-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
What is THE frontier longrifle?
- Thread starter 54ball
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
TG I am getting more than a little tired of your attacks, this is not the first time you have done this. Rich P. and Runner brought up Hawkens Caps Etc.
You seem to like whacking at my post. Its fellows like you that run people off. You are not the LORD OF THE FORUMS.
REDWING
:nono:
You seem to like whacking at my post. Its fellows like you that run people off. You are not the LORD OF THE FORUMS.
REDWING
:nono:
I think novelists, etc. found it more exciting to write about a shot at 150 paces than to write, "Hawkeye waited in ambush and shot the Indian/deer in the back at 25 paces with buckshot." The rifle's fame grew.
Just like in the 1950s, the TV Westerns mentioned almost exclusively the .45, as if the .44, etc. didn't exist in the Old West.
A key might be where the shooter lived. Around my home, the woods are dense and the hills steep. Good fowler territory for hunting or home defense.
Another comparison: If you were a soldier in 1942, would you want a bolt-action rifle or a submachine gun? It depends.
Maybe a mix of guns was the key. If eight guys were fighting Indians, three with rifles provided the accuracy while five with smoothies provided the firepower. The military calls this "combined arms." :m2c:
My guess is that the circa 1800 rifle was about 70% tool, 20% both, and 10% high art. On the frontier it was more like 70% tool and 30% both.
Clean up your own mess tg. What has old chevrolets and malls have to do with rifles. Garands were mentioned as a comparison, nothing wrong with that. I only brought this up as a comparison. May have missed the period by 10 years but at least I stayed with rifles not old cars and malls.
Redwing :nono:
Redwing :nono:
Runner you did mention caps nipples etc.as a comparison nothing wrong with that. But that would have been after the 1810 dead line. That was the only reason I brought up your comment. If I misquoted you, I am very sorry.
Thanks
Redwing
Thanks
Redwing
"Clean up your own mess tg. What has old chevrolets and malls have to do with rifles"
What in the Devil are you talking about? my only post on this thread simply pointed out that the original post was geared toward an earlier time period, no attack, no hostility, no flame...all of that seems to be comming from elsewhwere.....
What in the Devil are you talking about? my only post on this thread simply pointed out that the original post was geared toward an earlier time period, no attack, no hostility, no flame...all of that seems to be comming from elsewhwere.....
Ahh, the useless patch box part of the opinion. No problem! A smoothbore in an available style for the time is appropriate. The rest is hard to nail down, and I allow personal preference too much influence maybe, but I spend a lot of time with my guns. When did the style we now call shotguns originate? The one gun I know of that went into the southwest around 1800 was a 410 bore shotgun that was very little more than a lock and a barrel attached to a board. No buttplate. No patchbox. No end cap or even a hole for the ramrod. The ramrod fit on the side. It sold at auction here a few years back for around 260$ Not being a history person, and it being a useless rust bucket, I was not interested in it except for a quick look over. One person I know claims that most of the guns used in the War of 1812 wwere small caliber smoothbores also. I don't know, but that type of gun is definately an option for a plains survival tool. My 12 guage will give me about 15 shots and my shot bag is empty. To carry enough shot for a long period of being alone with it as your only weapon would require you carrying 10 pounds of lead minimum. Contrary to popular belief, rocks are so much harder than steel or iron barrels that unless pebbles are contained in some kind of case, it is impossible to fire them without damage to the barrel on every shot. In a pinch maybe, but not as common practice. That would make uderstanding the small caliber smoothbores real easy. For a shotgun, I like the shotgun style, but I don't know if it is appropriate to your time period. A smooth rifle would be my next choice, but again in a period correct very plain style.
Here is the original question, if it will help things get back on track. 
eace:
eace:54 Ball said:
"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."
I think it boils down to who or what you want to portray. If you want to portray a common, everyday person of a particular time/place, then you should use gear that we believe was common for that time/place. Of course, we can only take our best guess at what that was.
If you want to use something that was (or we believe to be)uncommon, the trick is to come up with a believable reason why your persona would have that item.
If it is 1792 and you are a Kentucky drifter headed for points West, would you be in possession of a new government contracted rifle? I dunno, maybe someone could come up with a reasonable explaination. (As you explained that a short barrel Garand was not normal, but there is an explaination for why some soldiers apparently had them)
On the other hand, perhaps you inherited a fine fancy rifle whos stock was broken beyond repair at the wrist. Being far out on the frontier, there aren't any fine gunmakers to restore it to its original glory, but someone in the community who is a good woodworker is able to make a decent,serviceable, but plain stock for your lock and barrel.
By the same token, if you are a poor frontier farmer/hunter, would you have a brand new Pennsylvania rifle with extensive carving, silver inlays, pierced patchbox, etc.? Probably not.
"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."
I think it boils down to who or what you want to portray. If you want to portray a common, everyday person of a particular time/place, then you should use gear that we believe was common for that time/place. Of course, we can only take our best guess at what that was.
If you want to use something that was (or we believe to be)uncommon, the trick is to come up with a believable reason why your persona would have that item.
