Author Topic: Your thiughts on Shimmels  (Read 35002 times)

Offline Jim Kibler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4300
    • Personal Website
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #50 on: June 23, 2010, 05:44:45 PM »
Not to be argumentative, but what is the evidence these were not sold as finished.  Their sometimes rough or crude nature is not evidence of this in my mind.  Seems like this thought is a lot of speculation.

Offline flintriflesmith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1509
    • Flintriflesmith
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #51 on: June 23, 2010, 05:59:48 PM »
Jim,
I too would like to see any evidence for the sale of "unfinished" rifles where the intent was for the purchaser to finish them.

Comparing the idea to buying a modern kit or gun "in the white" seems like quite a stretch to me. Today's hobbyist has access to tools, materials, and information that were simply not available to an 1830 customer.

Also the kit gun or gun in the white is attractive because modern processes can keep the price low. As has been stated before many times--the barrel and lock are the big expenses in a pre-industrial revolution rifle.

Crude restocks of surviving parts of an earlier rifle are well known but that's a completely different thing from a shop built new gun being sold unfinished.

Gary
"If you accept your thoughts as facts, then you will no longer be looking for new information, because you assume that you have all the answers."
http://flintriflesmith.com

Offline smshea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • www.scottshearifles.com
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #52 on: June 23, 2010, 06:21:44 PM »
Let me clarify my comments, I wont speak for Bill.

 When I said unfinished , I misspoke. Weather or not they left the shop with finish is anyones guess and I would expect that they did. However in many cases(Not all) there seems to be alot more wood left on the gun than one would expect on a "Finished"Gun. The David Boyer guns and the Angstadt pictured in the Library are examples of ones that are trimmed down close to the point at which one would expect to find a finished gun by the same hand. With in the last year or so , there was one for sale at Dixons that had to have a half inch of wood running down either side of the barrel, Yet the buttstock showed all  the traits one would expect to find on a late Lehigh.   

Offline Jim Kibler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4300
    • Personal Website
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #53 on: June 23, 2010, 06:33:39 PM »
Let me clarify my comments, I wont speak for Bill.

 When I said unfinished , I misspoke. Weather or not they left the shop with finish is anyones guess and I would expect that they did. However in many cases(Not all) there seems to be alot more wood left on the gun than one would expect on a "Finished"Gun. The David Boyer guns and the Angstadt pictured in the Library are examples of ones that are trimmed down close to the point at which one would expect to find a finished gun by the same hand. With in the last year or so , there was one for sale at Dixons that had to have a half inch of wood running down either side of the barrel, Yet the buttstock showed all  the traits one would expect to find on a late Lehigh.   

All this indicates to me that someone less capable was making examples such as the one you mentioned.   

Offline smshea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • www.scottshearifles.com
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #54 on: June 23, 2010, 07:36:12 PM »
I agree that's a definite possibility in some cases Jim. Possible apprentices? I offer no evidence, its just an opinion and could just be influence of years of others collective speculation that creates modern myth? Who Knows?

 There are enough of them floating around that are attributable or signed. And there are "Give aways" Cheek pieces, Triggers, Lock panels etc . Also the occasional use of a great piece of wood ,Why? ... Again could easy be someone working in the shop but that could be true of any gun coming out a working gun shop, pretty or not .
  I'm thinking out loud now, but I guess one could ask what the Definition of Gun maker is in that region. The Neff rifle comes to mind. It is very crude by most anyones standard(I love it) but done well enough to assume he made other guns. What did his Plain guns look like? I have to think they were at least as crude while still showing his hand .
 All of this is Speculation, The only thing I would ask those who argue that some farmer cobbled together one crude gun to shot hogs or some such thing and that this  is what we are looking at...is why aren't there more from other regions (They had Hogs too) and do we think those farmers all had the skill to bring that rifle or smooth bore to a point were the architecture is right for the region but without the use of hardware....Heck, an awful lot of guys with 20 guns or more under there belt today can't pull that off convincingly (Me included sometimes ;D). To me, too many things point to the the hand or at least the guidance of an experienced builder .   

jimc2

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #55 on: June 23, 2010, 08:02:13 PM »
My question is how many of the folks taking part in this discussion have held or even seen a shimmel?????

