Details: "Parts rifles" and War-era necessity.

[Eric Kettenburg]

 

[P.Bigham]

I like it very convincing. But not overly done.  But I have admired your work for a while. Had one of your barn guns years ago. Wish I would of kept it. Thanks for posting. 

[BOB HILL]

I like. Warm.
Bob

[rich pierce]

Great job on the lock. Cool frizzen.

[Mike Lyons]

Neat!!  Is the architecture based on a very early Allentown rifle?

[wattlebuster]

I like it LOTS. Would love to see more pics when ya have time

[elk killer]

That lock is a great piece....!! Nice all around

[Eric Kettenburg]

Thank you gentlemen!  I'm working on the background info now.  I believe this is a rifle that went through the Allentown armories during the War and was marked for state ownership before being sent upriver for the use of the Northumberland militia in 1778.   

The lock is an earlier German lock (4-point internal bridle!) with external replacement parts - whatever was needed to keep it functional.  The side plate is probably the only 'new' casting on the piece; everything else shows some secondary usage, reworking or repair.

[Bob McBride]

Another super interesting old gent. Can’t wait to read the story. I agree, the lock is great as are the small details.

[Mike Brooks]

That's a great gun, I like it. Putting that much wear on a gun is as much wok as building the gun.

[Eric Kettenburg]

PA Executive Council, May 1778, order directed to the Allentown arsenal:

"From the situation of the Western frontiers, it appears to be necessary to suppy the County of Northumberland with Arms, and there being Thirty-One Riffles in the hands of John Butler, one of the Armourers, Ordered, That John Tyler, Armourer, do send a Waggon load of Arms in repair, to Col. Jacob Morgan, Lieutenant of the County of Berks, among which the Thirty-one Riffles are to be a part, & packed separate from the rest, & to be by Col. Morgan forwarded to Sam'l Hunter, Esq., Lieu. of the County of Norrthumberland, for the use of the Militia."
(Colonial Records XI, 490)

[tallbear]

Great stuff Eric...always enjoy seeing your work!!!

Mitch

[B.Barker]

Good looking rifle Eric. I always love seeing your parts rifles.

[Elnathan]

I really like this one. It makes an interesting comparison with your previous Allentown Arsenal piece from a decade or so back. I really like the wrist architecture and the way you seem to have resisted the urge to finesse it and a couple other areas as well into something a bit more in line with modern ideas of what is correct. That is just as important as the aging in making the backstory believable, I think.

[Marcruger]

Really neat rifle Eric.  My test on whether I like one or not is if I want to take it out and shoot it.  This one passes with flying colors. 

So many things to see.  Great build.   God Bless,   Marc

[Eric Kettenburg]

Thanks again everyone!  Is it obvious yet that I might be a bit obsessed with what was going on in Allentown during the War, and then maybe the decade after?  I still firmly believe that in some way this is where and how the liberty head originated.  I had to struggle not to do it but I don't think it would have been appropriate  yet. 

I think this one might be more believable as an "armory made" piece, as it's lacking embellishment.  The story on the first one involved confiscation, so the decoration may have been very believable.  However, if I try to envision what may have been going on the armories ca. 1777-1779 (and also considering the workers there were grumbling because they couldn't draw alcohol rations!), and considering that it was readily apparent that rifles were especially needed and treated separately, I have a hard time believing that a new stocking would include the added time needed for fru fru decoration.

[Mike Lyons]

Thanks again everyone!  Is it obvious yet that I might be a bit obsessed with what was going on in Allentown during the War, and then maybe the decade after?  I still firmly believe that in some way this is where and how the liberty head originated.  I had to struggle not to do it but I don't think it would have been appropriate  yet. 

I think this one might be more believable as an "armory made" piece, as it's lacking embellishment.  The story on the first one involved confiscation, so the decoration may have been very believable.  However, if I try to envision what may have been going on the armories ca. 1777-1779 (and also considering the workers there were grumbling because they couldn't draw alcohol rations!), and considering that it was readily apparent that rifles were especially needed and treated separately, I have a hard time believing that a new stocking would include the added time needed for fru fru decoration.

I think it's a perfect example and a beautiful rifle.  Did the U.S. proof mark or have rack numbers, cartouche's ect. added?  When you look at more recent examples of wartime rifles, you see acceptance marks and sometimes painted symbols/ numbers on the stock.  The armory had their own marks but sometimes marks were added at the unit level.  Have you ever come across anything similar? 

[Eric Kettenburg]

It's very difficult to determine any of that, especially so early in the War, because (1) most of the current understanding of state or what would eventually be Federal (US) ownership markings, and inspection markings or workman markings, are generally interpretational and were varied depending upon where the work was being undertaken, and (2) because currently knowledge seems entirely confined to muskets.  I don't know of any rifles of this era that have survived with state or US markings, although some are suspected.  For example the "PA" rifle in RCA2 - folks still debate what those PA brandings mean.  Initials of an owner?  PA state ownership?  No way to tell.

Plus, while there are pieces extant that very likely saw War service, if they were privately owned and one was a member of a rifle company, would they have been marked?  I really don't know.

In this case, I went interpretational because there are records in the PA Archives indicating that the Council was specifically mentioning rifles owned by the "State."  These pieces were in the hands of the armory and were being distributed where needed; would they have been marked like muskets were marked?  I don't know the answer to that but I would tend to suspect they carried some kind of marking to indicate state ownership.  Maybe one day a real one will turn up!  I couldn't wait so I just made one hahahahahahahaha.

[WESTbury]

Eric---Glad that you "couldn't wait". Your rifle is exceptional.

I've only owned one US surcharged longarm, a French M1766 with the later improvements. Now there is some thought out in the collector field that possibly none of these weapons were surcharged during the Rev War. I hope that is not the case but I seriously doubt that anyone will come up with a definitive answer.

[DBoone]

Totally awesome rifle, Eric!  I love it from the bottom of my feets to the top of my head!!

[homerifle]

I really like it!

[Eric Kettenburg]

Westbury I thought about the lock marking too!  But this lock already had a great casehardening job and I didn't want to have to re-case it.  Which kind of makes me wonder how they were stamping those musket locks, given the stamping always looks quite deep.  I assume they must have been heated, stamped, and either re-cased or maybe simply just quenched, assuming there was enough residual carbon remaining.  Or maybe they didn't care and just figured they were going to wear? 

I found a neat bit of research online by Charles Thayer, "US Government Made Muskets of the Revolution 1780-1783."  Has some interesting info in regard to barrel markings, buttplate markings, some inspector markings etc.

[WESTbury]

  I assume they must have been heated, stamped, and either re-cased or maybe simply just quenched, assuming there was enough residual carbon remaining.   

I found a neat bit of research online by Charles Thayer, "US Government Made Muskets of the Revolution 1780-1783."  Has some interesting info in regard to barrel markings, buttplate markings, some inspector markings etc.

Eric---The photos I posted were of the only surcharged musket I ever owned so my observations I made of it apply only to that particular musket's lockplate. In viewing the lock perpendicular to its outer surface, that surface looks flat. However, what I found when viewing the lockplate from the top, was that approx. 1/2" of the lockplates outer surface tapered as if that area had been filed or more probably ground in a manner to produce the taper. Now why do that? I concluded it was done to "break the case" in order to have a soft area to apply the stamp.

Sounds far fetched, but not really. I worked as a designer in the machine tool industry from 1973 to 2002 and occasionally we had to add a tapped hole or dowel pin hole to a part of a fixture for various reasons, certainly not because the designer made a mistake. This could be done only to a soft part or one that had been cased hardened which allowed for grinding through the case to obtain an area that was soft. This could not be done on a through hardened piece of steel.

If the people that stamped the "US" on these lockplates wanted to do so quickly and economically, breaking the case and stamping would work quite well. Because only a small area was affected, the lockplate did not have to be rehardened.

In the photo of the lockplate from my 1766 Charleville shown below, you can see the taper at the rear of the lockplate as discussed above.
 


Below is a photo of another Charleville 1766 lock. This lockplate was as close to being perfectly flat as they could achieve in the 18th century.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Westbury, thanks for posting!  See, just goes to show you - k.i.s.s.!  Grinding through the case and then stamping would indeed be the fastest and most effective way to mark the locks, without the need to do anything else to them (which of course would = more time).  I love it!  Those surcharged pieces are hard to find, certainly of that early date, and your photography is outstanding.

I've read about markings including the U.STATES you illustrate on the stock, as well as the full United States marking as I chose to do it, as well as the simpler US.  I'm not sure if there is any concensus as to how these were being marked prior to the Federal period, but I very much value your insight and again I'm very happy you chose to post.  Your postings on the Federal muskets/early 19th century muskets are extremely interesting and really grab my interest.

BTW I thought about branding this thing on the stock but to be blunt, didn't feel like taking the time to make up an entire appropriate brand for a one-of!  Just being lazy.