Wooden patch box flinters

[Y2GREY]

It’s been my observation that many original period rifles were first delivered to their owners in a relatively utilitarian (plain) form. Over time the owner or another family member would add or have ornamentation added. These rifles became important family heirlooms much in the same way as a family bible.

 

[Brokennock]

It’s been my observation that many original period rifles were first delivered to their owners in a relatively utilitarian (plain) form. Over time the owner or another family member would add or have ornamentation added. These rifles became important family heirlooms much in the same way as a family bible.

Thank you for bringing back this 16 year old thread with this amazing new information.

....period rifles were first delivered to their owners in a relatively utilitarian (plain) form. Over time the owner or another family member would add or have ornamentation added.

Please share with us the source of this information and how you arrived at this conclusion. I'm sure many here will be fascinated.

 

[hanshi]

Admittedly I haven't examined as many old rifles as many here; but my experiences lead me to believe that the introduction of the "Snickers" candy bar was the death knell for the wooden box. The brass ones are simply superior as a box for a Snickers".

 

[Newtire]

Admittedly I haven't examined as many old rifles as many here; but my experiences lead me to believe that the introduction of the "Snickers" candy bar was the death knell for the wooden box. The brass ones are simply superior as a box for a Snickers".

Too many guys broke their teeth biting into the patchbox cover by mistake. Many early guns show teethmarks on those covers if you look closely.

 

[Cattywompuss]

The box was used for tow, worm, pick, etc. YES the Germans and everyone else used patches. ALWAYS have. The old saw about hammering a groove sized lead ball down the bore is an old wives' tale. I have a Christie's auction catalog with lots of German rifles in it. One of the rifles is described as still retaining a tow worm, a bit of tow, and a tin powder measure in the wood box.

I have never had a wood box lid get stuck. (another reason for the tapered dovetail!!!) It cannot possibly get more humid than it does here.

Frankly, I can do without them entirely, but they do help dress up that side of the stock...

In the same auction catalog, there is a group of really neat Flemish rifles. If I were to just look at them, I would have sworn they were German. Very nicely designed. Wood boxes and all. Generally, when you see rifles made in England, Russia, Sweden, etc. they will often have wood boxes in emulation of their German forebears.

This is not meant as a correction, but a supplemental: In the very early 19th century, not in America, but I believe during the Penninsula Campaign or earlier, the 95th Rifles(British) did in fact adopt hammers and short starters/spikes for loading after difficulty in the field with loading Baker's with just a ramrod. Not exactly germain to this post, but hammering in balls isn't purely an old wives tail. Source: "Wellington's Rifles"

 

[Cattywompuss]

I only have one gun with a wooden patch box. It is, several folks here believe, to be a Narragansett Arms Lancaster Rifle & Fowler. It is what I believe would now be called either transitional or as I call it, a complete ******* of a mixed bag. It has a wood box with a latch, rather clubby stock on the back end, longrifle furniture and cheek piece, but octagon to round .60/20 ga barrel. I like it on that gun. But I like brass/steel boxes very much too.

As far as the academics, I lack enough knowledge to say who used what when. We know Jagers had them, and that longrifles came from Jagers. But I reckon they go through fads with us, just like different rifle types. As we all know, SMRs are aaaaallll the rage right now, as are so-called schimmels. In 20 years it will be Golden Age ornamentation or full stock flint eastern Hawkens. If you want an unfashionable gun, at least in colonial recreation circles, try my early .54 flint Leman which probably would have seen more Crow and Sioux than most Hawkens. Too long for ****, and too short for Richard

 

[Art Caputo]

Just my observation, but I think that Kiblers Colonial rifle has resulted in “numerous” posts and threads over the past 1-2 years. All quite positive! Authentic and appealing lines, easy to build, excellent components and performance, the ability to be individualized to one tastes, excellent service and support, and importantly, a price point that won’t break the bank. It’s basic design spans and fits within a broad and appealing period of our country, across a large geographic area. IMO, Jim Kibler may very well played a big role in recent popularity of the sliding patch box. I was never a great fan of the sliding wooden patch box, but that changed when I built my Kibler Colonial.

 

[Timber Wolf]

Thank you for bringing back this 16 year old thread with this amazing new information.


Please share with us the source of this information and how you arrived at this conclusion. I'm sure many here will be fascinated.

I am fascinated at how mean some on this forum are. He did not “bump” the sixteen year old thread. Somebody else did and he replied. As to the source of the information, I don’t know except common sense. How many modern firearms have we all seen embellished by their civilian or military users? A lot of “trench art” stock sets pop up on unmentionable gun kits from time to time. His statement of firearms being personalized over time just seems to make sense.

