Sheet iron question

[Dphariss]

If the customers wanted iron mounted rifles they would have made them. Its not as if they didn't know how.
Apparently the demand in *America* was for brass mounted guns.
What was common in Germany or England is not relevant to the American colonist it would seem.
Dan

[rich pierce]

Gary, I am guessing that many civilian arms in Germany were made in shops that were well-established and perhaps employed several workers, or that the iron furniture was made by specialists who had dies, trip hammers, etc. and purchased by gunstockers.  It seems that for iron mounted military guns, dies etc were used to rough forge the mounts.  But if that was true then we still have the question as to why iron mounts were not purchased here by gunstockers, if they were available.  Cost and demand seem likely suspects.

In looking at a small sampling of civilian Germanic guns of the period at Hermann Historica, etc I see a lot of brass mounted guns as well as iron mounted.  Even some highly decorated guns with extensive engraving on the barrels, relief-chiseled lockplates, etc have brass furniture sometimes.  it may originally have been gilt or intended to be gilt, and of course, the relief-chiseled mounts are more easily cast of brass than forged and chased in iron.

But in the end- we don't know why iron mounts are so rare to non-existent on early rifles here.  we don't even know why or how early settlers in some regions wanted rifles, when other frontier folks did not.

[Acer Saccharum]

Can we look at this from and economic point of view?

Initially, the Colonies would be importing almost all manufactured goods. As industry drew itself up out of the primordial slime, we would be supplying our own goods.

From an exporter's perspective, brass castings would be far cheaper than forged iron mounts. They would do the same job, at a tenth of the price of iron mounts. In a budding American economy, perhaps saving a few bucks here and there would be a top priority.

What were furniture makers using for their hinges and pulls? Were they importing, or making their own hardware here?

[Joe S]

There are some early Club Butt Fowlers (1710-1730) with sheet iron butt plates and trigger guards.  These are crude guns that apparently used scrap iron.

[Long John]

Let's also keep in mind that while the overwhelming majority of the surviving 18th century rifles are brass mounted we are on shakey ground presuming that the surviving rifles are truly representative of the population of rifles made in the American colonies at the time.  The most useful artifacts are used the most and wear out the fastest.  The surviving rifles are the ones that weren't used that much for one reason or another.  It is quite possible that iron mounted rifles were  present in numbers larger than the surviving population suggests.

However, I suspect that the driving influence was cost and fashion.  We are talking about people who would not think of being seen outside in public without their waistcoat!  Prior to the revolution, Amereican colonists were generally obsessed with being as much like their English countrymen as possible.  If something became fashionable in England or France the Americans had to have it too.

It wasn't until the decade of 1810 that American fashion rebelled against all things English.

Best Regards,

JMC

[Dphariss]

Gary, I am guessing that many civilian arms in Germany were made in shops that were well-established and perhaps employed several workers, or that the iron furniture was made by specialists who had dies, trip hammers, etc. and purchased by gunstockers.  It seems that for iron mounted military guns, dies etc were used to rough forge the mounts.  But if that was true then we still have the question as to why iron mounts were not purchased here by gunstockers, if they were available.  Cost and demand seem likely suspects.

In looking at a small sampling of civilian Germanic guns of the period at Hermann Historica, etc I see a lot of brass mounted guns as well as iron mounted.  Even some highly decorated guns with extensive engraving on the barrels, relief-chiseled lockplates, etc have brass furniture sometimes.  it may originally have been gilt or intended to be gilt, and of course, the relief-chiseled mounts are more easily cast of brass than forged and chased in iron.

But in the end- we don't know why iron mounts are so rare to non-existent on early rifles here.  we don't even know why or how early settlers in some regions wanted rifles, when other frontier folks did not.

Has to be demand. Why make iron mounted rifles if people want brass? They made what buyers wanted.

