AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: R.J.Bruce on November 06, 2019, 11:35:55 PM
-
If all goes well, I'll be able to commission my first historically correct longrifle in about a years time.
As anyone that has followed my questions, and posts, has noticed; I have been all over the map trying to figure out just what style of rifle I wish to own.
I like most styles of longrifles, and that's been the problem.
I have narrowed things down to a rifle with a stepped wrist.
Furthermore, I would like a fairly early rifle with a fairly large bore.
Of the early maker's, I have become interested in Hans Jacob Honaker as he seems to have been a pivotal gunsmith in our early history.
I am not interested in a bench copy of either of the two famous rifles attributed to him; rather a rifle that might have come out of his new shop in 1766 when he moved from Frederick County, Maryland to Frederick County, Virginia.
Would a Rice Barrel Co., Early Dutch Lancaster pattern barrel be appropriate for a Hans Jacob Honaker rifle, circa 1766?
Thanks for your answers,
R.J.Bruce
-
That big honking barrel is certainly possible on a mid 1760’s longrifle but not needed unless you want the architecture to be especially robust. A D weight barrel would be fine. I’m not yet aware of any very early Honaker rifled. What will you base it on?
-
I believe Wallace has attributed the BBR and it's sister (the one that everyone forgets about) to this guy.
-
I like that barrel scaled down to a .54 caliber
-
I believe Wallace has attributed the BBR and it's sister (the one that everyone forgets about) to this guy.
I'm wondering how he figured that?
-
Checked the barrel dimensions reported for the brass-barreled rifle known by that name. 1 and 1/8” at the breech. Note that both this one and the similar gun are smoothbores, at least now. Of course a shop or maker could make a variety of guns.
-
Is there somewhere where this 1760's Honaker rifle can be seen? Is the gun signed, or is it another "attribution"? I've been out of the loop, so it's totally new to me.
-
I don’t think anyone has a 1760s signed or unsigned Honaker rifle. I believe the proposition is that the BBR with a date of 1771 scratched on the lid underside was made by Jacob Honaker who likely made rifles in the 1760s and the proposed build is an exploration of what an even earlier gun like the BBR might look like. Sounds fun. Of course with no signature and a “reasoned” attribution I’m more comfortable thinking about what an earlier version of the BBR would look like. I’d choose a wider buttplate, a guard with acanthus finials, wooden box, etc.
-
I believe Wallace has attributed the BBR and it's sister (the one that everyone forgets about) to this guy.
I'm wondering how he figured that?
I took about 2-3 pages of notes on the Brass Barrel Rifle rifle when I had the opportunity to examine it and talk to Gusler about it. Unfortunately, they are in storage right now and unavailable.
Going from memory, there are a number of construction details that jibe with regionally specific details found in SW Virginia and as far as I know aren't present on PA rifles. The proportions of the triggerguard bow and grip-rail and the use of a wood screw to secure the tang instead of a bolt running through the wrist to the triggerplate stand out in my memory.
I dunno about the other piece, but the BBR is a really interesting combination of very sophisticated German-style architecture combined with very naive folk-style carving done with a very small tool set - I think that there are marks from only two gouges, a very small one and a mid-sized one (the small one was used to create those circles in the carving, which will give you an idea of its size and sweep). Honaker came over as an indentured servant and did his time working in a cabinetmaker or carpenter shop, and then I believe immediately moved to SW Virginia and switched over to making guns. Wallace believes that Honaker probably was trained as a gunstocker in Europe, which would explain why he switched to making guns after five or so years as a carpenter. I think the BBR is supposed to be one of Honaker's early pieces, which explains the very German/Swiss architecture, the limited toolset, and the folksy carving reminiscent of the country furniture Honaker was probably making for the five years before that. The timing works out for the supposed 1771 date scratched on the BBR, too, IIRC.
The best thing would be to ask Gusler about it. He has written a couple articles on the BBR and RCA 145 which lay out a lot of his case for the SW Virginia origins of those pieces, so you might read those. The Honaker attribution is a more recent development, I think.
-
Ah, I see, thank you.
I was wondering if there was another mystery gun out there that we're not privy to see or know anything about... until the book comes out...
-
Back in 2013 there was another thread on Hans Jacob Honaker.
Between that thread in which Mitch Yates posted a quote from a Jim Whisker, and from an online Honaker gravesite locator I have retrieved the following information.
Born in Zurich, Switzerland...24 July 1718
Moved to Basel, Switzerland...1743-1747
Married Anna Bleyer, Pratteln, Switzerland...20 June 1747
Son, Hans Jr. born in early...1748
Leaves Europe for colonies on...8 May 1749
Wife and son die on voyage to America
Son dies before halfway point of voyage
(not responsible for cost of passage)
Wife dies after halfway point of voyage
(responsible for cost of passage?)
