AmericanLongRifles Forums

General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: Teun on July 31, 2008, 04:04:53 PM

Title: Average mans gun...
Post by: Teun on July 31, 2008, 04:04:53 PM
I am new to all of this and was curious.

Most of the old guns that are highly prized are highly ornamented, carved, inleted, etc.  And rightly so.  But my assumption is that the average man would not have had a gun like this...his would have been more utilitarian correct?  These collector pieces would have been for the "well off" correct?  Is the reason we don't see these "plain" guns because they were used and abused and most didn't make it to our time while the fancy weapons were taken care of over the decades?  I personally really like the guns that would have been heavily used...are there others out there who do as well?

Thanks!!

Teun
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Longknife on July 31, 2008, 04:19:02 PM
Teun, Yes I am one of those who appreciates the simple "working" guns over the "fancy" ones, not only because of the simple construction but also because I can AFFORD them!!!!! Those fancy ones are fer lookn'. You are right on about the plain guns being used and abused, thats what they were made for!  The fancy ones usually hung on the wall till Sunday afternoon when the owner would take a walk an nail a partridge or two.......Ed
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Roger Fisher on July 31, 2008, 06:17:23 PM
Hey T::  We notice the letters epa.gov in your E mail address.  What is that all about.  Inquring minds her on this site need to know ???

Your assumption regards the working man's gun is correct.  That is of course, a 'given'!
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: northmn on July 31, 2008, 06:38:46 PM
Hansen claims that heavy barreled plains rifles were stripped down in the Gold Rush so the barrels could be used for crowbars.  I have the Trade Rifle sketch book where Hansen also mentions that the rifles were used by both whites and natives as they were affordable.  There is a theory that studies of surviving artifacts may be misleading.  Look in a military surplus store and you see a lot of small sized clothing.  The larger ones got wore out, by normal sized people. 

DP
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Stophel on July 31, 2008, 06:47:31 PM
You don't see the plainer guns simply because they are not "published".  Go to a gunshow where there are antique gun dealers and you'll see plenty of them.
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Evil Monkey on July 31, 2008, 07:06:44 PM
I, for one, don't buy the 'fancy guns were wall hangers and the average "working man" used a fence post with a pipe strapped to it' theory. In europe, high end guns were made for the wealthy/royalty and often were NEVER shot. The museums over there are full of them. However, a high end euro gun is not the same thing as a high end american rifle. A low end euro would equal or even exceed what would be considered a high end american rifle in workmanship. Also consider that in the 18th century, labour was cheap and materials were expensive. The difference between a 'barn gun' and a inlaid/carved gun was labour so the price difference was likely minimal unlike today where materials are cheap and labour is high so the difference between a barn gun and an inlaid/carved gun is substantial.
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Mike R on July 31, 2008, 09:39:35 PM
We have had this discussion before.  The collections of old guns that get photographed are skwewed towards the fancier guns. Some have argued that "all" [or most] old guns were made fancy [what we are talking about here is the 18th cent longrifle mainly].  It was the style in the later Golden Age to make guns with fancy boxes, etc.   Carving on older guns was common. But, when we look at old records from gunsmiths and traders/merchants we see a different story.  Most of the guns are "plain" [so listed] and a few are "fine" [with minor variation in terms].  Just as today we have "working man's" plain utilitarian guns and fancy high-dollar ones with best wood and engraving that few can afford, I think the same held true then.  A man who made his life's work hunting for the most part, Dan Boone had three or four rifles stolen from him by Indians over the years--I cannot imagine him [raised a plain Quaker, too] owning too fancy a gun--they needed to be rugged, accurate and basically expendable if his experience is typical.  Late in life he was robbed one last time by the Osages and his son Nathan was with him.  He lamented the loss of Nathan's "fine" new rifle, but not his own, which by implication was of no account.  Many hunters worked for companies who rented or loaned them rifles--plain ones.  Now the squire on the hill may have indeed contracted for a fine rifle with carving and inlays.  The collections show us that the fine rifles were made.  But from the records I have seen I'd guess many more plain ones were made.  These plain rifles were not, however, "poor boys", which were a later period mountain rifle...
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Sam Everly on July 31, 2008, 10:21:11 PM
I live 15 miles west from Statesville, NC. that is where I-40 and I-77 meet. about 5 miles west of there is Fort Dobbs, it was built in 1757 and was as far west as they had gotten back then in NC. Only 30 years later they had made it to the Tenn. line. What i am getting at is any original rifle that is from that time line, from this area ,Statesville to Western NC. All are plain rifles , no butt plates and very little brass, most are iron (Guards). I have seen about 10 original early rifles, from these areas . I think why you don't see butt plates and they have iron guards, is material in the area was hard to come buy, Brass and iron ! But you get over east to the Salem area most are brass and have butt plates . Dennis Glazener and Earl Lanning have original Gillespie rifles from the Brevard area (Western NC.) made around 1810 give or take a couple of years. There rifles are plain, iron and no butt plates. I think by then brass would be the in thing to have , but it was just hard to get in that area at that time . As for Daniel Boone, I live no more than 30 miles form any location he lived in NC , Boy hood home to the last home in NC. As for any of his rifles from the time living in NC . From the original late 18th cent. rifles i have seen made in this local area , i would bet any one money , they where very plain. Maple stocks, no butt plates , iron guards and may be 2 brass rod pipes . No nose cap, no patch box wood or brass, not even a grease hole . Salem would have been 20 miles east from his boyhood home , and even the rifles made there (Early Rifles) Where plain rifles ,But having butt plates and nose caps , in brass. But there was brass and iron on hand there in Salem at that time ! I know of a Bryan family member that has a family rifle that is to have been owned by Boones wifes father. It is one of the none butt plate, early style rifles. And i bet Daniels would have been just like it !                        
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Teun on July 31, 2008, 10:37:22 PM
Thanks for all the great info!! 

