AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: Mike Brooks on June 01, 2023, 07:21:19 PM
-
Why is the thread on the 1750 english lock locked down?I would love to hear the logic behind this.
-
Self-locked. OP can lock their topic.
-
Ah, I see. Getting too hot in the kitchen. ;)
-
Al Gore put it in his "lockbox."
-
If it is the thread "rare English flintlock rifle", I suspect the OP didn't like the readers pointing out all the non-original parts and stock problems with his gun.
Too bad because it was still a nice old gun.
-
Sort of the same reason I was @#$$%& for posting a comment of an 1864 Springfield....the forum is the "American Long Rifle". English guns are not American Long Rifles.
Seems there have been a number of of topic threads of late. OK by me but .....
-
If it is the thread "rare English flintlock rifle", I suspect the OP didn't like the readers pointing out all the non-original parts and stock problems with his gun.
Too bad because it was still a nice old gun.
Not exactly it is the know all's only see the long rifle and for English guns 99% have not any idea only what they find in books which most are far from the truth that was the reason
Feltwad
-
Feltwad makes a good point. All historical artifacts exist in a context that includes many related items. To ignore this is to develop a very myopic view of the subject. I'd go so far as to say nearly blind. This is a problem I've seen many times with gun books...the authors often have no knowledge or interest in the context the artifacts were created in and sometimes draw almost idiotic conclusions from that. I, for one, come to this site for the discussion of the non-longrifles since this is where I find the most acute observations on the internet. I really don't have much interest in American rifles if only because far too many of them have been mucked with and any that I liked would be far beyond my means.
Actually, I should correct what I've written. I do have 8 or 10 NE rifles only two of which are still in flint. I like NE rifles but, again, I am very skeptical of many of the "attributions" we see. The fact is, they are nearly all very similar and, to me, if it isn't signed we can 't know who sold it.
-
I come here to learn about and see American Long Rifles. Pretty simple. Any blunderbuss or snaphance led to the American Long Rifles, but aren't one.
An occasional offshore built rifle is one thing. But weekly/daily posts about UK rifles and shotguns is not what I come here for, and they are pushing the few American rifles posts down. I suppose if I were king I would make a section for "historical arms that influenced American Long Rifles", and let everything else be put in that section.
-
I find English and European guns a worthy study. With out understanding them you can't understand colonial American built guns. If you don't like looking at them just don't click on the subject, problem solved.
-
I like early US Martial arms. They influenced Long Rifles a lot more than English fowlers.
-
I find English and European guns a worthy study. With out understanding them you can't understand colonial American built guns. If you don't like looking at them just don't click on the subject, problem solved.
I agree with Mike. Early English and Northern Continental Longarms are the foundation upon which the Colonial American Longarm Tradition was built.
-
I should know better than enter into this "gentlemen's debate", but here's my perspective... Like several others, I am keenly interested in what led to the American Longrifle classic "American built" form . In my personal studies, without this history or insight, the study of the American Longrifle is incomplete. Within the scope of the Forum's Mission Statement (i.e., "and related arms of the period"), I sense that there is room for both the areas of American and also non-American firearms . But, to prevent obfuscation of the interests of some purists who prefer a narrow scope of this forum, a simple solution would be to add another topic area. For one approach, the "Antique Gun Collecting" could be split into American made and a second topic area for non-American types.... if I offend anybody, my apologies for my personal bias
(https://i.ibb.co/kyKydT6/Screen-Shot-2023-06-02-at-10-13-07-AM.png) (https://ibb.co/PYxYSyz)
-
What I find interesting is the overall lack of interest and expertise in 18th and 17th century English guns in England today! Many of those who know these guns best are in the states. Also, from one perspective, you really don't know something as well as possible unless you've done the work yourself. With this in mind it's interesting that you have to come to this country to have a top-notch English gun of this period made.
As an aside, there is nothing wrong with debate. I try to make sure I have information available to back up statements I might make. If others have information to counter this, that's really all good. This is how understanding is progressed. To just shut down when a difference of opinion is presented, isn't too helpful in this regard.
And finally, I think when you present an original in this forum, you should be willing to accept there might be differences of opinion.
Jim
-
What I find interesting is the overall lack of interest and expertise in 18th and 17th century English guns in England today! Many of those who know these guns best are in the states. Also, from one perspective, you really don't know something as well as possible unless you've done the work yourself. With this in mind it's interesting that you have to come to this country to have a top-notch English gun of this period made.
As an aside, there is nothing wrong with debate. I try to make sure I have information available to back up statements I might make. If others have information to counter this, that's really all good. This is how understanding is progressed. To just shut down when a difference of opinion is presented, isn't too helpful in this regard.
And finally, I think when you present an original in this forum, you should be willing to accept there might be differences of opinion.
Jim
Your statement I am afraid is far from the truth , we do not need to come to the States to have a top notch gun of the period made the answer to that is we have plenty of originals to chose from . Do not forget that the British gun maker no matter what the period are the best in the world
Feltwad
-
What I find interesting is the overall lack of interest and expertise in 18th and 17th century English guns in England today! Many of those who know these guns best are in the states. Also, from one perspective, you really don't know something as well as possible unless you've done the work yourself. With this in mind it's interesting that you have to come to this country to have a top-notch English gun of this period made.
As an aside, there is nothing wrong with debate. I try to make sure I have information available to back up statements I might make. If others have information to counter this, that's really all good. This is how understanding is progressed. To just shut down when a difference of opinion is presented, isn't too helpful in this regard.