 

[Brokennock]

It only makes sense to our modern thinking. There is no evidence for the large scale addition of brass patch boxes to otherwise plain rifles during the mid to late 1700's...
And the poster has not provided anything to support this claim.
If in, say, 1767, the only rifle you could afford had not patch box, or maybe a wooden one,,,, you were most likely too busy with the struggles of daily life to be messing around making and inletting a brass patch box. A little carving/scrimshaw on something by the fire at night,,,, maybe,,, maybe while away from home by the campfire. But, making and inletting a patchbox? Seriously doubt it.

Of course, I am always open to new evidence. One of my biggest issues with some of this community is this attitude of, "this is what we have always thought to be true, this is the way we have always done things,,,,, new research be damned!"
And if you question someone's ascertations and ask for evidence to support their claim,,,, "your mean," and your the bad guy.
Anyone can say whatever they want, but, be ready to back it up,,, and,,, also be ready to change one's position when evidence is contrary to that position.

Oh "stands to reason," amd nonsense like that is not supporting evidence.

If this makes me mean,,, so be it. Have a good cry over it.

 

[French Colonial]

I have seen additions made to rifles......

And most times they look like an amateur added something to a rifle and should have left it alone.

But to each his own... Ducking now for incoming flack.

 

[Cattywompuss]

I actually agree to a point with Brokenock. I prefer evidence to supposition. But on the other hand, without supposition we would never ask questions to begin with. History isn't a pure science by any stretch. It really is half science, half humanities. When questions are asked some say "We already know what happened because of the existing body of evidence" and others say "We know a lot but is there other evidence". A good scientific historian can both exclude supposition while allowing room for the future to offer alternatives.

I am a dry guy, and my responses come off challenging and cold and sometimes cantankerous. One might even say cold-blooded. Having a conversation in type is a challenge and removes so many elements of human interaction. Our ancestors who existed when the guns we love were built wrote letters. And when they did they might take days to compose a response, blotting out certain things after careful consideration. We don't do that. Well, maybe some of us do. But I certainly didn't take a day to respond to this and consider my response.

Evidence is king for history, such as a letter from Hamilton to Washington that we now know he never sent in which he proudly admitted to undermining Washington's actions, which he never sent because he got Washington's conciliatory response to a prior letter first. Do we have a body of evidence that says wooden boxes were the standard prior to a certain year or decade?

 

[Brokennock]

But on the other hand, without supposition we would never ask questions to begin with

This is exactly right.
We make a supposition, we then ask questions based on that supposition or hypothesis. This is good. But, when the answers come back that evidence/research/documentation either indicates the opposite of this supposition to be true, or, that the supposition has no evidence to support it, we need to be willing to rethink it.
If the research comes back simply that there is nothing to support our supposition,, things get harder. Harder because now we should be getting brutally honest with ourselves, and asking ourselves difficult questions,,, such as, "is my supposition based on modern thinking," and, "is it influenced by how I would do things now?"
We have different cultural mores now compared to then, we have different values when it comes to work and time.
Even today in our modern era, what might be seem a reasonable and logical solution to a problem or question here in the U.S. or in the U.K. might not be in Niger or Sudan or Indochina or even Japan. Some things that seem logical and reasonable here aren't so in the U.K. and visa versa.

To think that what seems like a logical supposition to us must have been the same over 200 years ago,,,,,,, I'll just say it seems a stretch.

 

[Cattywompuss]

This is exactly right.
We make a supposition, we then ask questions based on that supposition or hypothesis. This is good. But, when the answers come back that evidence/research/documentation either indicates the opposite of this supposition to be true, or, that the supposition has no evidence to support it, we need to be willing to rethink it.
If the research comes back simply that there is nothing to support our supposition,, things get harder. Harder because now we should be getting brutally honest with ourselves, and asking ourselves difficult questions,,, such as, "is my supposition based on modern thinking," and, "is it influenced by how I would do things now?"
We have different cultural mores now compared to then, we have different values when it comes to work and time.
Even today in our modern era, what might be seem a reasonable and logical solution to a problem or question here in the U.S. or in the U.K. might not be in Niger or Sudan or Indochina or even Japan. Some things that seem logical and reasonable here aren't so in the U.K. and visa versa.

To think that what seems like a logical supposition to us must have been the same over 200 years ago,,,,,,, I'll just say it seems a stretch.

Plate 5 in Kaufman certainly "seems" like an earlier example of a Jager derived longrifle with a wooden box, stepped wrist, and robust Jager-ey features, though Kaufman admits with many examples that provenance could be Europe or American based on conflicting architecture. Unmarked barrel says America to him, but other points say Europe.

Plate 4 of Kaufman though is claimed to be an early gun with no patchbox at all, while Plate 2 is a wheel lock from 1640 with a "patch box" if so it be looks to me, in black and white, like metal. The wheel lock is profusely decorated and predates Jager rifles as we think of them.