Online rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18950
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #56 on: June 23, 2010, 08:17:30 PM »
Anybody who has spent time around Dixon's shop has had ample opportunity to see or handle originals.
Andover, Vermont

Offline Dr. Tim-Boone

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6534
  • I Like this hat!!
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #57 on: June 23, 2010, 08:38:43 PM »
And interesting they are!! I was quite taken back when aI saw a couple hanging from the ceiling!!
 You PA boys are a fount of knowledege about the less famous (well, the famous ones too ;D) guns in PA.  A shame not to capture the information someway. Perhaps ALR is the place as most of you are not likely to write a book about such things......  Are you??

 
De Oppresso Liber
Marietta, GA

Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others. – William Allen White

Learning is not compulsory...........neither is survival! - W. Edwards Deming

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9761
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #58 on: June 23, 2010, 09:12:51 PM »
Jim,
I too would like to see any evidence for the sale of "unfinished" rifles where the intent was for the purchaser to finish them.

Comparing the idea to buying a modern kit or gun "in the white" seems like quite a stretch to me. Today's hobbyist has access to tools, materials, and information that were simply not available to an 1830 customer.

Also the kit gun or gun in the white is attractive because modern processes can keep the price low. As has been stated before many times--the barrel and lock are the big expenses in a pre-industrial revolution rifle.

Crude restocks of surviving parts of an earlier rifle are well known but that's a completely different thing from a shop built new gun being sold unfinished.

Gary

I agree.
How many modern shooters today would buy a model 70, for example, in the white or as a kit?

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Stophel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
  • Chris Immel
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #59 on: June 23, 2010, 09:15:28 PM »
I don't think they were sold unfinished with the intention of the owner finishing them.  I think they were sold unfinished with the intention of the owner taking it and hanging it up on the wall inside of the barn, to be used when a critter presented itself for a shot.   ;)
When a reenactor says "They didn't write everything down"   what that really means is: "I'm too lazy to look for documentation."

Offline bgf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #60 on: June 23, 2010, 09:23:43 PM »
Given a functional gun in the white, more or less roughly shaped, I don't see why the average farmer couldn't have finished it as much or as little as he wanted.  Woodworking was a necessary skill when the nearest furniture "store" (if you had any money)  was far away.  Knives, chisels and saws would have been available.  All the work requiring "gunsmith" skills and tools would have been done by a gunsmith.

Just my worthless speculation.  Also, this model doesn't make any sense for early rifles, where the cost of the barrel and lock are so high that the rest of the gun was inconsequential.  I've lost track of the current consensus in this discussion as to whether pre-Rev (the original question in the thread) or Rev. period Schimmels have ever been documented -- I think not, but I could be wrong.  Once parts were produced in some quantity by specialized shops, it would have made sense for the gun maker to put all his normal pieces together without final fit or finish, providing him with a nearly finished gun to complete himself for wealthy clients and a cheap kit for the more frugal.

Model 70 kit -- sign me up :).

Offline Stophel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
  • Chris Immel
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #61 on: June 23, 2010, 09:37:21 PM »
I think the nail has just been hit on the head.  The "Barn gun" was NOT cheap nor practical prior to the time when one could easily acquire relatively cheap barrels and locks.   ;)
When a reenactor says "They didn't write everything down"   what that really means is: "I'm too lazy to look for documentation."

Offline Jim Kibler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4300
    • Personal Website
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #62 on: June 23, 2010, 10:16:29 PM »
I don't think they were sold unfinished with the intention of the owner finishing them.  I think they were sold unfinished with the intention of the owner taking it and hanging it up on the wall inside of the barn, to be used when a critter presented itself for a shot.   ;)

No matter how rough or plain a rifle is, I can't imagine a gunsmith not putting on a coat of stain and finish or at least a coat of oil for a finish.  To me it just doesn't make sense.  How long does this really take?