And finally, I think when you present an original in this forum, you should be willing to accept there might be differences of opinion.
Jim
Your statement I am afraid is far from the truth , we do not need to come to the States to have a top notch gun of the period made the answer to that is we have plenty of originals to chose from . Do not forget that the British gun maker no matter what the period are the best in the world
Feltwad
Please show me one, top of the line 17th or 18th century styled, but modern day built English gun made in England. I can show you a good number of those built in the states, but have never seen one made in England that was worth a hoot. All of this is my opinion of course.
I would be happy to show you examples of those which have been made here. Mark Silver's work, Monte Mandarino's work, and others come to mind. Heck I've even made a few I'm fairly proud of...
Jim
-
Jim there is a big difference between a original and a repro to a collectors no matter how good a persons work is for me it has to be an original
Feltwad
-
Jim there is a big difference between a original and a repro to a collectors no matter how good a persons work is for me it has to be an original
Feltwad
You are missing my point... Whether you prefer originals is not pertinent. Please read my previous post. I was referring to the understanding and appreciation you can only get by making something of equal or very @!*% near equal to what was made in the past. Not to mention the study and research necessary to pull it off. And no, this doesn't mean careful study of pictures. It means dissecting original work as study pieces.
This is just one aspect of gaining an understanding and appreciation of past work, though. There are other ways of learning that compliment this, of course, but this is substantial.
So, to my original point... I question the appreciation and expertise, in general, of those from England today regarding 17th and 18th century guns. A few points regarding this:
Great originals sell for peanuts. Many of these end up in the states.
Anyone who has approached this subject from a scholarly perspective is long dead.
Descriptions from auction houses are weak at best.
No first class modern work recreating this period is being done.
Yes, there are probably some who have authority and expertise, but I've not been too impressed from what I've seen in the last 20 years or so.
But with all this said, debates should be based on individual bits of information and not generalities.
Jim
-
The best gunbuilders in the Uk are not building muzzleloaders. Simple as that.
-
The best gunbuilders in the Uk are not building muzzleloaders. Simple as that.
Correct but there is no need when you can purchase an original.
Feltwad
-
The best gunbuilders in the Uk are not building muzzleloaders. Simple as that.
Good answer.They are making modern hunting guns,rifles and shotguns.The American long rifle was a tool in the primitive new world
and some were made with elaborate carving both raised and incised and others were plain as a fence post and are literally lock.stock and barrel and every bit as effective as the fancy guns.My interest is/was in the locks on the English guns.Superb and very detailed and smooth.Hold the sear up with the trigger and cycle the lock and all you feel is that "oily"mainspring.The locks seen on so many American rifles in my opinion started at the bottom and went down.Utility grade,barely but they fired the gun.
Today the American long rifle as now made is made from much better parts based on better locks and barrels made with precision tools. .Another BIG plus is the working areas of a shop has much better lighting,heating and in some,air conditioners
or at least a good fan to keep the air moving.The long rifles were a segment of the firearms used and the Northeast produced American
target rifles and hunting rifles that produce fine accuracy and are highly regarded today by shooters and collectors.Get a copy of Major Ned Roberts book titled "The Muzzle Loading Cap Lock Rifle"read it.He disavowed any knowledge of the flintlock long rifle but gave us a good
picture of the caplock match and hunting guns of his time and he visited the shop of long rifle maker Hacker Martin and got a lot of info on primitive rifle making and Hacker was the epitome of that time and so was Wyatt Atkinson of Hildalgo,Kenticky who he visited with E.M.Farris,one of the founders of the NMLRA in 1933.Martin and Atkinson were two men living in different parts of the country but did try
to keep this wonderful relic alive so we,today can continue on with them.
Bob Roller
-
The best gunbuilders in the Uk are not building muzzleloaders. Simple as that.
Correct but there is no need when you can purchase an original.
Feltwad
Your best English flint and percussion guns are mostly ending up in the States when they come up for sale. Even I have owned several that were in well known English collections. They aren't hard to buy out of England, never have been. I have shot some of the most outstanding English guns that were ever built, one being a Griffin 11 bore SXS out of Keith Neal's collection. Marvelous gun, and quite handy on the skeet field.
-
"Mission Statement
The mission of AmericanLongrifles.org is to promote, preserve and support the traditional art and craft of building, collecting and using the American Longrifle. This would include accouterments and related arms of the period.
While the term American Longrifle may include a large and diverse group of firearms including those made for military and experimental reasons; the focus of the board is only those arms made primarily as sporting arms and utilizing a side lock ignition system.
Forum topics or discussions not in the spirit of the site's Mission Statement will be deleted or moved to an appropriate forum at the discretion of the moderators. We wish to keep forum discussions very close to the Mission Statement shown above.
American Longrifles is the more accurate term for the class of uniquely American firearms better known as Kentucky or Pennsylvania rifles. While the focus of this site is the American long rifle in all its incarnations, it is also a home for all those crafts persons preserving a bit of the past by building traditional muzzle loading sporting firearms and their accoutrements. The mission of AmericanLongrifles.com is to promote and support the art and craft of building historically accurate long rifles, related firearms, and accoutrements of the highest quality and artistic merit.
Whether you are an apprentice or a master at your craft, AmericanLongrifles.com has something to offer. The Books & Videos, Gun Building, and Web Links, pages of this site, offer the novice gun builder all the information and resources they need to get started building historically accurate long rifles. The Bulletin Board offers advice, encouragement, and camaraderie to the novice and experienced builder alike. It is our hope that each visitor gets as much from AmericanLongrifles.org as we have gotten by providing the site."