I am indeed an employee of the US EPA.  I am a microbiologist who works on biological  contamination in the indoor environment...mold.

I hope that satisfies any curiosities..and does not cause any problems?

I just love old long rifles and really like to converse with others who are more knowledgeable than I.

Once again thanks for the great responses!!
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: rich pierce on July 31, 2008, 11:50:56 PM
Looking at trade guns can give an insight into this.  Even the cheapest smoothbore trade guns had buttplates, triggerguards, and ramrod pipes.  English trade rifles starting in the 1780's had all the parts and even had carving and some engraving on the locks.  Later English pattern trade rifles reflected the contemporary sporting arms.  Later American made trade rifles (Tryon, Lehman, Henry) had brass furniture, brass patchboxes and were simple copies of longrifles.

The main evidence for rudimentary guns comes from a few pockets in the hills and "mountains" from Carolinas to Pennsylvania.  Since inevitably Tennessee rifles have good to fine English locks, there is no logic supporting that they could not "get brass".  If they could get the best trade locks available, they could get brass furniture.  They forged their mounts because they were superb blacksmiths and took pride in their work.  At the same time as the "poor boys" or "schimmels" were being made, fine fully mounted rifles were being made less than 50 miles away.

I believe that rudimentary rifles with no buttplate, one ramrod pipe, etc were made to be sold as cheaply as possible while preserving the accurate heart and soul of the rifle- barrel and lock of high quality.  The customers for the "poor boy" or "schimmel" would be poor mountain folks or farmers for whom investing a lot in a rifle didn't make sense.  That is why they are also called "barn guns" in Pennsylvania.

So I have always concluded that the "average man's gun" (whomever the average man may be) was a fully appointed gun.  They most likely had limited engraving and carving, but these guns had all the parts 90% of the time.  For sure there were poor-boys and schimmels; these were notably restricted in distribution.
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Ky-Flinter on July 31, 2008, 11:55:58 PM
I am indeed an employee of the US EPA......   I hope that satisfies any curiosities..and does not cause any problems?