If it is 1792 and you are a Kentucky drifter headed for points West, would you be in possession of a new government contracted rifle? I dunno, maybe someone could come up with a reasonable explaination. (As you explained that a short barrel Garand was not normal, but there is an explaination for why some soldiers apparently had them)
On the other hand, perhaps you inherited a fine fancy rifle whos stock was broken beyond repair at the wrist. Being far out on the frontier, there aren't any fine gunmakers to restore it to its original glory, but someone in the community who is a good woodworker is able to make a decent,serviceable, but plain stock for your lock and barrel.
By the same token, if you are a poor frontier farmer/hunter, would you have a brand new Pennsylvania rifle with extensive carving, silver inlays, pierced patchbox, etc.? Probably not.
You will notice that even though the 1792 and 1803's were built as military rifles with no adornment whatever, they did have patchboxes! And, though a bit later in time, the trade rifles ordered and sold in great numbers buy the fur companies had patchboxes, cheekpiece inlays and often a wrist inlay. Those rifles had to be reliable, sturdy and accurate but low cost was also a prime concern. Yet they were willing to spend the extra pennies for what most today consider as useless ornamentation. The trade rifles carried by most mountainmen was not so "plain" as the later and much more expensive Hawken. And why did anyone buy a Hawken except for pride of ownership?
A rifle was often a man's most expensive possession and a source of pride as well as an important tool. I believe any man who took pride in his appearance and possessions would aquire the best he could afford. The drunken, ragtag hooligan was likely happy with anything that would go BANG!
One may want to consider that in his "persona". :m2c:
A rifle was often a man's most expensive possession and a source of pride as well as an important tool. I believe any man who took pride in his appearance and possessions would aquire the best he could afford. The drunken, ragtag hooligan was likely happy with anything that would go BANG!
One may want to consider that in his "persona". :m2c:
Mike Brooks
Cannon
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 6,686
- Reaction score
- 33
Too broad of a time frame to nail down the "typical frontier rifle".
earlier rifles will have wider buttstocks and larger bores. Later rifles will have narrower buttstocks and smaller bores. ALL will be flint and full stocked and iron mounted, there are exceptions, but these will be the norm.
Poor tg....somebody's always picking on him.......that's what he gets for saying things some dont't want to hear. (been there) :blah:
earlier rifles will have wider buttstocks and larger bores. Later rifles will have narrower buttstocks and smaller bores. ALL will be flint and full stocked and iron mounted, there are exceptions, but these will be the norm.
Poor tg....somebody's always picking on him.......that's what he gets for saying things some dont't want to hear. (been there) :blah:
Mike Brooks
Cannon
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 6,686
- Reaction score
- 33
OOOPPPPS! my error that should read BRASS mounted! :redface:
I think you've got a target lock on the wrong heatsource.
It wasn't TG.
:nono:
It wasn't TG.
:nono:
Old Gabby is not directing this at any person; I just used the above quote so that I could pretend that I was keeping on topic. :huh:
I'm not so sure money was they key. Today, we have type of guy with a fancy 4WD, a house full of guns, and a kennel full of expensive bear dogs. But the guy is a bum. This kind doesn't spend much on his wife [or three ex-wifes], home, and kids. You know the type; their truck costs more than their house.
The gun does not make the man. The hard-working, practical, farmer is not real likely to squander his money -- on a fancy gun, 4WD, etc. He wants something simple, serviceable without many frills that will last a long time. The rag-tag drunken, part-time hunter, full-time lout may have had a fancy rifle, abeit beat up.
All the above is based only on judging yesterday, by today's human nature. Louts and others who desire to buy status are part of the market segment for expensive guns.
Let me try again. Perhaps the colonist who bought a very fancy rifle was something like those today who buy a Corvette. Some who buy Corvettes don
What Gabby said........Amen
54ball
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,116
- Reaction score
- 1,029
Hello,
Thank you all for the information. I have just finished a book on the Battle of New Orleans. Jackson's artillery was indeed effective. He had em in a crossfire. " The Kentuckians finaly arrived but half the number had no arms.The ones that were, were armed poorly." " The smoke had cleared the field was red not with blood but by the red coats of the enemy. The slaughter by artillery was horrendus but it paled in comparison to the area in front of Coffee's Tennesseeans. The Tennesseeans armed with rifles and muskets made three rows behind their palisade thus they were able to rain a constant volley of fire. Every time a Tennesseean fired a redcoat crumpeled and fell." Most of the Kentuckians were poorly armed a great many with fowling pieces and mismatched musket cartridges. So a great number of the Tennessee and Kentuckians were armed with smoothbores. I stand corrected.
Thank you all for the information. I have just finished a book on the Battle of New Orleans. Jackson's artillery was indeed effective. He had em in a crossfire. " The Kentuckians finaly arrived but half the number had no arms.The ones that were, were armed poorly." " The smoke had cleared the field was red not with blood but by the red coats of the enemy. The slaughter by artillery was horrendus but it paled in comparison to the area in front of Coffee's Tennesseeans. The Tennesseeans armed with rifles and muskets made three rows behind their palisade thus they were able to rain a constant volley of fire. Every time a Tennesseean fired a redcoat crumpeled and fell." Most of the Kentuckians were poorly armed a great many with fowling pieces and mismatched musket cartridges. So a great number of the Tennessee and Kentuckians were armed with smoothbores. I stand corrected.