All "old guns" are worthy of studying. Maybe "related" includes even those ugly Afghan Jezail's. But in the larger sense it strikes me that the umbrella topic is American
-
Again, if this was a once in a while thing, or a separate "not ALR" section it would be fine. But reading the European posts, I see little to no discussion on how all these English rifles and shotguns relate to American Long Rifles. What I do see is posting to show interesting European rifles, to generate discussion, and promulgate their details and understanding....of European arms. It is a stretch to say these are related to American Long Rifles. America developed it's own distinctive long rifles that became very insular and unique to America. We didn't continue to "inject" stylistic details from Europe after we got the schools established.
Just this month:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52946608860_a5dd795f35_b.jpg)
-
Every attempt to narrow the focus here is met with strong opposition by those with varied interests, and some members will leave. If that’s the goal, or a reasonable cost (so long as it doesn’t affect you), don’t be shy to say so, that you’ve counted the cost and don’t care who goes away upset, and that you want MORE moderation. Or, folks could choose to ignore stuff they don’t find interesting. I’m not closing discussions on the topic, just offering a perspective that when it’s their interest, chances are very high that folks will find a justification for it belonging here, and when it’s not, for it to be removed. Human nature.
Recently (considering an old man’s lifetime) we were lobbied to include late, fine, American target rifles. There was brief interest, nobody felt run off, and it didn’t ruin anything.
Just the opinions of one moderator.
-
I'd be for expanding to other American arms of the period. Schuetzen rifles prior to cartridges and American military rifles' pre Civil War for example. Those show distinctively American alterations to designs that "came from somewhere else." The arms of Harpers Ferry seem to relate strongly to the rifles frontiersmen and trappers carried. Similarly, the arms of the trappers would be great.
I'm just confused when I excitedly see a new post in the Antique Gun Collecting section, click it, and it's a damascus barrel shotgun from Birmingham. But even a section on European guns would be ok, if I understood the rules. All I know is when I joined I used the word "schuetzen" in one post and was quickly admonished to cease and desist. Another time I mentioned a rifle by name answering a question on black powder shooting, a Mowry, and was told again it's "not to be discussed here."
This is a fairly active forum as forums go, and respectful and helpful. Far be it for me to try to change that. If people are happy with European rifles being presented, I'll stop worrying about it.
-
The guns of European countries, UK or Continental were the predecessors and inspiration to our early makers and as such should be allowed in these discussions. This JMHO. I also think the best British makers were the best but I still enjoy the study of the great Bavarian smiths too.
-
Dang this is fun thread to read.
Just my personal opinion, but claiming English gunsmiths are the best no matter what the time period is a bit off.
The American Long Rifle changed the course of the revolutionary war. And I’m pretty sure no English smith made the rifle that killed Simon Fraser at Saratoga.
Yes, I know it’s a thousand foot overview of the war and the weapon, but just my opinion!
Thanks all
-
Rich If I see a thread topic in which I have no interest, I don't click on it. It's not a hard concept. Unfortunately I'm interested in most everything and like to learn so I end up spending more time reading through more than I intend! :)
Just one non-mod opinion.
-
I have an interesting collection of French, Belgian and English guns built for the Indian trade as early as 1720. I have always meant to share them here but have never found time to photograph them. Now I doubt I will, I'm already offensive enough!
Many of you will find this incredible, but I only read maybe 5% of what is posted on this forum. Most of it bores me stiff, but you don't see me complaining about it. SCROLL ON BOYS AND GIRLS, you do have to read things you find uninteresting.
-
Rich If I see a thread topic in which I have no interest, I don't click on it. It's not a hard concept. Unfortunately I'm interested in most everything and like to learn so I end up spending more time reading through more than I intend! :)
Just one non-mod opinion.
Eric nailed this and I am in the same frame of mind.Walter Cline wrote of the muzzle loader that was loaded with a patched ball and
Major Roberts wrote of more sophisticated rifles from the Northeast that were cap locks only.I have made locks for both and my two
favorite muzzle loaders were for years a long rifle Southern style walnut with iron trim from a wrecked antique,Bill Large barrel and my
lock and triggers,The other was a fine Whitworth semi military match rifle that had fine wood,a lock by Brazier and Whitworth patent sights
and used a long 45 caliber bullet that weighed 485 grains.The American long rifles brought grief and misery to the British Army and later.
Joseph Whitworth made it a bad idea to be out in the open even at 1000 yards.I do have a definite preference for the fine craftsmanship of the English makers but also for the makers of the American long rifles that had few if any fine tools or a good shop to work in.More than once I regretted the sale of these two rifles but emergency appendectomy in the middle of the night had to be paid for and I sold them.
Bob Roller
PS:Anyone that stops learning is dead from the neck up ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have an interesting collection of French, Belgian and English guns built for the Indian trade as early as 1720. I have always meant to share them here but have never found time to photograph them. Now I doubt I will, I'm already offensive enough!
I hope you will Mike. Plenty of interest.
-
"Correct but there is no need when you can purchase an original."
Feltwad
Correct...but this is something that is completely lost on most American enthusiasts. I too have no interest in reproductions. It's a "too each his own" issue for me. If a repro suits your purpose by all means go for it but for me, if it isn't original I'm not interested no matter how nice it is. But, that attitude is so rare that years ago when I was shooting with a Henry Pratt rifle (c.1816) I had someone ask who made it..."Henry Pratt"..."never heard of him"..."Roxbury, Mass"..."I get all the catalogs and I've still never heard of him."
