Plain guns

[eagle24]

What are the odds that a rifle was viewed as a tool by some and it's beauty was the sleek architecture and clean lines?  That's what I like most in a rifle today and I can't help thinking my feelings would have been the same 200 years ago.  Seems this might have been the case in the south at least.  I would have wanted a rifle with beautiful architecture, fine sights, and forged hardware by the hands of a skilled smith.

[Pvt. Lon Grifle]

It may be that as the frontier advanced, locally produced iron made the use of brass too expensive further west (Kentucky, Tennessee,  SW Virginia) by gun and barrel makers as the gun buyers on the frontier were a different folk than those in the settled east for the most part, with times of peace and stability having a positive impact of course.   

Caliber-wise, my personal belief is that once sure man-killing larger calibers were no longer needed as a general rule, bore sizes tended to reduce.  And perhaps this and the iron production  cycled  following declared and undeclared frontier warfare and national wars up to , say, 1820, showing the changes we note in stocks, barrels, calibers, ornamentation, materials.   Lon.

[hyltoto]

less is more...

[Dphariss]

It may be that as the frontier advanced, locally produced iron made the use of brass too expensive further west (Kentucky, Tennessee,  SW Virginia) by gun and barrel makers as the gun buyers on the frontier were a different folk than those in the settled east for the most part, with times of peace and stability having a positive impact of course.   

Caliber-wise, my personal belief is that once sure man-killing larger calibers were no longer needed as a general rule, bore sizes tended to reduce.  And perhaps this and the iron production  cycled  following declared and undeclared frontier warfare and national wars up to , say, 1820, showing the changes we note in stocks, barrels, calibers, ornamentation, materials.   Lon.

People are notoriously easy to kill.
There was not a man alive that could take a 40 caliber ball in the body and have a good chance of survival in the 18th and 19th or even early 20th century so "sure man killer" is not really a criteria. Look at the Thomas rifle in RCA. Its under 50 caliber.

Big game hunter, deer and bear anyway, in  the east still needed a 45 or so caliber rifle and 44-50 is a very common caliber as far back as I can find bore sizes discussed.  Moose might need a bigger ball but a 50 would work here too if placed  right. Not my first choice but certainly doable.

Styles changed. It took a long time for the European lack of ornament on gunstocks (carving) to catch on here but it did by 1800-1810 and uncarved guns became more and more common as those who carved guns died or retired. We have no idea if makers like M. Fordney quit carving guns by 1840 or not.
The carving came to be looked upon as old fashioned and gaudy so had no customers.

Dan

[northmn]

I like to look at it from another angle also.  It was mentioned that some of the carving somewhat crude on the less adorned guns.  Personally I would rather have none than crude.  Whether that would hold back then , but it does for me today.  Same for engraving.  Not every gun we build is destined for Dixon's fair.  Nor do they need to be an exact copy of a masters work as much as a "could have been".   I have seen more than my share of adorned rifles today that lack the basics to really be pleasing.  A really nice rifle has to have a solid base of lines and workmanship.  Only when you have that does the adornment work.  Were I to redo my squirrel rifle it would likely be with smaller later hardware close to the 1820-30's as it has a 3/4" barrel and a small lock.  Later Lancaster smaller buttplate, TG, thimbles, nosecap and maybe a patch box.  Every now and then we see an original plain rifle marked D. Getz.  They have their own attraction also.   

DP

[Majorjoel]

Plain rifles are my forte'. They are my comfort zone at the present time. I strive to make things fit well.....like the metal grew out of the wood. I do usually use a butt plate, full set of thimbles, and some form of patchbox, but no engraving and little to no carving. Well, beaver tails and molding lines I do not consider carving. I have been espescially anal in trying to perfect a rifle that shoots well with mechanical aspects that would make a Swiss watchmaker proud. This is my challenge and I strive to make good progress with each rifle built. I often wonder about 18th century PA thinking. Could it have been similar to our present day Amish population where the philosophy of "everything plain" brought one closer to God. If this were true, there must have been a lot of plain guns out there!