Of course Kaufman is also not entirely trusted anymore given that he was is an older source.

 

[Cattywompuss]

Kaufman's main discriminating point in early or transitional American longrifle between that of Europe seems to be centered on many actual European guns having sliding lid boxes that are also overlayed with metal, whereas American rifles had plain wood sliding boxes until hinged brass took over. But he notes that he possesses(70 years ago now) a sliding wood lid gun made in Allentown in the early 19th century because Allentown smiths clung to old traditions longer than other areas. He contends that economy was certainly a factor in who bought a wood one and who ordered brass(when brass boxes became fashionable).

 

[oldwood]

In 1972 , my hunting buddy ran across a Jaeger rifle in an antique store along the Susquehanna river north of Harrisburg. . The sliding wood box on it still contained a nest of 12 patched round balls each in it's own round hole drilled into the bottom of the box. The balls and patches were in a very deteriorated state. Sadly , he was poor back then , and couldn't afford to buy the rifle. .........................oldwood

 

[Cattywompuss]

In 1972 , my hunting buddy ran across a Jaeger rifle in an antique store along the Susquehanna river north of Harrisburg. . The sliding wood box on it still contained a nest of 12 patched round balls each in it's own round hole drilled into the bottom of the box. The balls and patches were in a very deteriorated state. Sadly , he was poor back then , and couldn't afford to buy the rifle. .........................oldwood

That's a shame. But at least he got to see it!

 

[excess650]

Think about this, when did rolled sheet brass come into existence? Prior to that, brass for patchboxes would have been cast and hammered into sheet, or just cast and filed. Wood was always available and could be decorated by carving or with metal or horn overlays or inlays.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
The patch box with sliding wooden lid goes back at least as far as the 1550s, often found on Germanic wheelocks. I suspect it was used in any way useful to the owner and maybe not at all. I doubt it had a single universally adopted function. As a shooter, I find the wooden box to be great for extra patches, tools, and flints but poor as a device to hold grease for lubing patches with each shot. You have to hold the lid with one hand or use that hand to prevent it dropping out , also hold the rifle with the other, then use your third hand to remove or grease the patch. The brass patch box with hinged lid mostly solves that awkward procedure. I am not aware of any documentation indicating most guns were made plain and then patch boxes added later. The many rifles exiting with carving framing wood and brass patch boxes do not support that notion. There are a few surviving rifles on which it is clear the box was added later because it interferes with existing carving or is totally out of character for the gun but that does not imply it was a common practice. Brass patch boxes predate the Rev War and may be the only unique American contribution to long rifles as all other features can be found on earlier European guns including long barrels of smaller bore. With respect to sheet brass, rolling mills for metal sheet were used since at least the early 17th century. In fact, Leonardo Da Vinci designed a rolling mill but it was probably never built until the 16th century. American colonial gun makers had sheet brass available to them from England (primarily) unless they were in a remote setting and then they may have had to beat sheet out of cast brass. For example in Bob Lienemann's "Moravian Gun Making of the American Revolution", on page 28 is an inventory list for the gun shop at Christian's Spring, which includes "3 1/4 lbs iron wire, 8 lbs sheet brass, 1/2 lbs of brass wire". Clearly, fabricated metals were available.

dave

 

[Cattywompuss]

Just a thought, and knowledge of the subject would be welcome: are there any captive wooden sliding lid guns? In a normal primitive technological evolution situation I would think captive lids would be the next step. But it seems due to the forthcoming industrial nature of manufacture that was burgeoning at this time, they went from clumsy, easily lost wooden sliding lids to hinged brass in one leap. Has anyone seen a captive sliding lid on an original American gun? 30 seconds of consideration put a prototype in my non-engineer/maker brain, so I can't fathom it having never been conceived for a plain old sliding box lid.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Cattywompus,
That is a good question. There were a few examples of wooden lids that pivot sideways and so were attached to the stock. I think they were mostly southern and 19th century guns. I have never seen a colonial or Rev War period rifle with a captured wooden lid. One wooden lid feature we will be seeing greatly in excess of what they were originally are lids with no brass end caps. There are so many Kibler colonials made that way but if you look at original rifles from that period, only a few do not have end caps and some of those may be replacements. For example of the scores of rifles with wooden patch box lids in Shumway's 2 volumes of "Rifles in Colonial America" only 3 or 4 have lids that do not appear to have metal end caps. I think the perceived predominance of wooden lidded rifles made today is the popularity of earlier style rifles but also that they are much easier to make and install than hinged brass boxes. In addition, brass boxes really need engraving and I think that intimidates many folks.

dave