Follow along as Wallace Gusler builds a new Rev War syle rifle

[Dennis Glazener]

Added more photos below:

[Hatchet-Jack]

This is very valuable for a student of the craft like myself. Thank you for taking the time to photograph and post this Dennis and please extend my thanks and appreciation to Mr. Gusler.

Jack

[Jim Kibler]

The Brass Barreled rifle is so unique and unusual in it's stocking.  I can only imagine how difficult it's been to really capture the original form.  Beautiful work and great to see.

Jim

[Bob Roller]

IF these guns were being made to fight a war they could have made 3 or 4 plain rifles instead of taking time to carve the ones they did use.
Several years ago I met Jud Brennan at the CLA show in Lexington and he had an elaborately carved rifle to a customer who was there.
I commented that he could have made 6 plain,useful rifles in the time he took for that one. His reply  was "More than that"
Bob Roller

[mountainman]

Hey Bob, carvings on a gun adds character, which makes them more interesting this way than just plain guns! 😊 But yes plain guns do not take near the time, I'm in the middle of carving a gun now and hopefully another one soon.
It was the original Gunmakers signature or advertising back in the day.

[bama]

I have seen Rev. War Militia muskets that have a patch box and some tang carving. Now, I will agree that it was not elaborate carving but it was carved. The Brown Bess has tang carving, elaborate no, but it's there. The sense of style did not go away.

Bob's is correct in they did not take the time to make an elaborate gun during the war. Most militia muskets were rapidly made and produced in a hurry. I have seen some made by Moll, they still had graceful lines, patch box and tang craving. Most had Belgium barrels, quite attractive guns, in a rugged sort of way.

I applaud Wallace for this post and appreciate his efforts to share his talent. He has had and is still having a impact on the Long Rifle Culture.

[Dphariss]

IF these guns were being made to fight a war they could have made 3 or 4 plain rifles instead of taking time to carve the ones they did use.
Several years ago I met Jud Brennan at the CLA show in Lexington and he had an elaborately carved rifle to a customer who was there.
I commented that he could have made 6 plain,useful rifles in the time he took for that one. His reply  was "More than that"
Bob Roller

However, at the time of the American Revolution rifles were expected to be carved. For example, the British started importing rifles for their native allies during the Revolution. They made three grades, one with a metal box , one with a wood box cover and one that its not sure what it was since they sold very few of them. But the others were carved. I suspect that the natives would not buy them otherwise. Even the Brown Bess of the time had carving around the barrel tang. Now in England by 1770s/80s carving was disappearing from gun, furniture and other wooden items. But it hung on here for decades. We have to not look at the past with modern ideas.

[Dphariss]

I have seen Rev. War Militia muskets that have a patch box and some tang carving. Now, I will agree that it was not elaborate carving but it was carved. The Brown Bess has tang carving, elaborate no, but it's there. The sense of style did not go away.

Bob's is correct in they did not take the time to make an elaborate gun during the war. Most militia muskets were rapidly made and produced in a hurry. I have seen some made by Moll, they still had graceful lines, patch box and tang craving. Most had Belgium barrels, quite attractive guns, in a rugged sort of way.

I applaud Wallace for this post and appreciate his efforts to share his talent. He has had and is still having a impact on the Long Rifle Culture.

They would make what the customer wanted. And not all makers were making muskets. For one thing the people on the frontier had less use for one than did the Continental Army wanting to fight the war on the British terms and usually getting whipped. There were too many rifle armed British allied natives for the Musket to be all that effective in that style of warfare. 

[Darrin McDonal]

You have to keep in mind a "plain" 18th century rifle has moldings, carving and engraving.  It might not be much but that would have barely, if at all, altered the price. That was only labor not materials, and materials were far more expensive than labor. Now the brass barreled rifle would have been the polar opposite.
Darrin

[Nbright]

Wow! Beautiful.  I love the patchbox as well.  Will it be engraved?

[Dennis Glazener]

I am adding new photos I received from Wallace.
Dennis

To: Dennis Glazener

From: Wallace Gusler

Re: Making tailpiece (rear thimble) for Hans Jacob Honaker rifle, ca 1773. The “Brass barrel rifle gun” is dated 1771.  The second rifle from his shop was made about 1775. My new rifle is designed from these two originals.

The tailpiece is in its hammered state—te bottom with pin tenon is filed and the ends of the barrel section and perimeter of the tang are filed—all flats and the flanking ends of the pin tenon of the barrel are heavily hammered into shape.

After cutting he brass out flat, it was annealed.  From that point no more annealing. The hammering work hardens, making the tailpiece very stiff. The hammering of the flats pushes metal out (the mandrel acts as a dull wedge) to the corners of each flat. A cold chisel was used to “set” in the ring moldings at each end of the barrel section. After filing these with a triangular needle file, I will set dividers for the next parallel ring molding. I set these in with light cuts with the cold chisel, and then file to finish.  Since around 1965, I have hammered these thimbles. This is the most extensive and the only example that I overlapped each end. This is a neater product, and it makes holding it in the vice much easier, as the various flats, etc., are being filed (with mandrel in place.)
I have included a photo of the major tools and wood swages used to make this example.

W.B.G.

[wallace gusler]

The last picture is comparing the new brass barrel rifle tailpiece with my first one, 70 years ago.  W. Gusler

[wallace gusler]

Re: engraving on patch box of brass barrel rifle: the short answer is yes, it will have engraving, however, it is quite simple--single line border on the door sides and an astragal arch on the finial that arcs across paralleling the scalloped edge. Each of the small scallops will have two or three lines of shaving, emulating fluting that is found in the carving on the second Honaker rifle just in front of the box. Later we'll try to post a photo of that original's carving in front of the patch box finial.

The brass barrel rifle is dated 1771 and is attributed to Hans Jacob Honaker, a Swiss-born and trained carpenter and gun stocker. He settled on the banks of the Shenandoah River in 1764.  In 1790, in the tax records, he had 25 free white males above the age of 16 in his household. So far, at least 14 gunsmiths succeed him over three generations. The second rifle from his shop dates to about 1775-80.  The rifle I am making in these shots uses features from both, simulating a bench rifle of about 1773 or '74. 

One the years, I have located three trigger guards in iron that match his cast guards on these two rifles.  They were on old pieces that had been restocked and assembled in the middle of the 19th century. One was found in TN, two in Hampshire Co., (now WV), both directions where his work would have logically travelled.


More later. . .
W.B.G.

[wallace gusler]

Regarding the flintlock, sometime back someone commented that "it was good for Chris Laubach," and I'm all for that. Jon Laubach, Chris's father apprenticed to me in 1970. Chris was apprenticed to me (informal), working in my shop at the turn of the century. At this time, if I didn't make the lock personally, I don't sign it, and never have.  If I do finish work and engrave it, I sign it as this lock is signed, in the 18th-c style, "W. Gusler sculpt." I signed Chris's name when the piece is at half cock, exposing it around the arc of the breast of the cock. Many years ago, I owned an early American long rifle dated "1771" in three places. It had been made with a French lock, circa 1690, that was signed in this fashion.  I believe it's wrong to sign a lock in the maker's location if you did not make it by traditional methods.

W. B. G.