Transitional Comparison

[Zonie]

Several of you have mentioned an interest in building one of Pecatonica Rivers "Transitional Kentucky" rifles.
I know most of you have seen these pictures, but I thought that if I merged them together, it would be of interest to you.

The top gun is my version of the Transitional (which is one of the styles common in the 1750s)

The lower gun is my version of a Franklin County style as might have been found in the 1830-1840 time frame.

For me, seeing them side by side gives me a better feel for some of their features. Both of these guns pictures are at the same scale as shown by the fence boards.

 

[charlie47]

Hi Zonie,
Thanks for the comparison. It is my first exposure to the
Franklin Co. To my eyes it looks like a Bedford Co. Also
it has some of the outline of the Pedersoli/Cabela's rifle.

A close friend has an Armstrong, early 1800s. That rifle
really comes up and feels great to me. Unfortunately, I don't see the Armstrong very often. I really like the lines on your Transitional. I appreciate your putting them together.
Regards,
charlie47

 

[tg]

The transitional rifle is an interesting subject, many consider an early longrifle and a transitional rilfe to be the same,one true longrifle is documented to 1761 and several are thought to be as early as 1750, it seems that there is little agreed upon as to what if anything seperates a transitional from a true early longrifle, barrel length cannot be the measure as long and short barreled guns span the whole time frame of the flintlock gun,stock architecture in true early longrifles can be very much Germanic or English same with locks and furniture, the Marshal gun is often given as the standard of a transitional gun but is a restocked gun from an earlier time and may have been done in the 1770's I suspect that the current offereings are mainly aimed at providing another gun for the F&I period more than offering something of a historical nature.

 

[Zonie]

Quoting tg: "...I suspect that the current offereings are mainly aimed at providing another gun for the F&I period more than offering something of a historical nature."

Am I to take it that there never was a gun which looked like this?
Wondering minds want to know about this not so obvious forgery of history and how we can be so sure that it is just another fantasy.

 

[Zonie]

Because the upper comparison of the Transitional and the Franklin represents about 100 years of change, I thought the picture below might be a better example.
It is not just showing the change in 25 years of rifle development, but IMO it is comparing a totally different interpretation of what a gun should look like.
IMO, the upper 1750ish "Transitional" represents revising and remolding the Jaeger shape into a newer, longer, less stocky form while retaining many Jaeger features.
The lower 1770ish (J. Dickert) Lancaster represents the more graceful shape which was to prove to become the more popular form of the future.

 

[tg]

Jim,My point is that when we look at the works of Schumway, Kindig and others we do not see much in the way of a seperate classification called transitional, I think in RCA1 the term transitional piece is use to describe a gun maybe #19 or #20 the first is right after the Shriet gun of 1761 and all are similar and there is nothing by the author to establish a solid difference between the transitional piece and the other two, I suspect most feel that a transitional gun is not fully German or English yet not completely Colonial...pretty hard to nail this down with the early longrifles of the pre rev war era that developed before the traits that became associated with the schools of the 1780's and 90's came to be. Many of the early longrifles could be considered modifications with new twists to the German style of gunbuilding, I am saying that the term transitional is not very definible when compared to the term early longrifle and I am unaware of any existing 1750's guns around to study and compare with the existing 1760 and 1770 ones so we must draw upon speculation based on that which we do know I would think that a gun like the Shriet gun which was built in 1761 might have looked much the same 5 or 10 years earlier as some made 5 or 10 years later are similar, we have however come to pigeon hole the so called transitional gun into a very specific gun based soley on what several suppliers are offering and treating it as a different gun than an early longrifle this I think may not be accurate as I have seen nothing historicaly based to support it...as usual the main thrust of my post is look to the originals not to what current suppliers or builders offer for a lesson in gun history. Your interpretation of a 1750 gun may differ from mine or someone elses, depending on what if any research was done and how closely the research was followed or could be followed if working from pre-carved stocks and available parts...I have always felt that when offering a demonstration in differences or similarities of different guns it is best to use the originals when they are available
unless one has faithfully copied an original. BTW your guns are very well made and top notch quality judging from the pics.

 

[Stumpkiller]

TG,

So what you gonna carry your accoutrements in for this authentic transitional or F&I War piece when you get it 100% authenticated? Last I knew there wasn't a single existing example of a F&I War era shooting pouch. There has to be some room for interpretation among reenactors. We can't all afford forge welded up iron barrels formed as skelps over mandrels, so the whoring of the interpretations begins right from the get-go in using modern steels and techniques. Most of us would be paralized into inaction if we waited for perfect authenticity or completeness.

