What is THE frontier longrifle?

[54ball]

Hello,
I ask this after a year or more of thought on this subject. The time period I am talking about is roughly 40 years, from 1770 to 1810. :thumbsup: :front: The area, the west and southwest{for the time in question}. The person or persona, the over the mountain men,the militia that destroyed Ferguson,the men with Boone,a companion of Crockett under Jackson and Coffee,a trailblazer who hunted, explored and then settled on the frontier. To be more specific, In 1790 a man of Virginia and Carolina stock whose brothers fought at Kings Mountain whose father owned property migrates to North Georgia explores the Alabama frontier and more than likely takes an Indian wife. What was his rifle? This question is hard to answer. The more intelligent thought, the more questions emerge. :hmm:
The so-called Virginia and Carolina guns seem to descend from the Langcaster style. The later Armstrong also seems to follow this trend but with a sleekness all its own. I would love to think this early frontiersman carried a basic unadorned rifle. Plain and sturdy, a real no frills meat maker. :: I want this rifle to exist because I kaint carve :redface: and cannot afford a highly adorned custom. I dont think I'm the only one that wishes the proverbial frontiersman carried a plain, looks like it came from TVM longrifle. What did they really carry? Labor was cheap in that era. A lot of logic today though valid and intelligent may not be compatable with the 18th and early 19th century reality. :imo:
Here are some theories I struggle with and need to do more research on. Plain guns did not survive because they were used and abused, lost or simply thrown away by later generations. Southern guns were lost in the Civil War. Most longhunters had fine rifles because their livelyhood depended on it. Frontiersman were so poor that all they could afford was a smoothbore or a barn,hog,poorboy or something cobbled together by the local wheeler or blacksmith. Surviving long rifles were superfine art forms made for the wealthy and common folk never carried such.
I have a period drawing circa 1800 of a Georgia squatter. He is propped on his gun both hands over the muzzle just below his chin with the gun leaning at an angle. This gun is undoubtably,You quessed it,a smoothbore. :front:
So what do you think was the real longrifle of history? Was it a high art form? Was it a plain tool? Was it something in between? :thanks:

 

[Rocky Johnson]

54Ball I think you ansered your own question,anyway it sounds good to me. A gun stocker told me there was a lot of engraveing on stocks becouse they didn;t have anything else to do? I had a rifle build with out patch box or any other adornment,it cost a lot of beer money& a fish pole or two but I think its worth it. Its what I think is right PC by some one else's standards don't mean any thing to me. So do your thing. :winking: Rocky

 

[rich pierce]

That's something we all ponder but there's no answer. Maybe it's like asking now, "What's THE suburban car?" If I go to the mall or supermarket parking lot and try to figure it out, I conclude there's almost no pattern, although we may see different patterns at a strip mall in rural Iowa than we will at an upscale mall in Connecticut.

To take it further, be more specific, we might ask, "What's THE family farm vehicle of the 1960's in upstate NY?" That's my background.I can tell you,we could not afford 2 vehicles so had no pickup truck because it would not hold 7 to go to church. So, it varied in the 60's from a 1956 Chevy, a 1960 Chevy Impala, a 1963 Mercury Comet, and finally (the pinnacle) a 1967 Chevy Impala. Down the road, a neighbor who bought a new Oldsmobile was considered, "rich".

To bring it back to guns, it generally depends on what's available, affordable, reflects the status of the user, and will do the job. Hand me downs are the #1 possibility for poor folks. In the 1960's I shot a 1900 Lefever 12 ga w/ damascus barrels because my grandpa gave it to me. That gun was 60 years old and the functional equivalent of most new guns. That's a little extreme but I'd say anything made up to 25 years before should be considered. Collectors tell stories of flintlock guns bought in the Depression that were still being used.

So pick what you like, make up your story and have fun with it. Back in the 1970's, you weren't a "Mountain man" unless you carried a Hawken rifle. One man carried on a successful campaign to convince everyone that there was "one right choice" for the re-enactor portraying a beaver trapper of the heyday in the west, 1820-35 or so. Turns out he was about as wrong as he could be, that Hawkens were probably carried by 10% of trappers in that era, but everybody rode the wave anyhow. BTW- I love Hawkens.