Arrives, Philadelphia on H.M.S.Crown...30 August 1749
Indentured servitude of 5 years
Additional servitude for wife of ××× years??
Marries Maria Goetz w/master's permission approx. 4 yrs. into term of indentured servitude
Released from indentured servitude on ?????????
Purchased land in Frederick Co., MD
10 April 1758
03 December 1761
Purchased land in Frederick Co., VA
97 acres...2 August 1765
Dunmore Co. formed from Frederick Co., VA...1772
Dunmore Co. renamed Shenandoah Co., VA...1778
War of Independence...1783
Contributed monies, and worked as wagonmaster
Sold 97 acres, Shenandoah Co., 76 pounds...25 March 1784
Purchased 146 acres, Wythe Co., VA, 300 pounds...26 July 1784
Died Wythe Co., VA...10 May 1796
-
If Hans Jacob Honaker built the brass-barreled rifle, and it's counterpart, RCA #145, then he did so while living in Northern Virginia in his early fifties; not SW Virginia.
He did not sell his land in Shenandoah County, and purchase land in Wythe County until 1784 when he was 66 years old.
His architectural style was therefore well developed before he set foot in SW Virginia, and it seems to me that he taught that style to his children, who then taught it to their children.
This is why I am interested in Hans Jacob Honaker. A riflesmith who had an extremely complex, well executed design with simplistic carving that did not distract from the overall beauty of the rifle.
After speaking with my doctors, it appears that I will be able to shoot a larger caliber than I thought, so I am considering a bore size of no less than .60 caliber.
So, back to my original question. Reccomendations as to barrel profiles for a Hans Jacob Honaker derivative longrifle in say .62 caliber × 41"-47" long, circa 1766??
-
A D wght profile in the length you want will work. For a beefier breech a Rice Early Dutch Lancaster profile trimmed from 1.250 in the breech to 1 3/16 in the breech is a nice barrel. The rifle Mike Brooks just made for me uses this profile in a .60 cal. It is a bigger rifle through the breech and comes in at about 9 lbs. A .62 would probably weigh a little less. Not sure what the rifle you want to emulate would have used.
-
The Brass barreled rifle does not have a long barrel from what I remember, it may be as long as 42" but I seem to recollect that it is shorter than that. Regardless, I think an early rifle like what your are talking about should be at least 1 1/8" at the breech to give it the strength it needs through the wrist and give it good architecture. The brass barreled gun is a wide butted gun of good proportions but slender out through the forearm. I agree with Sqldog A "D" weight barrel of 40" or longer would make into a very nice early rifle, a pleasure to shoot and carry in 62 caliber.
-
From an article by Wallace Gusler the BBR has a 45” barrel but that is extended by Wallace to that length. It had previously been shortened. Again I think this may have been a smooth rifle and I am not sure whether a rifle rifle would have had the same length or not. It would depend on what barrels the gunsmith could get.
-
When I was working on my iron mounted interpretation of the BBR I spoke with Wallace Gussler and John Getz. John Getz is familiar with the BBR and Wallace published the barrel profile dimensions. John made me a 54 caliber barrel to the original profile dimensions in 54 caliber.
That barrel profile I do not believe will accommodate a 60 caliber. I soldered the front thimble and barrel lugs on mine because it is really thin there.
I inked some measurements on the barrel while building.
(https://i.ibb.co/YDY0C8J/DSCN2535.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cbMYBtR)
(https://i.ibb.co/2892TF2/DSCN0838.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WDh9LH9)
(https://i.ibb.co/3hbzKZz/DSCN0840.jpg) (https://ibb.co/MNH6d06)
The gun handles really well. It has great balance and points well. The stock is not nearly as clunky as it looks
-
When I was working on my iron mounted interpretation of the BBR I spoke with Wallace Gussler and John Getz. John Getz is familiar with the BBR and Wallace published the barrel profile dimensions. John made me a 54 caliber barrel to the original profile dimensions in 54 caliber.
That barrel profile I do not believe will accommodate a 60 caliber. I soldered the front thimble and barrel lugs on mine because it is really thin there.
I inked some measurements on the barrel while building.
(https://i.ibb.co/YDY0C8J/DSCN2535.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cbMYBtR)
(https://i.ibb.co/2892TF2/DSCN0838.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WDh9LH9)
(https://i.ibb.co/3hbzKZz/DSCN0840.jpg) (https://ibb.co/MNH6d06)
The gun handles really well. It has great balance and points well. The stock is not nearly as clunky as it looks
Heinz,
If you would not mind, would you please write out the length measurements vs the outside across the flats measurements so that I could compare your copy of the BBR barrel to the Rice Early Dutch Lancaster?