Offline Dr. Tim-Boone

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6534
  • I Like this hat!!
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #63 on: June 23, 2010, 10:47:12 PM »
easy to paint as well........
De Oppresso Liber
Marietta, GA

Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others. – William Allen White

Learning is not compulsory...........neither is survival! - W. Edwards Deming

Offline smshea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • www.scottshearifles.com
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #64 on: June 23, 2010, 11:07:22 PM »
easy to paint as well........

I've seen them that way too! But who knows how they went out the door. 

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #65 on: June 24, 2010, 02:08:54 AM »
JTR, my motive is to ascertain what educated people's opinions are on the question that I asked...percentage of guns made with patch boxes, by period.

It appears to me that many people think that the vast majority of early rifles had patch boxes.  From existing examples and, as I said, shards and pieces of old guns that surface here, it is my belief that there was a greater percentage of plain guns made years ago than is popularly believed, and that they were the ones that got cut, used up, mutilated and abandoned.  The "Sunday guns" would just maybe have had more of a chance of survival, for people paid extra for them, maybe used them less and then handed them down to the next generation in decent shape.  Just a thought.  Yes, then there are the 20th century additions, but this is only a secondary concern, significant in its own right, but not the primary issue here.   

Offline Mad Monk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1033
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #66 on: June 24, 2010, 04:12:55 AM »
I wish someone could talk Chuck Dixon into doing the book on Schimmels that he and Tom Ames had talked about doing 15 years ago.

I started building the schimmels back in 1984 and did 4 of them so far.  Using ones he had hanging behind the counter as a guide.  And at that time Chuck would talk at length on the subject of these guns.

He and I had discussed what we called the militia shoot crowd.  When you look at the local militia gatherings in the late 1700's into the middle 1800's these were weekend social events.  Where politicians running for office went to get votes.  Fancy guns would attract much needed attention and possibly votes.
Chuck like to describe it as two classes of rifles.  One for show and one for work in the field.

The schimmels used the same barrels and often the same locks used on the more expensive fancy guns.  But usually used some very plain wood.

Chuck likened it to buying and new car and working up from the basic models with extras added.  More fancy equaled more money from the buyer.

E. Ogre

Offline B Shipman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1928
    • W.G. Shipman Gunmaker
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #67 on: June 24, 2010, 08:22:05 AM »
Read Tom Ames' Article. Handle the guns by the same probable maker. One neatly done and equally plain and the other not even close to finish and not acceptable by any master with the worst apprentice. Exactly the same guards used on different styles and thus makers. (The quard he tinker used) Yet on nicely finished guns the guards are consistent for the maker. Just evidence. And as I said nothing has changed except for the current sharing of information. It takes a lot of work , a  lot of work , to get off that last 1/32 in. in the right places. Locks and barrels were mass produced in this period as today.

Offline Roger Fisher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6805
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #68 on: June 24, 2010, 05:22:02 PM »
I wish someone could talk Chuck Dixon into doing the book on Schimmels that he and Tom Ames had talked about doing 15 years ago.

I started building the schimmels back in 1984 and did 4 of them so far.  Using ones he had hanging behind the counter as a guide.  And at that time Chuck would talk at length on the subject of these guns.

He and I had discussed what we called the militia shoot crowd.  When you look at the local militia gatherings in the late 1700's into the middle 1800's these were weekend social events.  Where politicians running for office went to get votes.  Fancy guns would attract much needed attention and possibly votes.
Chuck like to describe it as two classes of rifles.  One for show and one for work in the field.

The schimmels used the same barrels and often the same locks used on the more expensive fancy guns.  But usually used some very plain wood.

Chuck likened it to buying and new car and working up from the basic models with extras added.  More fancy equaled more money from the buyer.

