palatinate Germany. They use it to refer to something of less cost, but not necessarily of less value. Apparently, the guns that were called schimmels had the same quality of wood, lock, and barrel as more expensive guns, but minimal furniture and no embellishment. No buttplate, sideplate, entry pipe, nosecap, or inlays. He said they frequently had only one thimble, but some had two, and some had a heelplate or reinforcement as @oldwood mentioned above. He said the addition of a buttplate or other furniture would make it a "plain rifle," but not a true schimmel. Mr. Dixon wrote that most of these came out of Lehigh and Berks counties (Pennsylvania), but he saw one with Lancaster characteristics.

One thing I did not get was how long this word has been in use. It was apparently a term with very limited distribution, originally, so it may not really be a new word so much as one that was just recently "discovered" by people outside of that section of Pennsylvania. I think it is a good term to use for a specific style of muzzleloading long gun, although it may be a bit over-used now. Using Mr. Dixon's criteria, neither of the rifles I showed in post #13 would qualify, as one has a patchbox and the other has a silver wrist escutcheon. For a broader audience, probably just the term, "plain rifle" would be good enough.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[kansas_volunteer]

I have questioned the term barn gun. Why would someone leave a rifle in the barn when in a situation requiring near instant access to a rifle, as in defending the home, a rifle in the barn would be useless.

On the other hand I can see where the frontier may have been fully settled in Pennsylvania in an era when the barn guns were extant and quick access to a rifle may not have been high on a farmer's priority. Or, the farmer could afford two rifles, one hanging over the fireplace and a lesser quality stashed in the barn.