I just love old long rifles......

Hi ya Teun and welcome to the board,

Don't take ol' Roger's comment the wrong way (he must have a still in the backyard or something).... 

I say you can stay.  Your statement that "I just love old long rifles" tells me you'll fit in here just fine.

-Ron
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Sam Everly on August 01, 2008, 01:22:58 AM
As to the English locks , the only ones with english locks are the ones Dennis and Earl own . They are the latest ones of the group i was talking about from 1810. The other rifles are about 10 to 30 years older and all had hand forged locks . One is in the Smith - Mcdowell house in Asheville and is from around the 1770's It is fully documented to that time period belonging to the father of the homes builder . The Bryan rifle is documented to around the 1760's . Like i said all with handforged locks .This part of North Carolina was rough and had very few people then .Any "town" in the western area would have been lucky to even have a blacksmith .             
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: timM on August 01, 2008, 02:26:48 AM
Interesting thread,....my favorite shooter (flintlock) is barely more than  lock, stock & barrel.  Maybe things haven't changed so much after all?
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: gibster on August 01, 2008, 05:04:03 AM
Hey Tern,
Welcome to the board.  I think that if the truth be known, there are quite a few folks that seem to gravitate to the plain rifles of yesteryear.  Myself included.  I have had a few carved rifles over the years, but seem to always let them go to someone else and replace it with plain ones.  Here are a few from my collection that are from North Carolina and are what I would consider an "Average Man's gun". 

J M Wood Jamestown NC
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk212/ejgibby1/RightSide-1.jpg)
Unsigned Fullstock Jamestown NC
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk212/ejgibby1/RtSideButtStock-1.jpg)
Unsigned Moore Co. NC
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk212/ejgibby1/RtSideButtStock.jpg)
G Foltz Salem NC
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk212/ejgibby1/RightSideButt.jpg)
D Kennedy Moore Co. NC
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk212/ejgibby1/DKennedy001_edited.jpg)
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: G-Man on August 01, 2008, 02:16:36 PM
Gibster/ Mr. Wood - thanks for posting those - I really love theat Moore Co. gun especially.  Those guns are worthy of a whole new post on NC guns.

Sam - I am very interested in the Bryan gun since they have family connections to Jacob Young and the Boones - just wondering if you could tell us a bit more - where is that gun at, maybe describe it a bit? 

Thanks

Guy
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: northmn on August 01, 2008, 04:29:46 PM
Trade guns I see in my area.  As to comment on them as they were mentioned as a guide.  The NW Gun was really about as close to a mass produced gun as one could get at the time and contrary to some opinions had a rater selective customer base.  The Natives wanted certain features on the gun or no trade.  The serpent side plate was cast, but could be cast in large numbers.  The buttplate was sheet brass bent and nailed to the stock eliminate much fitting.  The trigger guard was a hardly a challenge for the average blacksmith.  Also there was competition between the HBC and the American Fur Trade company to supply the NW guns.  Both tried to cheapen them and both found it didn't work.  Any carving on the guns was rudimentary.

DP
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: JTR on August 01, 2008, 04:49:39 PM
Welcome to the forum Teun!
You’re correct in your assumptions regarding ‘Plain’ rifles. While a good number of ‘Fancy’ rifles still survive, a large number of Plain one survive as well, but a huge number of the plain Jane’s were also just worn out and thrown away. While I don’t have any hard proof, I’d guess that plain ones were made by at least about 20 or 30, to 1 of the fancy variety.
Obviously most of the published guns are the fancy ones as they generally attract the most attention. Some of Jim Whisker’s books show a good number of plain rifles though, I just don’t remember which of his many books have them. Perhaps one of the other guys will remember?
Personally, I’m more attracted to the fancier Pennsylvania rifles, but still have a soft spot for some of their simpler brethren as well. And at this point, the plain ones are much less expensive to buy, as a pretty nice one can be had for relatively little money, but in the way of most things, the fancy one will always bring a better return on investment.
Also be aware when looking at the pictures of the fancy ones that not all of them were just wall hangers. A lot of them were used long and hard, and subsequently have had a good bit of restoration done to bring them back to their original glory! Most of the plain ones will be found in ‘as used’ condition.
A good way to further your budding interest is to gather a small library of different areas building styles, or ‘schools’ of makers. Jim Whisker’s books have a good representation of all the various areas of gun making. Although all his books are out of print, most are still available from sources such as Amazon or other used book sellers. George Shumways books are classics, as is Kindigs “Thought’s on the Kentucky Rifle”.
Collections and interests can be eclectic or focused. Maybe you’ll find yourself enjoying those from the south as shown above, or will more appreciate those from Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, or Ohio.  
You’ll find there’s a wealth of information here, so when you have questions, no matter how basic, just ask!