 

[gordy]

I have to agree with whats been said so far.I believe ,after a lot of reading and research,that a large percentage of pioneer familys owned and used some type of smooth bore.The point made concerning the Hawken obsession is the same conclusion I came to.The few frontier folks that did own rifles more than likely carried some type of barn gun, or a version of the poorboy.Not many would have been carrying a Lancaster or a weapon with much ornate carveing and silver inlays. :imo: :front:

 

[big bore 75]

I have the same conclusion, I all ready have a southern mountain rifle in .45 it looks a lot similar to the Tennesse long rifle, and has real slim lines I do like it, but wanted something else after 5-6 years dreaming and reseraching looking at carolina guns I settled on a Virgina, long rifle from Tennesse Vally Manufactureing (there are other manufactures out there), he had what I was looking for in my mind, only thing extra I wanted was a patch box (my first attempt at one)and I did a little carving also my first attempt, only thing this rifle has that is not pc is a full length octagon barrel I don't care about pc one bit , and can say this thing shoots better than me, my time frame for this rifle is 1790 ish like you, I got to put some pictures on the site to show folks. bb75

 

[Gaze]

... That's a little extreme but I'd say anything made up to 25 years before should be considered....

Rich,

Would that 25-year stretch apply to the F&I War through Revolutionary War? Could it reasonably stretch all the way to the War of 1812?

My geographic area of interest is West Virginia. Near my home there were Indian massacres from about 1742 to 1792. If I had to pick a personna to identify the gun owner, it would be a pioneer farmer. --Gabby

 

[rich pierce]

You can always go with something earlier as long as it's still not "outdated" (example: matchlock in the middle flintlock era). I figure, the older the gun, the poorer the guy toting it, or else the gun is not his primary concern. So for a shoemaker who has to muster for militia in the Revolutionary War, the old musket from the F&I War era could work well. For an officer, a landed man, a new (mid 1770's) English fusil would be more appropriate. For a hunter by trade, more specialized guns probably did not last more than 15 years before a new one or a major re-work was needed. Much work was needed to be done on the guns carried by Lewis and Clark in their voyage of discovery to keep them working and that was just a few years.

We might assume that after the Revolutionary War, there were a lot of muskets made during the war, now available at cheap cost, so these would be better choices for someone in the 1812 era than an old F&I War era gun. That gun, if still in the family and working, would be the low end, given to the last son, probably.

And of course regular soldiers were a different case entirely, being supplied with the current models.

 

[Mark Nasim]

I based both my research and wisdom from a very prominant gun builder here in the Carolinas as to his interpretation. Speaking generally now, from a perspective of rifles that were of the Virginia(especiallyCarolina) influence in the 1750's-Up to the revolution,these rifle were very simple looking pieces,almost crude when compared to a Lancaster or other types from the Penn.area as we know. I do beleive also, that if you could only afford 1 type of weapon or hunting implement, it would for sure be a smoothbore, as we know, its much more of a versatile hunting implement than the rifle is,they are also cheaper to make too.
When I think of a rifle or smoothbore from the era I mentioned above, I can only imagine that these were made primarily for the "working man" in mind and the region we are talking about has alot to do with it too. I for example was born and raised in upstate SC and am very interested in the period before and during the revolution. So thats where my interest lies and had alot to do with determining the rifle(s) I wanted built. I believe for the most part,rifles of this particular region (southern VA,NC,SC,eastern TN) were simple made pieces made to do a job and that is to protect yourself and your family and put food on the table,they were not made to impress or outdo the Joneses next door.However as we know many Penn. rifles and the like were also made in similar fashion.
Another issue would have been the types of materiels used to make these pieces. Brass as we know was very popular,as was steel and iron(and in that order) at least from what I have understood.
When I had my first longrifle made from the respective gentleman I mentioned above, it was a .54 cal 38" barrel stocked in maple,with hand forged iron furniture. I have since gotten a .45 rifle(44" barrel) with casted brass furniture stocked in maple, and my latest aquirment, a .50cal rifle made with a 42" barrel with a mixture of casted/forged iron furniture stocked in walnut, with a iron made patch box. All have the very common (Chambers Colonial Virginia lock)(love that lock) that would have been very typical of the period for these rifles as well as smoothbores.
So after extensive talks with the builder and research I kept in mind before and during the building process, what I wanted (what a commoner would have had for the period.) When you first look at them, all three pieces are very simple looking and they just look like something that reminds you of a "working implement" rather than a "wall hanger work of art" like a Jager or a nice Lancaster. But they have a beauty in themselves, "the lines is where its at".
I was after a simple mans rifle and that what I got,3 times over.
I wouldnt trade either three of these rifles for the fanciest carved Jager or Lancaster or the like.
I need to post some pics of my 3 babies,when I make them, please someone here show me how to post them.