Toss on your Dyer mocks and your machine stitched hunting frock coat and get started. Perfection is the enemy of good enough. I think it's fair to allow today's smiths to take some liberties in interpreting designs or building patterns suggestive of the styles of the originals. The original smiths did just that to form the various schools we recognize today. Some of the most magnificent arms being made currently are not 'museum quality reproductions' and that's a good thing. Art should not be forced to comply with restrictive parameters. Between the wild fantasy pieces and the $12,000 identical copy pieces there is a suggestive semi-scale approximation that's good enough, IMHO, as long as the builder and owner acknowledge it is just that.

What we call 'stand-off' scale or 'squint' scale in radio controlled aircraft. Not up to top static scale competition but good enough for sport and pattern flying events. And certainly good enough for just having fun.

 

[Liver eatin’ Johnson]

" Most of us would be paralized into inaction if we waited for perfect authenticity or completeness. "

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

I agree 100%

 

[Zonie]

Tg: I take your comment on my guns as a great compliment. My thanks to you.

Concerning the " Transitional "style, it appears to be based on the Marshall rifle. You, among others have said this gun was restocked in the 1770s but I must confess my ignorance of the data to support that claim and until I see factual indisputable proof, I will wonder if the original authors of this statement (not you) had such proof, or if they were out to gain personal noteriety. After all, if one can discredit a most recognizable example of a historical period, he will bask in the brilliance of his own making.

Getting off of my soapbox, permit me to make the following speculation:

Given the ethnic background of many of the builders (German) and the popularity of the Jaeger in Germany at the time coupled with the "restocked?" Marshall gun, it only makes sense to me that such guns did exist.
This gun would have been made from wood common to the Colonies such as Apple, Cherry, Maple or of course Walnut.
Those guns made of walnut would in all probability have been labeled as of European manufacture. Of course without a specimen to examine this is speculation but it does appear to me to be a theory based on logic.

Perhaps I should start calling the rifle in the above photos the Olde Tyme Gun, or a Americanized Jaeger and make everyone happy. ::

 

[tg]

I believe that many speculate that the Marshall gun was resocked in the 1770's due to comparing some of the traits to dateable guns it may have been done in the 1760's and it was a restock that is not in question, there are previous dovetails on the top of the barrrel, I am certain that guns "similar' to this were done in the 1760's we just do not have any existing ones to go by and I se no defining features that differ twixt the transitional gun and the early longrifle (see Scumway 19 and 20) that is why I call it a marketing ploy and I do not advocate perfection or complete authenticity just to study and understand that which we do know then decide where to go from there not to make things up as we go and try to convince ourselves and others that it could have been,read carefully the hype about the gun mentioned at the begining of this post, a new type of gun with 40"+ barrel under .50 cal with brass patchbox..sounds like an early longrifle to me, and if one compares this particular offering to any of the guns that are given a possible date of pre 1770 there is not much in common, but then again to some extent we are stuck with what we are offered...I once again only suggest that one studies the originals not the guns made by todays builders if PC is a goal one is striving for. There are many things such as bags that we have no examples to go by so we do the best we can, but there are also many original items available to gauge or efforts by, if historicaly correct is not an issue then it matters not but if it is, a little research and study does not hurt very much.... of course if you really want a 1760 J.P. Beck go ahead, but it may be a bit difficult to explain to some.(VBG)

 

[JerryToth]

Hey tg;

Three questions:

1) Is there any way that you or anyone else could post a quick picture of the 1761 Shreit rifle, or would it be violating the copyright laws for someone's book? I have a copy of Schumway's RCA promised to me, but I've not seen it yet.

2) You mentioned Jim Chamber's Mark Silver's Early rifle as a pretty accurate rifle. Is it similar to the Shreit?

3) Is the "Pre-Revolutionary Rifle" that Pecatonica offers an effort towards this rifle?

Regards, and thanks for all you're teaching me.

Jerry.

 

[musketman]

Hey tg;

Three questions:

1) Is there any way that you or anyone else could post a quick picture of the 1761 Shreit rifle,

Look at this page from Black Hart Longarms...

http://www.blackhartlongarms.com/johnschreit.htm

 

[tg]

My scanner is down so I cannot get a pic of the Shriet gun but the Blackhart gun looks pretty close, I cannot tell what lock is on it though, The Chambers Virginia gun is more in line with some of the Southern attributed guns in RCA and has a stronger English influence, the Shriet gun is an early Reading gun with Germanic style. I did not see a pic of the Petaconica gun you mentioned on the website so I do not know what it looks like. Generaly speaking the pre rev guns will have wide buttstocks of around 2" fairly straight stocks with less drop than the later guns, cheek pieces parralel with the comb, locks of German or English import type,possibly lacking a toe plate, there are other features mentioned in the books as guidelines as well...but as always there are exceptions.