The rifle vs smoothbore thing is personal preference.
But one has to remember that the people on the frontier were not "creating a persona". They lived (or died) by the decisions they made in many cases.
The rifle is more reliable for hunting and cheaper to shoot overall.
Yes, the smoothbore is faster to load. But its not fast enough for the distance it will reliably kill a man.
Bayonet? Useless. Makes the thing too long in the woods and takes too long to put on.
If you shoot at someone at 20-50-70 yards and he charges  you will be hand to hand in seconds. An *archer*, as fast as they can shoot, misses his man at 20 yards and he is likely going to be killed trying for a second shot.
So don't miss. This is the key, *only hits count*.
It is well documented that under careful, peaceful conditions in testing a "common musket" was mostly useless past 50 yards. In *combat* this will be further reduced. Inaccurate firearm, frightened shooter, no sights? 12 pound trigger pull? If the musket will shoot into 12" at 50 yards and the shooter can (hopefully) shoot 12" at 50 under stress its likely going to be a miss depending on how the errors "stack" or cancel each other.
"My smooth bore shoots better than this" says the 21st century shooter. How is it loaded? Like a rifle or like a musket? Using a patched ball drastically increases the loading time.  So for this discussion its an inaccurate rifle when the ball is patched since speed of loading then approaches the rifle.

In Bailey's book  "British Military FL Rifles" we find quotes from an April 1756 letter by Edward Shippen to the Gov. of PA telling the gov that the indians are for the most part armed with rifles. He further states that for fighting "savages" he would prefer a rifle. Why?
Because with the rifle he writes he can put a ball within a foot or 6 inches of the mark at 150 yards.
 
With the "savages" method of making war the smoothbore musket is largely useless if they have rifles and they *did have rifles* from the 1740s on.
If YOUR life depends on it. The enemy is armed with significant numbers of rifles and *knows* how to use them. What are you going to want? How will you counter being shot/shot at at 150 + yards by a rifle armed enemy when you are armed with a musket? How will you kill the deer at the far side of the clearing/meadow with a smoothbore?

The superiority of the smoothbore in fighting in the woods is a dream.  Again I would cite Morgan's men against Burgoyne's Canadian and Indian scouts as a classic example. The British scouts that did not flee back home would not go out of camp. Everyone one else was ordered, under pain of death IIRC, NOT to. Because Morgan's *Riflemen* were out there waiting.

All this makes one wonder how many rifles the French allied natives used when decimating Braddock's forces. The natives with the British, few as they were, were rifle armed.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Let's also keep in mind that while the overwhelming majority of the surviving 18th century rifles are brass mounted we are on shakey ground presuming that the surviving rifles are truly representative of the population of rifles made in the American colonies at the time.  The most useful artifacts are used the most and wear out the fastest.  The surviving rifles are the ones that weren't used that much for one reason or another.  It is quite possible that iron mounted rifles were  present in numbers larger than the surviving population suggests.

However, I suspect that the driving influence was cost and fashion.  We are talking about people who would not think of being seen outside in public without their waistcoat!  Prior to the revolution, Amereican colonists were generally obsessed with being as much like their English countrymen as possible.  If something became fashionable in England or France the Americans had to have it too.

It wasn't until the decade of 1810 that American fashion rebelled against all things English.

Best Regards,

JMC

But we would be on equally shaky ground, if not more so, in assuming things about articles we have very few or no examples of. Being mounted in steel or brass should not effect the survivability of of a fancy relief carved rifle. The steel mounted rifle is really no more useful than a brass mounted one and in fact its harder to control corrosion when iron mounts are used. Rusted iron attacks the wood it contacts and in fact may make for a LESS durable and useful firearm in hard service. Some rust in a rod pipe could freeze a loading rod in place etc etc.
There were iron mounted rifles to be sure. But the American made rifles seem to be mostly brass mounted.

Dan

[Bill of the 45th]

My thoughts, for what they're worth, are that the reasons, boil down to control in Europe by the Guilds, and skilled crafts, and their well controlled secrets, of different manufacturing/skills.  This transferred somewhat to the colonies.  England's control on finished goods in the colonies, finished goods imported in, and raw materials exported home.  And last simple availability of the needed material.  Ease of workability of materials.  Actually I'm surprised that there are not more brass barrels around.

Bill

[Mad Monk]

A bit of clarification here.  The question was asked as to when sheet iron came into use.  We can look to the tin plate industry to look at use on firearms.

The tin plate industry began around 1660 to 1670 in England.  After England had obtained a former German craftsman who taught the English to run the iron sheet through a bath of melted fat to get the tin to adhere to the sheet iron.

The industry first used sheet iron made under trip hammers.  Rolling mills making sheet iron came a bit later.

Here in the colonies the tin plate industry used sheet iron from trip hammer forges.

Ideally the base sheet iron had to be dead soft to allow the forming of the tin plate into finished goods.

So sheet iron worked under trip hammers would pre-date the 1660 English tin plate industry.