It was usually the case...maybe always, that I had the only original rifle at a match.
Another point is that the cheap fowlers that we see here all the time simply don't exist in Britain. They were made for export. There was no domestic market for them because poor people simply didn't hunt. They couldn't because there was no public land and hunting rights were jealously guarded by the landholders.
And...Original guns usually cost far less than the best repros.
Further to the above...and Feltwad can correct me if I am wrong but with muzzle loaders, original antiques are not subject to licensing. All reproductions are so the legal hoops you would have to jump through to own and shoot a repro are somewhat more stringent. You would need a shotgun license for a repro fowler and I'm not sure if you'd need a (much harder to get) "firearms" license for a rifle or reproduction black powder revolver. Also, you need an explosives license to buy black powder so while collecting original guns is relatively easy, shooting is something else altogether. The lowest quality British fowlers and rifles are probably better than 90% of the export grade guns we see here so there is simply no shortage of original guns in shooting condition and thus little or no market for reproductions.
-
I have an interesting collection of French, Belgian and English guns built for the Indian trade as early as 1720. I have always meant to share them here but have never found time to photograph them. Now I doubt I will, I'm already offensive enough!
I don't know Mike, I read you as being candid...
-
I have an interesting collection of French, Belgian and English guns built for the Indian trade as early as 1720. I have always meant to share them here but have never found time to photograph them. Now I doubt I will, I'm already offensive enough!
Mike,
I think that the vast majority of the ALR would greatly benefit from seeing some of your collection. Those that are not interested can tune out as is their option.
Kent
-
I actually look for Mike Brooks comments....whether ya like it or not. Mike knows what he talks about. I like the fact he is very direct with his answers.
I also think if he wrote a book on English fowlers we could all learn a thing or two.... I like the people who are opinionated with knowledge than the one's who are but lack the knowledge.... JMHO
-
Hawken, American iconic rifle, put one next to an English sporting rifle and the inspiration is obvious. Brooks is the best at skimming the scum off the pond and seeing the bottom, I enjoy his comments.
-
I like to read about any well made gun, and see pics of them . these days when a guy is in his 70's or older he needs to have something to entertain himself. Those that feel a need to complain about these trivial things need to GET A LIFE.....
-
I have some English guns I thought of showing here, but as some do not like these arms on this forum, I will not do so.
As we know, many original longrifles are pretty awful work, but reflect the time and need! It is sometimes nice to compare, but this is just my thought.
Jim K,
I only do poor to middling work, but Am English. Yes, living in Canada but not Canadian, and I "do" the odd English gun. Does this count as English made? :-)
-
Jim K,
I only do poor to middling work, but Am English. Yes, living in Canada but not Canadian, and I "do" the odd English gun. Does this count as English made? :-)
Only if you accidently cut yourself during the build and some of the blood gets on the wood. :)
Kent
-
Boy I would sure hate to see discussion of those English guns and other more continental guns censured here. Just recently I have seen no complaints about Smart Dog's thread about his English Fouler project with Maria. This just one example.
-
"I have some English guns I thought of showing here, but as some do not like these arms on this forum, I will not do so."
Why should the majority of us be punished because you perceive a few nay sayers?
Post them!
Robby
-
I have some English guns I thought of showing here, but as some do not like these arms on this forum, I will not do so.
As we know, many original longrifles are pretty awful work, but reflect the time and need! It is sometimes nice to compare, but this is just my thought.
Jim K,
I only do poor to middling work, but Am English. Yes, living in Canada but not Canadian, and I "do" the odd English gun. Does this count as English made? :-)
It does as far as I'm concerned. I like English guns a lot more than American ones, largely because the good ones are nearly always of higher quality. And let us not forget that the overwhelming majority of American rifles have English locks...because it was the mid 19th century before American advances in machine tools made it possible to produce them on a commercial scale.
At least according to my friend DeWitt Bailey, the British actually had more rifles in the Revolution than the Americans did but it made little difference because despite our national hubris the rifle was always a weapon of peripheral value. The war was fought by soldiers armed with muskets and, on the American side, French muskets. This doesn't even take into consideration the contribution made by the French expeditionary force and the fact that most of the American artillery was supplied by the French. It is quite understandable that American collectors have a myopic view of these things but that isn't history...it's pop legend.
Incidentally, I have it from an author I am working with, who has gone into great depth with primary sources, that the number of muskets imported from France vastly exceeds the popular published figures. I can't say more than that at the moment but when this research is published it will completely revamp the old, often repeated numbers.
As to the "iconic" Hawken rifle being based on English sporting rifles...that may be the case but it is one of the little appreciated characteristics of technological development that a good idea often appears in several places without one being influenced by the other. Perhaps the Hawken brothers saw an English rifle or two, there were plenty of well-to-do Englishmen who made their way to the American frontier to hunt but it's just as realistic to think that a shorter, heavier and more robust rifle with a large bore and flat trajectory occurred to them entirely independent of foreign influence.
Also, do we really want to discourage new people from posting? Sure, they may think their Belgian SxS double is a rifle but how else are we going to bring in new blood?
-
I have some English guns I thought of showing here, but as some do not like these arms on this forum, I will not do so.
As we know, many original longrifles are pretty awful work, but reflect the time and need! It is sometimes nice to compare, but this is just my thought.
Jim K,
I only do poor to middling work, but Am English. Yes, living in Canada but not Canadian, and I "do" the odd English gun. Does this count as English made? :-)
Well said it is pleasing that someone knows what he is talking about
FeltwadI have some English guns I thought of showing here, but as some do not like these arms on this forum, I will not do so.