Jason told me that he will rifle the EDL pattern in .66 caliber with round bottom rifling. His .66 caliber has a bore diameter of 0.672", and a groove diameter of 0.704". With a waist measuring 0.850", this leaves a barrel wall thickness of 0.073".
As sqrldog mentioned above, I can reduce the breech dimension down to 1.1875", and the waist dimension down to 0.780" for the EDL barrel in .60 caliber.
Thanks,
R.J.Bruce
-
Just me,I’d want .875 minimum dimension for such a big bore.
Though it is fun to closely copy dimensions of an original, the previous and next guns out of that shop may have had quite different barrels. And a gun made 10 years earlier likely had a barrel Witt different dimensions.
-
R.J. That is now my oldest grandson's rifle. It is with him in Minnesota and I am here in South Carolina so I cannot put a tape measure on it. I will look tonight to see if I have those dimensions anywhere. If I do I will post. The flare at the muzzle and breech are both pretty steep with a gentler taper throughout the long midsection. The waist was about 6' back from the muzzle. That is where the original blew.
h
(https://i.ibb.co/VSrWZcw/DSCN2479.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9Tz9LkZ)
(https://i.ibb.co/Ttm4Kt7/DSCN2470.jpg) (https://ibb.co/L1nxQ1c)
(https://i.ibb.co/yY34Nc8/DSCN2405.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4YQ1Fnj)
-
So, if the BBG and it's sister are Honakers, where did all of the chip carving go on the later guns?
-
So, if the BBG and it's sister are Honakers, where did all of the chip carving go on the later guns?
You LOVE that chip carving, dontcha?
-
So, if the BBG and it's sister are Honakers, where did all of the chip carving go on the later guns?
You LOVE that chip carving, dontcha?
Yes, outstanding stuff!. Seems odd he would have completely abandoned it later in his career.
-
Would it be possible for someone to point me in the right direction to an online source for images of the BBR, and RCA #145? I am especially interested in images of the carving and mouldings. I am intrigued by Mike Brooks comment above regarding chip carving. What are you all referring to when you mention that?
I know that the standard response is for me to purchase certain books and DVD's, but I am on a tight fixed income. I am saving for the rifle, and the accessories to shoot it, and there is no money for anything else. I LOVE books, and would like nothing more than to own a comprehensive library of longrifle related books.
Alas, such is not the case.
Thanks,
R.J.Bruce
-
RCA vol II is the only place I know of to see these guns. Copyrights you know.
-
There is a muzzle blasts article by Wallace with some pictures in it. Let me look it up. NMLRA may have back issues.
-
Gusler articles:
"One brass riffle gun & bullet moules,” May 2003, p. 61-64.
“The Step Toe Group,” May 2004, p. 6-10.
The May 2004 magazine is sold out, but they can photocopy that article for you. Incidentally, it appears to be missing the last page - I asked and was assured that what I received was the entirety of the article.
Gusler lists the draw length of the BBR as 15 1/2," I believe that this is a typographical error. Also, those were written some 15-16 years ago and evidently his thinking has changed somewhat in the interim (which may be why there are discrepancies in my attempt to summarize Gusler's theories above - I'm mixing two different ideas together in my head.)
A couple of interesting points about the BBR that aren't easily to see in Shumway's photos, BTW: there is no spring in the patchbox (and 145 has a spring attached to the bottom of the box, not sticking out from under the hinge); the rear sight was an adjustable sight with folding leaves; and the working surface of the cheekpiece is slightly convex, not concave.
-
photo of the butt, cheekside on the original BBR. Chip carving are those small v-shaped cuts along the border of the butt plate.
I love them too :-)
(https://i.ibb.co/JtJHq8t/Note-convex-rollover-from-comb-to-cheekpiece.jpg) (https://ibb.co/02brK12)
-
Everybody has gone attribution crazy lately. I'm sure it increases the value and saleability of the gun... Honestly, I generally disregard attributions, unless there is something REALLY solid to back it up.
-
Everybody has gone attribution crazy lately. I'm sure it increases the value and saleability of the gun... Honestly, I generally disregard attributions, unless there is something REALLY solid to back it up.
Like a signature? ;D
-
"I attribute this gun to Joseph Jingleheimer, Sr. , because if you look here, very closely, this small engraved swirl is somewhat similar to the engraved swirls found on guns made by Joseph Jingleheimer III"....
-
Regardless of degrees of certainty, both those guns are funky cool. What an amazing variety there is among longrifles, no matter the timeframe.
-
So, if the BBG and it's sister are Honakers, where did all of the chip carving go on the later guns?
http://www.flintriflesmith.com/Antiques/Honaker.htm
-
Like a signature? ;D
I don't even believe all the signatures. 8)
-
So, if the BBG and it's sister are Honakers, where did all of the chip carving go on the later guns?
http://www.flintriflesmith.com/Antiques/Honaker.htm
Ok, somebody point out to me how the BBG and this gun relate to each other...I' missing it...... ???
