One interesting characteristic of quite a few assumed early rifles is that the buttplates tend to be exceedingly thin. Of course most antique castings are thinner than we tend to use today (just sent morning filling off probably 8 oz of brass off an old K2 lehigh guard...) in part because of better sand casting practice historically (generally finer facing sand used than by foundries now) and in part - most likely - because of conservation of both material and work. After all, it's actually pretty stupid to cast a guard like the old K2 as ridiculously oversized as the casting actually is, and then have to spend hours filing the darned thing down to where it should be. But I digress - looking at say the Fenimore rifle, or Ed Marshall's rifle, and other pieces mentioned or discussed here, those buttplates are super thin and quite a number display wear right thoguht the heel despite being generally inlet and fully supported by wood. Why is this? Couple of ways to look at it. Early on, I do not believe it was likely that many of the early gunsmiths were casting their own furnishings. Hardware was fairly easily obtainable via imports (ample evidence of this via sale ads in PA Gazette) as well as larger founders in cities i.e. Philly. Bob L has already provided evidence of the Moravians running wagons back and forth between Bethlehem and Philly for materials. Also, hardware was obtainable via secondary usage - most of the early gunsmith work seems to have been more oriented toward repair of existing pieces than of stocking new guns, at least up until the 1770s and War era. It's long been believed than some of these early buttplates may have been formed and hammered out of sheet brass; brass sheet was probably easier to obtain than a new-cast buttplate, especially if a smith was not set up with patterns and materials to run castings. Swaging out a plate from thin brass, even up to @ 1/8" thick, is fairly easy with nothing more than primitive smith tools and a heat source. Of course many early buttplates display ample evidence of hammering on the inside surfaces, although this can't really be viewed as conclusive given than even obvious castings often show evidence of much hammering, whether for finer shaping or for work hardening soft castings etc. Anyway just some thoughts.
I love this post on so many levels, it is difficult to say how much.
I've long known the old Blacksmith saying that, "10 minutes properly spent at a forge will save you an hour of hand filing." As one who had to sweat blood learning precision hand filing of steel and other metals and later teaching it to apprentices who were often as ignorant of it as I had been (or more), I SHOULD have thought it also applied to casting and finishing brass, but I personally never made that connection before. DUH!
Brass was also a LOT more expensive and far less commonly available as a material for founding in the Colonies than we think about today. Though brass making was begun in Connecticut in the mid 18th century, the earliest commercial source I have found so far, it wasn't a huge industry until later in the 19th century. Heck, Brass making wasn't begun in Birmingham (England), a MUCH more industrialized city, until the 1740's.
Though I lost the original quote one or two old computers ago, during the AWI when our sources from England for brass were cut off, the Geddy Brothers advertised in the Virginia gazette for broken horse tack, buckles, etc. just to have the brass to cast for gun parts and other things.
Speaking of the Geddy Brothers and in support of the post above....
"THE VIRGINIA GAZETTE
August 8,
1751
DAVID and William Geddy Smith at Williamsburg , near the Church, having all Manner of Utensils requisite, carry on the Gun-smith's, Cutler's, and Founder's Trade, at whose Shop may be had the following Work, viz. Gun Work, such as Guns and Pistols Stocks, plain,
or neatly varnished, Locks and Mountings, Barrels blued, bored, and rifled;"
Further period documentation shows the Geddy brothers were offering rifling as a service in the ad above, as they never made complete rifles. Though they as founders could have made "mountings" or what we call "furniture," they darn sure weren't making gun locks in this period, though they did all manner of repairs to gun locks. So this means they were importing locks and possibly if not probably mountings and barrels as well.
Oh, the ad is also proof that types of VARNISH were also used this early on gun stocks in the colonies, though this more of a subject for a different thread.
I have to admit many decades ago, I bought into the myth that colonial gunsmiths made every part of every gun they ever built. However, the one complete gun that gunsmith apprentices had to make to learn their trade could well have been the LAST gun they ever made where they made everything to include the barrel and lock - unless they were making guns during or shortly post AWI. It was usually cheaper to buy an imported lock from factories that made them in England/Europe and often they made more money by buying rough forged to completely finished barrels and brass mountings/furniture as well.
Gus