As we know, many original longrifles are pretty awful work, but reflect the time and need! It is sometimes nice to compare, but this is just my thought.
Jim K,
I only do poor to middling work, but Am English. Yes, living in Canada but not Canadian, and I "do" the odd English gun. Does this count as English made? :-)
It does as far as I'm concerned. I like English guns a lot more than American ones, largely because the good ones are nearly always of higher quality. And let us not forget that the overwhelming majority of American rifles have English locks...because it was the mid 19th century before American advances in machine tools made it possible to produce them on a commercial scale.
At least according to my friend DeWitt Bailey, the British actually had more rifles in the Revolution than the Americans did but it made little difference because despite our national hubris the rifle was always a weapon of peripheral value. The war was fought by soldiers armed with muskets and, on the American side, French muskets. This doesn't even take into consideration the contribution made by the French expeditionary force and the fact that most of the American artillery was supplied by the French. It is quite understandable that American collectors have a myopic view of these things but that isn't history...it's pop legend.
Incidentally, I have it from an author I am working with, who has gone into great depth with primary sources, that the number of muskets imported from France vastly exceeds the popular published figures. I can't say more than that at the moment but when this research is published it will completely revamp the old, often repeated numbers.
As to the "iconic" Hawken rifle being based on English sporting rifles...that may be the case but it is one of the little appreciated characteristics of technological development that a good idea often appears in several places without one being influenced by the other. Perhaps the Hawken brothers saw an English rifle or two, there were plenty of well-to-do Englishmen who made their way to the American frontier to hunt but it's just as realistic to think that a shorter, heavier and more robust rifle with a large bore and flat trajectory occurred to them entirely independent of foreign influence.
Also, do we really want to discourage new people from posting? Sure, they may think their Belgian SxS double is a rifle but how else are we going to bring in new blood?
It does as far as I'm concerned. I like English guns a lot more than American ones, largely because the good ones are nearly always of higher quality. And let us not forget that the overwhelming majority of American rifles have English locks...because it was the mid 19th century before American advances in machine tools made it possible to produce them on a commercial scale.
At least according to my friend DeWitt Bailey, the British actually had more rifles in the Revolution than the Americans did but it made little difference because despite our national hubris the rifle was always a weapon of peripheral value. The war was fought by soldiers armed with muskets and, on the American side, French muskets. This doesn't even take into consideration the contribution made by the French expeditionary force and the fact that most of the American artillery was supplied by the French. It is quite understandable that American collectors have a myopic view of these things but that isn't history...it's pop legend.
Incidentally, I have it from an author I am working with, who has gone into great depth with primary sources, that the number of muskets imported from France vastly exceeds the popular published figures. I can't say more than that at the moment but when this research is published it will completely revamp the old, often repeated numbers.
As to the "iconic" Hawken rifle being based on English sporting rifles...that may be the case but it is one of the little appreciated characteristics of technological development that a good idea often appears in several places without one being influenced by the other. Perhaps the Hawken brothers saw an English rifle or two, there were plenty of well-to-do Englishmen who made their way to the American frontier to hunt but it's just as realistic to think that a shorter, heavier and more robust rifle with a large bore and flat trajectory occurred to them entirely independent of foreign influence.
Also, do we really want to discourage new people from posting? Sure, they may think their Belgian SxS double is a rifle but how else are we going to bring in new blood?
-
DeWitt Bailey! Is he still alive? In the early 1960's i had correspondence with him on American breech loaders in the Civil War.
I also favor the the fine workmanship in English guns and the locks by Brazier and Stanton inspired me to do better when "better"
wasn't wanted and in 1987 I made my first "4 pin" Stanton style lock and R.E.Davis bought it for $250,an unheard of price then
and to some it still is even now. I see little English inspiration in the Hawken rifles of the half stocked types.The locks were mostly
at best,a utility grade.I completed 1 and 1/4 *of these and sold the completed one to a local man.The other one still has the bridle
in the drill press vise.I hope that these fine English guns and the fine locks can be seen here.The half stocked English flint lock rifles
represent the zenith in spark fired externally generated ignition systems and if Jim Kibler would offer one as a kit with the late Ketland
lock it would be a welcome addition to the kit gun market.
Bob Roller
* The finished lock had a VERY basic mechanism with only full cock,military style bridle with one screw and a pin at the top and
springs were left with the blue temper colors and the pattern was as seen on the Peteresen J&S Hawken in Woodfill's book.
The other unfinished one was based on a cast plate with the J&S name and "engraving" cast into it.
-
Bob,
DeWitt is still going, but in rather poor health.
His very good friend Bill Curtis passed away maybe a year ago now?
Time flies.
Bill was a terrible loss to us.
-
Bob,
DeWitt is still going, but in rather poor health.
His very good friend Bill Curtis passed away maybe a year ago now?
Time flies.
Bill was a terrible loss to us.
Did Bill Curtis have a forum? I think I had contact with him but about what and when? Maybe something about the lock filers of???
Time used to stagger by on 3 broken legs but NOW it uses a Ferrari.
Bob Roller
-
Regarding JV Puleo's previous post. I seriously doubt that the British had more rifles in the WAI than the Americans did, unless you count the mercenary Jaeger Corps and discount American Militia he may be right.
As far as American rifles having mostly English locks, that depends on the time period. Most Pennsylvania rifles before and during the WAI had Germanic and German made locks. The rifle at the time was a Germanic tradition, not an English one.