 

[Stumpkiller]

. . . if you could only afford 1 type of weapon or hunting implement, it would for sure be a smoothbore . . .

Not if you're selling the deer hides to pay off a loan (like for the rifle and grubsteak) and feed the family. Little game was trapped or snared, so your one ball ought to go right where you want it to spare the hide on the bigger critters, or to keep the two legged ones out at reloading range, and hope THEY have smoothbores.

The Indians preferred the rifle, and if they turned against you it's good to have similar range.

Two good reads are Recreating the American Longhunter: 1740-1790 by Joseph Ruckman, and The Frontier Rifleman by Richard Lacrosse

There is no "one" quintessential firearm for the/a frontier because guns were hand made and no one maker could supply enough to swing the average. "The Frontier" to me is the western half of NY and the Ohio Valley, past the Ft. Stanwix treaty line. Don't know about them 'other' frontiers.

Probably a beat-up and rattly surplus Bess was THE firelock of American history. But rifles were not made to pattern as the Besses were.

 

[JN01]

I've never quite bought the arguement that most rifles were plain/unadorned but were used up and discarded over the years leaving only the fancy specimens today.

There are plenty of surviving cheap/plain trade guns, muskets, etc that saw hard use on the frontier. Why weren't they all discarded or used up? Shouldn't there be more surviving examples of plain rifles?

Rifles were expensive mostly because of the labor involved in making the barrel. A bit of relief and/or incise carving requires no extra materials and not that much more labor for a craftsman. Also, if carved rifles were rare, how would the gunmaker have the skill to do the occasional fancy piece? Practice makes perfect.

I believe that the carving helped sell the piece, perhaps to make one makers work stand out above anothers.

If you were spending thousands of dollars on a fancy car, would you choose one with no trim or hub caps or spend little or nothing extra and get one with the accessories?

Inlays, on the other hand, would represent additional cost for the materials.

Also, over the years, some rifles may have been (plainly)restocked because of damage and we don't know what the original looked like.

There were no doubt some plain rifles produced (some makers maybe couldn't carve worth a damn), but in my opinion, they were a minority.

 

[bnail]

Jacob
That's a very intuitive statement; I never considered it from that perspective. I've been so preoccupied trying to justify a plain rifle, I was only wanting to read things that reinforced this perspective. I never really considered this until now. :hmm:

 

[Claude Mathis]

There were no doubt some plain rifles produced (some makers maybe couldn't carve worth a damn), but in my opinion, they were a minority.

Do you consider all the military and mass-produced "trade" rifles to be in that minority? Or, are you speaking only to what we would consider custom gun makers?

 

[Stumpkiller]

That's true. "Longrifle" defines a specific arm and time period in the minds of many "pre-prejudiced" individuals, like myself. Just as "frontier" may imply the Central Plains to some and the Ohio Valley or Kentucky cane-breaks to others.

We all bring our own pre-conceived notions into the discussion.

 

[Gaze]

Then, as now, there were different market segments, but we don't know how large they were. We have guys, like me, who fancy the plain and others who fancy the fancy. Some don

 

[gordy]

Hope You get to post Your photos,I'm of the same mind as You.Would rather have a rifle/smoothbore with a reliable lock,strong wood in the stock and a good bbl.for every day use.As was said the beauty is in the form and function.I have a Mossberg bolt action 16ga.shotgun in the rack that I bought 55 years ago,it shoots and functions as good as the day I got it.That's why I feel You could carry a weapon much older than 25 years or so and still be PC.It certainley would depend on the persona You picked,but if You were just another common pioneer most any gun would fit.Takeing the analogy of the new vehicle,I wish someone would offer a pick-up that had no hubcaps ,radio/stero/AC ,electrisc windows/seats,stupid electric fuel pump in the gastank and the plastic decorations that the sun and weather[url] destroys.in[/url] other words a bare bones working vehicle.And that's how I feel about a working gun.Don't get me wrong,I love to see the work of the masters,and would take a weapon if the price was right, but no doubt it would be hung up as a work of art to admire.I guess I don't show a lot of class,but I enjoy Black Powder and history as much as the folks that do.Muzzleloading has something for every taste and pocketbook. :imo: :front:

 

[Runner]

A well finished Leman type or poorboy is better looking to me than the fanciest carved gun of any type. I also do not need a patchbox. I keep a shotgun wad with a hole drilled half way thru it and a spare nipple in my patch boxes. The wad is for putting over the nipple after the cap is removed and lowering the hammer on when I am at the house or in camp. They could just as easily be in the bag.