Again, welcome,
John







Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Evil Monkey on August 01, 2008, 05:11:22 PM
While I don’t have any hard proof, I’d guess that plain ones were made by at least about 20 or 30, to 1 of the fancy variety

While I don't have any hard proof, I'ld guess that fancy rifles were made by at least about 20 or 30 to 1 of the plain ones. See, I can make those statements too but without any 'hard proof' it's just conjecture and really only perpetuates assumptions rather than shedding any real light on the subject. While i don't have any firm opinion on this subject, I still don't buy the 'working mans gun' was a plain utilitarian affair simply because arguments put forth are always based on assumptions derived by drawing parrallels to the gun buying public of today.
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: JTR on August 01, 2008, 05:29:11 PM
:D
Ok, so I assume you woke up with a knot in your PJs this morning?
John
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Stophel on August 01, 2008, 08:09:50 PM
I have never bought the "plain guns were just used up" argument.

It depends upon the area and time period.  Later in time, the guns get plainer and plainer.  If you're looking at say, a typical 18th century PA gun, then I think an "average" gun would have all the normal brass hardware, and even a moderate amount of carving.  Doing minor carving like moulding lines, teardrops, etc, is easy and quick and would cost virtually nothing, so why not do it?  Also, I think that the felt that that was just the way a gun should be done.  Missing hardware and such just wasn't right!

The "barn gun" is overdone today, I think.  What people call a "barn gun" (no buttplate, sideplate, etc,...just literally "lock, stock, and barrel") I think was fairly limited in region and time period.
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: mr. no gold on August 01, 2008, 08:54:12 PM
It is also possible that demand had an effect on what the builder produced. If he had ten buyers waiting for rifles it is less likely that he would spend too much time beautifying his product so that he could effect a timely dleivery. Economic gain was the major goal no matter how fine a craftsman he happened to be. Anyone wanting a fine gun had to wait until the demand slowed down and time could be appropriated to making same.
Dickert formed a partnership with his son in law, Gill, a merchant. Dickert made guns for this enterprise and marked them Dickert & Gill. Essentially, they were plain guns when compared with many of the others produced by Dickert. Why?
There are many factors in this and we don't know even half of them.
Dick
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Jim Filipski on August 01, 2008, 09:16:01 PM

The "barn gun" is overdone today, I think.  What people call a "barn gun" (no buttplate, sideplate, etc,...just literally "lock, stock, and barrel") I think was fairly limited in region and time period.

Chris I tend to agree with you  They too being over done just as much as the fancy raised relief guns!  I feel the average gun was just were it should be -in the middle-

Just as we have customers now that want fancy ones or not so fancy ones or plain ones. ....I'm sure that folks were the same back then based on what they would like vs what their  pocket books could afford. I also think that trends of the times played a roll in what was produced

Jim
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: turfman on August 01, 2008, 09:36:33 PM
I'm sure there are regionalities, but just as an example, lets take John Moll. I have seen many plain guns over the years from jr and some good fancy ones. I've also seen at least one schimmel from jr. Taking that into consideration; I kinda believe that maybe he made to order which is natural. But take it a little further and think of the possibility that he might have had an actual inventory from time to time.  Think of as if you walk into his shop and there are 5 guns on the rack, each is stocked, barreled and locked. All the customer had to do was pick his componets.  Logical?   