Thomas Jefferson said that the "Battle of Kings Mountain turned the tide of Success". The Revolutionaries fought mostly with rifles, and the Loyalists fought mostly with muskets. Major Patrick Ferguson, England's most ardent proponent of rifles was killed there. He probably did not have a rifle with him.
England did not have any more advanced machining capabilities before the nineteenth century than the Americans had. What the English had was cheap and capable labor in great quantity.
Anglophile collectors may be just as myopic as American ones.
-
After reading up on the efforts the British made to get rifles to their light infantry troops in DeWitt Bailey's book on British Military Flintlock Rifles, I believe that the English attitude towards rifles as a military weapon was fundamentally altered in the latter half of the 18th century. The really took them seriously after the F&IW, and more so after the AWI. I think, though, that they probably didn't actually have more rifles in every battle than the Americans did. They probably did have more rifles on official establishment (10 per British light infantry company, possibly more in the German units) than the Continental line or light infantry units did. I don't know if US units had any at all officially or even unofficially by the end of the war. I understand that by then, the rifle equipped troops were almost always militia or short term state units.
As for the effectiveness of rifles in linear tactical battles, I don't think anyone who has even tangentially studied the AWI can argue that American rifleman alone won the war. However, I don't think it's good to go the other direction and say they were inconsequential either. A look at King's Mountain and Cowpens will point out that when rifle equipped, bayonet lacking, militia were used in situations that played to their strength, i.e. in the skirmishing role, they were devastatingly effective. I believe that this is a lesson the British learned, and 20 or so years later, when the young officers who had lived through those fights came into positions of influence, British rifle armed light infantry units were put on the permanent establishment.
Mike
-
Well, that wasn't my figure...it was DeWitt's. I assumed it included the Germans but that seems a moot point. They were serving on the British side and were just as much part of the British forces as the Rochambeau's expeditionary force was part of the American army.
We tend to refer to those Germans as mercenaries but they weren't quite that in the modern sense. Loaning out or renting military units from another country was a widely accepted practice in the 18th century. The men on the ground were simply in the service of whatever principality they belonged to and were going where they were ordered. Oddly enough, Germans were the second choice. Before they were hired the British ambassador to St. Petersburg, Charles Hanbury-Williams, tried to hire 25,000 Russians. The Empress, Cathrine II, turned him down.
As far as locks are concerned, yes, it's likely most of the Revolutionary rifles used continental locks. We say "Germanic" but that's just a catch-all phrase that really doesn't say much. They had to have come from one of the gunmaking centers, of which there were few. Perhaps Shul but more likely the Austrian Netherlands – what we now call Belgium but, again, this really needs to be studied in much more detail than just make assumptions from looking at the tiny number of certifiable surviving examples. There is a fairly recent doctoral dissertation on arms export from the Austrian Netherlands that I have but have not read yet. I'm hoping it will shed some light on the subject
I do think most will agree that the vast majority of surviving long rifles are post-revolutionary and most of those have English locks.
As far as manufacturing capacity, Britain certainly had more machines before 1830 but the real genius of their system was a combination of high skills and a very advanced notion of the division of labor...spelled out in great detail by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations", published in 1776. The biggest advances in machine tool design eventually came from America simply because, not having the huge number of skilled workmen, the only way forward was to design machines that would do the job. This was a major advance but it doesn't speak to the fact that, in the late 18th and early 19th century Americans simply couldn't compete in the manufacture of metal parts. The American way of doing things did eventually supplant the old way. In fact, to this day the mass production of parts is referred to in Europe as the "American System."
-
That's interesting about the lock source before the war. I was just at Yorktown and learned just how tight the importation controls that the English Parliament had imposed on the colonies were. They required all good to go through British ports and to be shipped on British owned ships. They also restricted local manufacture of nearly everything. I wonder if any importation records survive that might show the movement of imported locks?
Mike
-
Here's an example from March 1776 of a purchase of 1001 gun locks from Holland & Germany (the top image is a detail--from the bottom right of the bottom image):
(https://i.ibb.co/GchxKsb/detail.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WgTxbDY)
(https://i.ibb.co/sVm33J7/JOhn-Ross-Arms-Purchase-Roll05975-Comptroller-General-USAccount-Ledgers-Image00522-copy.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Tgvhhqy)
-
Here's an example from March 1776 of a purchase of 1001 gun locks from Holland & Germany (the top image is a detail--from the bottom right of the bottom image):
(https://i.ibb.co/GchxKsb/detail.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WgTxbDY)
(https://i.ibb.co/sVm33J7/JOhn-Ross-Arms-Purchase-Roll05975-Comptroller-General-USAccount-Ledgers-Image00522-copy.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Tgvhhqy)
That is an interesting document. Thanks for sharing it. Are these locks that were bought to support the arming of US or Pennsylvania troops for the war?
It would be interesting to find similar records from the pre-war period that would be purchaces ostensibly for commercial sales.
Mike
-
Are these locks that were bought to support the arming of US or Pennsylvania troops for the war?
Hard to say. Pennsylvania is asking for reimbursement from the United States. It could be that PA paid the merchant (Ross) for locks & muskets that were used by continental forces. Or it could be that these locks and muskets were used by PA troops but, because Congress had agreed to cover the charges, PA is still requesting reimbursement from the United States.
-
That makes perfectly good sense since after the war started the Americans were certainly not going to honor the Navagation Acts and obviously British sources had been cut off. Actually, the Privy Council embargoed the shipment of military stores to America in 1774 so those had been cut off before the war.