-
I don't see much relationship between the carving on the Honaker piece and the BBR/RCA 145 pieces, either. However, may I gently remind the members here that the attribution to Honaker is not based on carving design, but on architectural and construction details? Chip carving doesn't seem to have had much of a following here in the US, and folk-art carving is pretty rare on rifles in general, even in places where it was common on other objects, so it is quite possible that it disappeared simply because the customer base didn't like it. Stranger things have happened.
Seems to me the cheekpiece construction is more significant than the carving. I've seen a German smoothbore with a near-identical cheekpiece, which the owner believed to have been made in the same shop that trained the guy that made BBR, and I think that if one wanted to challenge the Honaker attribution one might ask why he was still making this very niche style of cheekpiece in 1771.
On the subject of attributions based on small details:
Once upon a time, I went and got a master's degree in Medieval history, specializing in the period between Late Antiquity and the end of the Viking age popularly known as the Dark Ages. As so happens, this period has extremely few written sources, no first-hand accounts, and depends a lot on archeology. Accordingly, anyone who works in this area gets very familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of archeological sources and has to become good at looking for small clues in stuff like poetry and chronicles written with obvious agendas generations later. An off-hand comment or the writer's assumption of knowledge on the part of the reader can be quite illuminating with these kind of sources.
Now there are many good historians in this hobby, including several on this board (*waves at Eric Kettenberg, Bob Leinemann, and Shelby Galien, to name some that spring to mind*), but so far as I've seen Gusler seems to be fairly unique in that he notices as significant small things like an early rifle specified as having brass mounts, or a pattern of rifles listed together with a set of accouterments complete except for powderhorns. That is close reading the way Medievalists do it, and I'd like to see more of it. Like everyone else, he has his biases and idiosyncracies that have to be taken into account, and I certainly don't expect people to accept everything he says without question (I don't), but I don't think that his overall approach is out of line with standards of historical writing (What he doesn't do is use the usual verbiage of uncertainty that historians usually (see what I did there?) use to insulate themselves from their conclusions. That makes him easier to dismiss as a crank, I think.)
Unlike the sciences, to the extent that there is any progress in historical knowledge, that progress is made primarily through re-examination of old evidence rather than the discovery of new sources. Looking at available data, drawing conclusions, and then using those conclusions as presuppositions to make more complex arguments, only to have the whole edifice torn down and rebuilt when someone else notices something you missed or assumed is what historians do, ladies and gentlemen. Eventually, at least in theory, an framework arises that proves sturdy enough in the face of criticism that it can be accepted as true. A healthy dose of skepticism is an integral part of the process, but unless someone is willing to go out on a limb and draw conclusions based on the available evidence we will never get anywhere.
-
Thanks to all that have replied to this thread!!
This is what I had hoped would happen.
Get all YE OLDE KNOWLEDGEABLE ONES cranked up on coffee or expresso, and let the ideas fly!!
That's how I get to learn, and hopefully, others too.
Another question, round-faced English flintlock, Early Ketland flintlock, or some form of Germanic flintlock for a 1766 Honaker rifle?
R.J.Bruce
-
So, if the BBG and it's sister are Honakers, where did all of the chip carving go on the later guns?
http://www.flintriflesmith.com/Antiques/Honaker.htm
Ok, somebody point out to me how the BBG and this gun relate to each other...I' missing it...... ???
Mike- you'd asked specifically about the chip carving on the later guns. Check out the 4th photo, molding along wrist and around front of the trigger guard. There are others.
-
So, if the BBG and it's sister are Honakers, where did all of the chip carving go on the later guns?
http://www.flintriflesmith.com/Antiques/Honaker.htm
Ok, somebody point out to me how the BBG and this gun relate to each other...I' missing it...... ???
Mike- you'd asked specifically about the chip carving on the later guns. Check out the 4th photo, molding along wrist and around front of the trigger guard. There are others.
Ah yes, thank you! @!*% my crooked eyes! I'm ready to agree with a possible Honaker attribution for the BBG, or possibly a maker yet unknown that greatly influenced or trained the Honaker family. I wouldn't bet my life the BBG was made by Honaker, but it is very possible.
-
Elnathan, thanks for that background. Due to my science training, I’ll never get in line with a reasoned attribution unless no other conclusions are possible now or in the future (such as its proven there was only one man on an island and a gun was made there from local materials). Unfortunately there is a monetary bonus for an attributed gun. The worst and pace-setting example is the attribution of dozens of Reading rifles to Wolfgang Haga.
I really appreciate the architecture of the BBR and related gun and wish there were more examples of guns of that and later periods with similar architecture in addition to the stepped wrist which is a very common feature across a variety of Germanic rifles, and which I find more appealing on robust early rifles.