BTW. The jr schimmel had a drop dead georgous piece of wood.
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Sam Everly on August 01, 2008, 10:50:37 PM
I will say your right it all was to where you where here in NC, if in the Salem Charlotte or Salisbury area you could get a rather nice gun. But before 1800 any farther west and it was just hard to get material out there in the back woods . The guns also show it, but 1810-20-30 and you could get some nice guns , with english locks and brass hardware . Also money might have been a drawback before 1800 there in Western NC, money was hard to come by. Even Iron was hard to get Phillip Sitton, Matthew Gillespies fatherinlaw set up his iron works just after 1800 in the Mills River area . The state gave him 3000 acres to set it up and it was the only one around for many many miles. He had to mine the ore , smelt the ore , cut the wood for the charcoal, make the charcoal and then do the blacksmithing .         
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: T*O*F on August 01, 2008, 10:57:32 PM
I knew I had these blasted pics somewhere and finally found them.  Here's one by a well known maker that did survive.  I shoulda bought it back then.....but you know about hindsight.  A guy contacted me for information on it about 12 years ago.  Coulda got it for a couple of hundred bucks.  Don't know where it's at now.

(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m104/ML-L/ALR/angstat1.jpg)
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m104/ML-L/ALR/angstat2.jpg)
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m104/ML-L/ALR/angstat3.jpg)
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m104/ML-L/ALR/angstat4.jpg)
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m104/ML-L/ALR/angstat5.jpg)
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m104/ML-L/ALR/angstat6.jpg)
(http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m104/ML-L/ALR/angstat7.jpg)
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Stophel on August 01, 2008, 11:37:50 PM
Is this the gun with the bent barrel?  As of a few years ago, it was in the care of someone in the Jacobsburg Longrifle museum organization.  They had it at the PA German folk festival and had $1600 on it.  I could have (barely) bought it too, but thought it might be a bit too much.
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: northmn on August 02, 2008, 08:25:36 PM
As a thought, on the plainer vs fancier.  If you attend a shotgun sport today you start seeing more ostentation than what you see out in the woods.  I do not know how popular shooting matches were, but have heard they were common.  The "Golden Age" guns occurred during a period when we may have had more industrialization (part of the reason we booted out the British) and possibly more wealth per capita.  Trap and skeet guns today get pretty fancy and are far beyond basic needs.  Many are kind of "show off" pieces.  I just wonder if there weren't factors like that that may have had buyers opt for fancier rifles and may have created a larger number of them than we might think.  Those were more civilized times when a man could spend his dollars on important things like his guns instead of frivolities like new couches and carpets to keep his wife happy.

DP
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: J. Talbert on August 03, 2008, 08:38:22 PM
Though only specution; I like to think that the rifle back then is comparable in a number of ways to the cars of today, especially in regards to its desirability to young men.  I would submit that; just as now, as some young boys (and men) are obsessed with that first (and every) car, and certainly don't always spend what is a wise or prudent amount on it, many young men did much the same with rifles back then.

Just a little more food for thought when it comes to the plain vs fancy, wealthy vs working man's gun...
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Randy Hedden on August 04, 2008, 12:43:03 AM
It is also possible that demand had an effect on what the builder produced. If he had ten buyers waiting for rifles it is less likely that he would spend too much time beautifying his product so that he could effect a timely dleivery. Economic gain was the major goal no matter how fine a craftsman he happened to be.
Dick