As far as the pre-war period is concerned, there is a good chance that records do exist regarding the trans-shipment of goods to America through British ports. The problem is that you would have to go to Britain to find them and I suspect it would not be easy and it may be that the goods themselves were not described in detail.
It certainly was not the case that American merchants could purchase whatever they wanted in continental Europe and just ship it...the entire system was called mercantilism and it was a theory that every European country subscribed to. The French and Dutch were just as protective of their colonial trade. America was slightly different because we had no colonies and few, if any manufactured goods to export...only raw materials. The biggest single export from pre-war days to the early 19th century was hardwoods. American walnut, for instance, was being exported to Britain in the 1690's. When we did institute a national maritime law it was not much different. Incoming duty was much higher when arriving on non-US flag vessels and even higher if the importer was not a US citizen.
-
JV, or Scott, do either of you have a good idea of the “time gap” in say a Pennsylvania gunsmith getting an english lock to put on a gun, with respect to the post war embargo on british goods?
In other words, if an old american gun has an original british lock, it would need to predate the year “x” or post date the year “y”.
For example - in 1780 or 1781, were british locks still imported for american use, possibly unofficially?
-
Here's some food for thought. In November 1775 the Lancaster gunsmiths were forced to agree to give up rifle production and to produce muskets instead. But, when the local committee visited the gunsmiths, unannounced, it found many of them still working on rifles. (Busted!) The committee found Jacob Dickert and all his workers, except one, at work on rifles, though he had four muskets "nearly finish'd."
The unexpected visitors found that Dickert was "putting old Crown Locks on them, and Says the Locks are as good as those that are made here."
So probably there were plenty of British locks around, which were put on new guns--or used to repair American-made guns--throughout the war (as well as before and after).
-
The embargo was place on military stores in 1774. Presumably there were locks available for some time thereafter as they were usually sold by the dozen. Early in the Revolution we begin to see plaintive advertisements placed in just about every newspaper begging for anyone who might have the skills to make a gun lock to come forward so it seems reasonable to think that by 1776 these were pretty much used up.
The embargo was partially lifted near the end of 1792 and the importation of locks restarted early in 1793. From that I'd say that American-assembled guns with English locks either pre-date 1776 or post-date 1793. This, of course, does not include the re-use of locks from damaged or otherwise obsolete guns which must have been common. All this should be taken in a statistical sense. Obviously we can't account for every single gun lock but rather as a general guideline. I would be skeptical of any gun with an export grade, flat-faced English lock as being from the period of the Revolution unless there is other confirming provenance. If the lock is marked "Ketland & Co." it cannot pre-date 1794. I know this because I have the records of their shipments.
There are several rifles known that were sent back to England as war trophies and thus have an un-impeachable provenance. I'd start by looking at those locks for clues as to where they came from.
I should add that I feel most pre-Revolutionary English locks had rounded faces. Yes, flat-face locks existed but the export trade was very conservative. They were making large numbers at low prices and this is not conducive to keeping up with the latest trends. We know very little about this trade but some good information is found in the diary of R.R. Angerstein, a Swedish industrial spy who traveled widely in England in the 1750s and had a particular interest in gunmaking.
-
Correct but there is no need when you can purchase an original.
Feltwad
Last visit to UK we toured Sandringham. The Royal gun collection shocked me to the point that my tarrying forced the tour director to say "please sir , mind the others, we must proceed". Like Feltwad said, all originals, impeccably maintained - some hundreds of years old yet appearing brand new, gifts from rajas and kings, etc. On the subject on the prevalence of muzzleloaders, the tour director tersely stated "the Queens attendants load".
-
Here's an example from March 1776 of a purchase of 1001 gun locks from Holland & Germany (the top image is a detail--from the bottom right of the bottom image):
(https://i.ibb.co/GchxKsb/detail.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WgTxbDY)
(https://i.ibb.co/sVm33J7/JOhn-Ross-Arms-Purchase-Roll05975-Comptroller-General-USAccount-Ledgers-Image00522-copy.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Tgvhhqy)
fantastic stuff thanks for sharing!
-
The embargo was place on military stores in 1774. Presumably there were locks available for some time thereafter as they were usually sold by the dozen. Early in the Revolution we begin to see plaintive advertisements placed in just about every newspaper begging for anyone who might have the skills to make a gun lock to come forward so it seems reasonable to think that by 1776 these were pretty much used up.
I should add that I feel most pre-Revolutionary English locks had rounded faces. Yes, flat-face locks existed but the export trade was very conservative. They were making large numbers at low prices and this is not conducive to keeping up with the latest trends. We know very little about this trade but some good information is found in the diary of R.R. Angerstein, a Swedish industrial spy who traveled widely in England in the 1750s and had a particular interest in gunmaking.
Good points! In the Indian trade gun realm this is especially true, some of the features really fossilize from the 17th century (continuance of 3 side nails, ventral screw to breech tang, nailed on buttplates, & etc.). There is an odd Bumford trade gun in a WV museum with a 3 screw flat lock, particularly interesting as Bumford died in 1775.
ETA the lock looks like a bad recon (brass pan) and I'm not 100% sure it is original as I haven't had the gun in hand, only viewed in the case, but interesting if original to the piece.
-
Correct but there is no need when you can purchase an original.
Feltwad
Last visit to UK we toured Sandringham. The Royal gun collection shocked me to the point that my tarrying forced the tour director to say "please sir , mind the others, we must proceed". Like Feltwad said, all originals, impeccably maintained - some hundreds of years old yet appearing brand new, gifts from rajas and kings, etc. On the subject on the prevalence of muzzleloaders, the tour director tersely stated "the Queens attendants load".