[Dan'l 1946]

  I think you may be right. There was also a respect for the simple quality of the Shaker products, in particular their furniture. Still desirable today as is the later Stickley furniture. Houses and ships were becoming plainer, but not necessarily less elegant.
  The military arms were less decorated and guns like the plains rifles were truly plain, yet a Hawken, for example, is a study in subtle detail and elegance, at least  to the initiated. A plain longrifle of careful layout is an elegant and well balanced gun and often prettier than an over-decorated rifle. I've often wondered what a Shaker longrifle would have been like.

[flintman-tx]

Then there is always the Dolly Parton Theory of Decorating...More is More!!!

[smshea]

The judges at Dixons will tell you that you should build a plain rifle correctly and you will do well at the judging... and you will. I didn't take there advise right away and like most people spent my first several guns trying to do everything all at once. It wasn't until about my 7th or 8th rifle that after some proding from one of those judges that I tried an honest schimmel  and it was like starting over.
  I have heard A very well known Longrifle artist that posts here( I won't use his name as this is not a direct quote) say that if you look at a rifle you should see the schimmel in it, and that is the foundation of my building philosophy today. I ask myself will people who know be able to tell what I'm building without the obvious hints ie. Patchbox design and well known carving patterns. Strip it down and is the gun still there?   This is just for the the more beginner builders out there ....Starting simple and getting architecture right early on will shorten your learning curve.

[B Shipman]

Well said.

[Long John]

I think the whole discussion has missed avery important point - the differing social climate that evolved between 1783 and 1800.

Immediately after the signing of the treaty ending the American War for Independence there was a resurgence of imports from Europe, especially Britain and France.  Since a great deal of property owned by the loyalists had been either confiscated or abandoned and subsequently acquired by others, there were a lot of newly rich people that expressed a demand for fancy objects from clothing to furniture to houses and quite possibly rifles.

The adoration for things British waned and by 1800 the penulum of public opinion had swung to the other extreme.  Anything European was scorned and everything distinctly "American" was sought.  Meanwhile most of the gunsmiths trained in Europe were either dead or retired so the gunmakers building rifles were less thoroughly skilled in the finer aspects of carving.  The demand for ornamented guns and the ability to supply them seemed to decrease concurrently.

Best Regards,

JMC

[Dphariss]

Sloppy lines be it on a barn gun or a fancy one are not acceptable.
Lines are the first thing seen on a gun though sometimes they are hard to appreciate from photos.
I get the impression that some here are thinking that carving can hide poor lines. It can't.
If you can't build a good plain gun you can't build a good carved one either.
Dan

[northmn]

The judges at Dixons will tell you that you should build a plain rifle correctly and you will do well at the judging... and you will. I didn't take there advise right away and like most people spent my first several guns trying to do everything all at once. It wasn't until about my 7th or 8th rifle that after some proding from one of those judges that I tried an honest schimmel  and it was like starting over.
  I have heard A very well known Longrifle artist that posts here( I won't use his name as this is not a direct quote) say that if you look at a rifle you should see the schimmel in it, and that is the foundation of my building philosophy today. I ask myself will people who know be able to tell what I'm building without the obvious hints ie. Patchbox design and well known carving patterns. Strip it down and is the gun still there?   This is just for the the more beginner builders out there ....Starting simple and getting architecture right early on will shorten your learning curve.

[/sub]

This is more where I wanted to go.  One on building the plain guns and ideas on the types. 

DP

[Dan'l 1946]

Sloppy lines be it on a barn gun or a fancy one are not acceptable.
Lines are the first thing seen on a gun though sometimes they are hard to appreciate from photos.
I get the impression that some here are thinking that carving can hide poor lines. It can't.
If you can't build a good plain gun you can't build a good carved one either.
Dan
[/quote
Amen! But, for some reason that is often hard to get across to some folks. They go for the "sizzle" and don't realize the steak isn't there.

[Artificer]

Something else to throw in the mix. 

In the early to mid 18th century, weren't there more gunsmiths here who originally served their apprenticeship and jourmeyman days in Europe?  Those who did so in the Germanic areas would have been more used to some carving and engraving as many rifles there were made for "well off" if not rich customers.   They would have carried on the traditions of at least some carving and engraving because "that is the only proper way to make a rifle."  (I can see an older German gunsmith saying that in a thick german accent.)   I think they would have ingrained that, at least to some extent, in their own apprentices here.