Dick,

The laws of supply and demand haven't changed from the 18th century up to the present time. Let's look at the other side of supply and demand. There are several gunsmiths in a certain area and there is only one potential customer who has set a limit on the amount he will pay for a rifle.  How do any of the gunsmiths get the potential customer to buy his product rather than buy from any of the other gunsmiths? Same as today, the gunsmith would have to differentiate his product from those products of the other gunsmiths. He would have to offer more for the customers money or at least make the customer think he was getting more for his money. Wouldn't the quickest way to differentiate his product be to add some carving and some engraving for the same price? Then when the other gunsmiths start offering  carving and engraving for the same price our first gunsmith has to offer even more carving, engraving and perhaps inlays. I believe this is how the "Golden Age" rifles came about. During the Revolutionary War there were not enough gunsmiths to supply demand so more were trained to fill the demand for arms. After the Rev War there was a glut of trained gunsmiths who found they had to differentiate their rifles in order to draw customers.

Randy Hedden

www.harddogrifles.com






Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: northmn on August 04, 2008, 03:23:58 AM
That issue of an overabundance of smiths may have existed, however there were still contracts for such guns as the trade rifles and muskets.  When the western fur trade opened up several plainer rifles were built to satisfy that demand.  Looking at the volume these rifles were produced there is some indication that gun building was getting more technically advanced with indications of manufacturing technology increases.  It is possible as the East became more industrialized that many of the parts were farmed out to related industries.  For instance foundries may have arisen to make hardware in some areas.  There was also more importation of barrels and locks.  This would permit more time to make fancier rifles, kind of similar to todays builders that buy kits.  Simpler rifles from the Appalachian area were totally handbuilt because of little industry.  Another possibility.     
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: flintman-tx on August 04, 2008, 03:24:42 AM
Some people regard a gun as merely a tool. (true even today). They want results and for most, the cheaper...the better. Some of us regard guns as an extention of our self, as a work of art as something...well, for lack of a better word, sorta " mystical". While we can't pay the really big money the investors and well-to-do collectors can, we will pay as much as we can and sometimes a bit more for something just a little special. If I am the only nutcase that feels this way...oh well!!!
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Dr. Tim-Boone on August 04, 2008, 04:15:22 PM
Some people regard a gun as merely a tool. (true even today). They want results and for most, the cheaper...the better. Some of us regard guns as an extention of our self, as a work of art as something...well, for lack of a better word, sorta " mystical". While we can't pay the really big money the investors and well-to-do collectors can, we will pay as much as we can and sometimes a bit more for something just a little special. If I am the only nutcase that feels this way...oh well!!!

I think you are in good company......
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: rex on August 05, 2008, 02:36:42 AM
Hi: Most of us common folk have our grandfathers guns. they were cheap, to average. Most were hardware store or Sears guns. Fancy could be bought, but cost to much. I think it was the same in 1700, and it is now. Rex
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: timM on August 05, 2008, 04:40:36 PM
Gibster,......thank you for posting those pic's of your rifles.  I also find them very interesting. I also hope to see more photo's of any or all of those rifles. tim
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Mike R on August 11, 2008, 03:06:33 PM
For those of you that have the KRA book reprinting their Bulletin articles v.1-30, there is a fine example of a common man's rifle in an article by Frank Tait.  It is a Dickert owned by John Curry who was a rifleman in ranging companies 1776-78.  It is totally uncarved [no incised either] and has no sideplate. It's relatively plain 4-piece brass box has no engraving.  It certainly is not a "poor boy" nor is it a "Schimmel", but it is plain and utilitarian.
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: T.C.Albert on August 11, 2008, 08:38:54 PM
I may be totally wrong..(as usual)...but look at the car you drive today.
Is is a bare bones work mobile...a beater but dependable farm truck that hauls feed everyday...or a pampered new Lexus with all the bells and whistles...or maybe you have all of the above??? then think about what kind of gun or guns you and the family were likely to have had as well along those lines...

Anyway, thats how I sometimes think about it...for what its worth.
T.Albert
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Dphariss on August 15, 2008, 05:09:15 AM
Average can cover a lot of territory. The Haymaker rifle could be "average". Its certainly far less fancy than those Virginia guns in Guslers carving video.
The wood PB Becks with just some carving.
Now the POOR people might have much plainer guns. But what would "average" be in 1770-1780?