 

[Blivetmaker]

Just my two cents now, as I'm nothing close to a historian on the subject. It has always seemed to me that a fine longrifle was something of a specialty item. For someone regularly on the move, a good hunting musket would serve as an "all-arounder". A settled landowner had a place and the wherewithall to store a squirrel rifle, deer rifle, and fowler or two. A mountain man would look a bit silly with all that ordnance slung over his shoulder.
As time passed and war and depression came and went, families parted with things they didn't need or had to sell. It got more and more likely that a fine piece would end up in a wealthier home and a working muzzleloader would
get converted or trashed from many years of use/neglect.
The fancy/plain choice is a matter of preference today seeing as very few folks are doing much hunter-gatherer living these days and keeping several guns isn't a problem.
The trail blazing, exploring, frontiersmen probably carried the most practical choice for their circumstances; the smoothie.
This is just my theory so go ahead and blow it full of holes if you think I'm full of soup ::

 

[JN01]

There were no doubt some plain rifles produced (some makers maybe couldn't carve worth a damn), but in my opinion, they were a minority.

Do you consider all the military and mass-produced "trade" rifles to be in that minority? Or, are you speaking only to what we would consider custom gun makers?

I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of someone going to a specialized maker and having a rifle built. For someone of modest means, a trade gun would certainly be a cheaper option. Of course even then some trade guns were fancied up a little (serpent sideplates & simple engraving on some smoothbores for example)

To clarify my opinion, I think that most of the guns on the frontier were probably fairly plain, being trade guns, muskets, cobbled together from other gun parts, etc, however, for those who could afford to have a rifle built for them, they would probably have at least a minimal amount of embellishments

 

[54ball]

This can be a very deep subject and I have enjoyed all of the posts. Thank you all. We did not live in the years in question and will never know for sure the details of 18th century life and events. All we have are shadows that are the written word. I'll get off topic for a second. The Springfield Armory in WWII experimented with a short barreled Garand. An order was placed in the Spring of 1945 for several hundred. A few, reportedly less than 200 were produced by wars end. The order was cancelled none were ever issued per official records. A few veterans of Okinawa and a lesser number from Europe speak of using the Jungle-Tanker Garand in combat. :shocking: The veterans speak of the excessive muzzle flash and loud report of this short rifle. They liked it because it was easy to handle and was intimidating to the Japanese. The book I read this from was written some 15-20 years after the event. Official records say they never saw combat. Veterans say they did. Who is lying?:hmm: The fog of time has already clouded recent events. The further back we go the thicker it gets. I have read recently that Jacksons victory at New Orleans, the historical shining moment of the American longrifle was really due to artillery and that most of the Kentucky-Tennessee rifleman were using smoothbores. This was the birth of the term Kentucky Rifle in popular culture and I tend to belive the traditional account. The latter account seems very Brittish.
This is my present opinion of the American Longrifle and it's era.
The smoothbore was the most common on the frontier but the rifle was there, and there in great numbers.
A gunmaker made his rifle to suit customer specifications and buget.
Most probably had some decoration.
Indians used the rifle, they were the hide hunters and are closest to what many consider the longhunter to be.
Plain rifles did exist. We need look no futher than the 1792 Contract Rifle. The contract rifle may be the documented example of the plain or common longrifle. Some question its details and even its existance as an official type, kind of like they do the short barreled Garand.
In closing a frontiersman in the old Southwest could be carrying his fathers slightly embellished Revolutionary Virginia or even Pennsylvania Rifle or maybe a gun newer gun not unlike the contract rifle, maybe even a fancy one It all depended on his wealth. :m2c:

 

[redwing]

I have read accounts by Trappers using their rifles. They considered the rifle insurance. If they could keep the Indians at 50 yds. or more they were more safe. The bows and spears were less effective at those ranges. They also mention the Indians used Old Fire Lock Fuzzes that were not so good beyond 50 yds. If the Indians closed to under 35 yds. they preferred the Dbl. Bl. Shotguns.
So it seems they would have a rifle as good as they could afford. They thought the rifle was that extra edge in combat. A rifleman could keep the enemy at a distance. Most of the old rifles I have seen were of the Southern Mtn. Style very plain long rifles. Some of them had been cut off, most were not. I have never found a fancy Ky. style. The bright soft metal would give you away, and served no purpose. Later period rifles with cap locks were plain half stocks. I have never found a Hawkins and probably never will, they were rare.
Most of the guns I have found in this part of the west have been rifles. I have only found a few smooth bores, I had an old beat up Fuzze De Chasse that was converted to caps.

Redwing

:redthumb: