Gentlemen, This years Kentucky Rifle Foundation's display at the Lexington CLA show will feature "THE COMMON MAN's GUN: Smooth rifle, Buck & Ball Guns, Fowler's and Just Plain Gun."
The Smooth Rifle's significant characteristic is that it has a full octagon smooth bore barrel. The Buck & Ball Gun has an octagon to round thick walled barrel. The Fowler may have an octagon to round barrel or a full round barrel. The Fowler generally has no grip rail or cheek rest and a rounded toe. Whereas the smooth rifle and buck & ball gun have a grip rail, cheek rest and squared toe. All the above may have rifle type sights. The grouping of examples all were made by 'Kentucky Rifle' gunsmiths and does not include the New England or foreign made guns.
I for one do not recall ever seeing a rifled octagon to round barrel. Not to say there weren't several made. The practical nature and versatility of the smooth bore, however, made guns with this feature quite popular with the common man. Pretty much a three in one weapon especially if accuracy beyond 60 yards was not a requirement.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of guns made during the so called Golden Age were originally smooth bore by design.
It is true there are numerous accounts of full octagon barrels being 'freshed' out by the local gunsmith. However, I have yet to figure out how to tell if the gun was originally rifled. There may be some on this site who may have mastered the ability to tell and it would be a unique offerring should they come forth with the answer to the mystery. Regards, HIB
The smooth bore as the common man's gun
everywhere is supposition.
There is a lot of mentions of rifles in America from the 1740s on and there is significant documentation from the time to support this. In fact 10% of a militia force in 1680s NY were rifle armed.
But.
Just like today most people had no use for a gun of any kind other than militia duty. So this skews the entire argument as far as numbers go if everyone in the militia has a gun and the vast majority have a smooth bore of some kind there are going to be far more SBs than rifles. But what the people that actively USED firearms had would almost certainly be different. But then someone with poor eyesight or no shooting skills would have little use for the rifle no matter where he was. The rifle, documented, is less costly to shoot in the 1750s than the typical smoothbore fowler or trade gun.
On the frontier with significant numbers of natives with rifles, documented, the rifle was more popular with settlers. In the way the natives made war the rifle would be hard to deal with if armed with "nothing better than a common fowling piece" (a quote from a man who was carrying one in 1790) or musket. A rifle will easily hit a man at 150 yards. A distance where the smoothbore of the time was virtually useless.
That the natives with a rifle would take a rest from behind and tree and "seldom misseth their mark" in the 1750s is documented. The same quote includes the 150 yard distance.
That the natives would buy rifles from settlers at "monstrous price" is documented. That some of these settlers were so poor that the rifle was the biggest part of their estate is documented.
This is all contained in DeWitt Bailey's "British Military Flintlock Rifles". From the bibliography included in the book the information is not very hard to find.
Sure there were smooth rifles. There is one in the Cody, WY Museum by JP Beck. There is documentation of rifle stocked smooth bores with "very small bores" in the 1750s. Its obvious that the smaller bored smooth guns were likely always smooth.
But what some farmer in 1750 or 1820 SE PA had was not necessarily what some one on the frontier may have had in same era
Remember the rifle companies of 1776-77 generally came from the frontier. Where did all these guys come from if the common man had a smoothbore? The Frontiersman was about as common as people got. Remember the Battle of Point Pleasant was apparently fought with rifles, at least thats what Gusler has stated. I have not the slightest idea if its true of not.
Then we have people getting off boats on the Ohio in the late 18th century and being met with derision because they were carrying a fowling piece. I can't cite this but have read it.
Then we have Sir William Johnson writing of a trip to Philadelphia that the people in PA did not shoot with shot. If this is the case there is little advantage in having a smoothbore. Unless its for looks or for militia duty.
And finally is the smoothbore is so versatile where did all those rifles come from? Seems to me that NOBODY would have had one if the unchoked smoothbore was so useful. The answer is that it was not nearly as useful, especially with small shot, as many today would like to think.
It takes FAR more powder and lead to kill small game with a smoothbore than a rifle. Is just a fact.
Dan