Dan
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Mike R on August 15, 2008, 03:43:31 PM
Average can cover a lot of territory. The Haymaker rifle could be "average". Its certainly far less fancy than those Virginia guns in Guslers carving video.
The wood PB Becks with just some carving.
Now the POOR people might have much plainer guns. But what would "average" be in 1770-1780?

Dan

Poor.  Poor would be the average man then.  It was a time of few rich and many poor [and few "middleclass" as we know it].  Poor is a relative term, however, and often as not dependent on how one views himself.  The middle class of my youth would be considered definitely poor today when viewed in terms of ownership of material "stuff", extra money [money available to spend over and above necessities of life], and free time.  My father had a college degree, a law degree and was an FBI Agent.  His starting salary with the FBI was $4000 a year.  The "average" guy makes that much a month now [yes, I know, there has been alot of inflation].  The average man of the 18th cent made a few dollars a month if he was lucky.  A typical plain rifle of the period cost about 6-7 dollars, whereas a fine rifle cost more like 12-15 dollars [twice as much].  Let's see,  I have a wife and three kids and a dirt farm with a few rows of corn and a cow--yeah, I'll spring for that 12 dollar rifle...yeah....
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Mike R on August 15, 2008, 04:03:30 PM
P.S., remember, a "plain" rifle can shoot as straight as a fine rifle.  The market hunter or poor backwoods farmer who added to his larder with a gun did not need carving and inlays to "get'r done".  Even today, with all of our excess [spendable] incomes, the blue collar guy will more likely have a plain factory gun in the field, whereas a corporate VP may be toting an engraved fancy wood-stocked gun.   It has always been that way.
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: JTR on August 15, 2008, 06:22:58 PM
I wonder what happened to Teun, the new guy that started the thread?
John
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Stophel on August 15, 2008, 06:49:57 PM
$4000 a month?  That's definitely way above "average" for me!
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Mike R on August 16, 2008, 12:11:55 AM
$4000 a month?  That's definitely way above "average" for me!
....yeah, that's why I put it in quotes.  My schoolteacher son makes about $3000 a month.  A minimum wage dude would make a third that....
Title: Re: Average mans gun...
Post by: Dphariss on August 16, 2008, 02:17:39 AM
$4000 a month?  That's definitely way above "average" for me!
....yeah, that's why I put it in quotes.  My schoolteacher son makes about $3000 a month.  A minimum wage dude would make a third that....

Early 60s Dad was making about 1.75 an hour as a construction worker and I think this was teamster scale.
I fully understand the comments on the amount of money people had, especially on the frontier. But carving of some short was almost standard on firearms of the time. Military muskets had carving around the tangs.
So we have to then ask what did a really cheap rifle consist of.
Then we must address that fact that the Native Americans would not usually buy a base line rifle. See "British Military Flintlock Rifles" by Bailey.
According to orders for Wilson Indian Trade rifles in 1781 of the 312 rifles there were 3 different types ordered in these quantities. Cost was what the British gov't paid.
156 Best Rifle Guns wood boxes moulds & cases.  52/6
108 Best Rifle Guns with brass boxs moulds & cases. 53/6
48 Rifle Guns wood boxes moulds & cases  50/
Prices are in Shillings. 20 shillings = ₤1.
This from pg 81.
Surviving rifles from Wilson are invariably carved to some extent and had a forend moulding. I have no idea what the lowest grade rifle was like but it was apparently not very popular.
Apparently the Natives had come to see a carved rifle as typical. If the vast majority of rifles in the frontier were uncarved I cannot see this being and issue. I would further point out the Bailey states that the rifle armed natives were for the most part armed with American made rifle and the English imports were just a small part of those actually in use until 1778 at any rate.
He further writes that George, John and James Girty had new rifles costing ₤6, ₤7.10.0 and ₤8.10.0. These were late 1775 to early 1776. I seriously doubt they were trade rifles.

Dan