Most likely the tour operated would not have a clue on guns some would have been gifts if you look at the trade labels inside gun cases by top London and Birmingham gunmakers [By appointment to his or her majesty } these are guns that have been supplied to the crown by the maker either by order or by gifts by some person of wealth to the monarch
Feltwad
(https://i.ibb.co/XstFhxg/P1010032.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mq4hL5w)
google heads or tails (https://freeonlinedice.com/)
-
Here's some food for thought. In November 1775 the Lancaster gunsmiths were forced to agree to give up rifle production and to produce muskets instead. But, when the local committee visited the gunsmiths, unannounced, it found many of them still working on rifles. (Busted!) The committee found Jacob Dickert and all his workers, except one, at work on rifles, though he had four muskets "nearly finish'd."
The unexpected visitors found that Dickert was "putting old Crown Locks on them, and Says the Locks are as good as those that are made here."
So probably there were plenty of British locks around, which were put on new guns--or used to repair American-made guns--throughout the war (as well as before and after).
[/quote
FORCED to give up rifle production?! I suppose that was a real contribution to the survival of the Kings Red Coats?
Bob Roller
-
Here's some food for thought. In November 1775 the Lancaster gunsmiths were forced to agree to give up rifle production and to produce muskets instead. But, when the local committee visited the gunsmiths, unannounced, it found many of them still working on rifles. (Busted!) The committee found Jacob Dickert and all his workers, except one, at work on rifles, though he had four muskets "nearly finish'd."
The unexpected visitors found that Dickert was "putting old Crown Locks on them, and Says the Locks are as good as those that are made here."
So probably there were plenty of British locks around, which were put on new guns--or used to repair American-made guns--throughout the war (as well as before and after).
FORCED to give up rifle production?! I suppose that was a real contribution to the survival of the Kings Red Coats?
Bob Roller
Yep, forced to give up rifle production--forced to make muskets instead.
At first the Lancaster gunsmiths refused, at which point the local revolutionary committee declared that "the Tools of the said Gun Smiths so refusing be taken from them" and that "such Gun-Smiths in the County have their Names inserted in the Minutes of this Committee as Enemies to this Country and published as such." No surprise, they complied. Except when members of the committee visited them a month later, most were still working on rifles.
(https://i.ibb.co/y4cPMXn/View-Scan-0007.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bbMmyPg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Fmz9q4z/View-Scan-0008.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fqHbGdH)
-
That's pretty draconian. I would read it as politicians, with no concept of what was involved, ordering people who actually knew their trade to make something that may not even have been possible. I seriously doubt the Lancaster gunmakers made their own barrels or locks and, if they did, they were quite different from musket barrels and locks. They would have needed a supply of musket barrels and locks both of which may not have been available. Certainly the locks may not have been. If you look at the Philadelphia newspapers of the time ads frequently begged anyone, especially clock makers and locksmiths, who might possibly be able to make a gun lock to come forward. All of it smacks of people in power demanding something that may have been realistically impossible.
I suspect those same gunmakers would have been perfectly happy to make muskets...if they could get the parts they needed and if they got paid for their work...both of which were highly questionable. Depriving them of their tools is idiotic. Who was going to use them? You could strip my machine shop of the tools and you'd still have a hard time finding anyone else who could run them and that was much more the case in the 18th century when very few American had mechanical skills.
-
That is a pretty great original document. Interesting to notice that Peter Gonter apparently was working along side John Miller. Anyone ever see an early Lancaster gun by Miller?
-
I see my distant cousin John Graeff is listed as being one who was at "rifle work".
It is deeply satisfying for me that he seems to be as "difficult and cooperative", as one of my bosses characterized me on occasion. ;D
-
I suspect those same gunmakers would have been perfectly happy to make muskets...if they could get the parts they needed and if they got paid for their work...both of which were highly questionable.
Maybe not perfectly happy.
Their reluctance stemmed from finances: the Lancaster gunsmiths claimed initially that they could not make the muskets at the prices mandated by Philadelphia authorities. They stated that they "could not make them for the Price of £4.5.0 nor would be governed by the Philadelphia price. Nor would make them for less than Five pounds." Is is after this refusal that the Lancaster committee threatened the gunsmiths and each agreed that he would work only on muskets from November 1775 to March 1776, furnishing "as great a quantity of Muskets & Bayonets as he possibly can in that time at the Philadelphia prices agreeable to the Pattern." (But, as I mentioned, they didn't in fact give up making rifles.)
The gunsmiths would be "glad of an[y] excuse to lay by the Musket-Work & make Rifles," the Lancaster committee noted several months later, "which are more profitable for them."
Obtaining barrels does not seem to have been a major problem. There were barrel mills in Lancaster County, including one in operation by 1776 owned by Dickert and John Henry. Obtaining locks, as we've discussed here a few times in recent months, was where the supply chain failed the gunsmiths. It is interesting that, early on, the gunsmiths do not mention this as a reason why they should not be compelled to make muskets. Perhaps the scarcity of locks hadn't yet become evident.
Depriving them of their tools is idiotic. Who was going to use them?
The point was to deprive the gunsmiths of a way to make a living, if they did not comply. So more draconian than idiotic.
-
Interestingly to me is the paragraph about Dickert which mentions Dickert having "all his hands except one at rifle work". This may indicate that Dickert had a "rifle factory" pre Rev War or very early in the war. Please notice that I qualified my statement with "may".