E. Ogre
funny thing we do much the same these days i.e the weekend shoot crowd, except we see darn few policticians... :)

Offline Dr. Tim-Boone

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6534
  • I Like this hat!!
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #69 on: June 24, 2010, 05:42:33 PM »
Be thankful Roger...........
De Oppresso Liber
Marietta, GA

Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others. – William Allen White

Learning is not compulsory...........neither is survival! - W. Edwards Deming

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #70 on: June 26, 2010, 01:20:48 AM »
OK, one last meager attempt to help clarify a point or two prior to my annual departure for Europe.

Language is one of my things, so lets focus on that.

My disdain for the term "Shimmel" has been previously aired.  So, in short, it is a recently popularized term that is essentially a form of supercilious ostentation of erudite vacuity.  That's it, put in simple semantic terms.  Or, if you prefer, a recently coined word, with lousy pedigree that is used by many but understood by few, and more of a nuisance and source of confusion than it is worth.  Are you talking about simple mountain guns?  Barn guns?  Define the necessary characteristics...no plate, simple guard, no glitterati?  OK, we get it, with or without the term "Shimmel."  

See how a living, vibrant language works?  The boys in the hood will coin a new term for a fresh product overnight.  The country boys coin a new term for a basic gun.  No problem.  Jimc2 is right.  Go to Chuck's place where he has about 15 real ones on the wall and heft them.  They are not the holy grail, but are an integral part of our firearms history. as are the glamor guns.  At least you can rest assured that these are what they appear to be.

Now with Allamengal, or however you wish to spell it.  Youngsters, please know that this word was never, in my experience, used to refer to a region, or to a "school of gunsmiths" or anything else until about 1995 or so.  It was coined, or at least popularized, by one capable friend who is personally interested in guns from the lower mountain region north or I78 between Reading and Allentown.  The Hess shop would, apparently, be the epicenter, and the rest of the builders you may not have heard of.  They are not the big names.  Point is, this long rifle commentator is still alive, neither canonized by the Pope of Rome, or anybody else.  He's human, too; he spread the term; he's still writing and promoting his interest area, which is fine.  But don't get too wigged out trying to define the area, as it appears on no current maps and can only be described subjectively by the minds that find it useful.  A few see it as a school, recently revealed; others do not, but view it as more of a sub-school of eastern PA makers who shares some stylistic motifs and details.  Regardless,  any lines of demarcation are recently created and arbitrary. 

Hope this helps.  Some have books for sale that will speak of the region with profound authority.  The region was always there, but the term was not popularly used to refer to it.   Again, am I being negative?  No.  It is simply another example of a language that is not dead.  If a term works, it sticks.  The verdict is still out on this one.   

As for "experts," you mention Tom Ames.  He told me once that "Allamengal" meant "all wants" which, according to him, meant that when the Dutchies arrived in Heidelberg, Weisenberg, and contiguous townships, that their prayers were answered.  Down the lane, another "expert" told me that it meant something entirely different...rocky soil, or some such.  Take your pick.  It's all opinion that was being formulated at that time.  I was born and raised here, PA German on both sides, and some of my ancestors came off the good ship Harle prior to the Revolution.  I read a lot of non fiction.  I never heard of it until a few collectors with a personal agenda started using it.  End of my ability to clarify.  I don't know everything, and am always willing to learn.  Perhaps the term pops up in some obscure text from antiquity and has been resurrected.

  From what the old timers have told me, none of this school stuff was kicked about until AD...after Dillin.  Then the latter day saints...Kindig and Kauffman wrote it into the canon for all ages.  Maybe others will find additional details about other schools and other offshoots may emerge.      
« Last Edit: June 26, 2010, 04:44:36 AM by jwh1947 »

Offline Stophel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
  • Chris Immel
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #71 on: June 26, 2010, 04:19:26 AM »
Allemangel would mean "all deficiencies"..."all is lacking", that sort of thing.  I was fairly sure, but yes, I did look it up.   ;D  ("to want" as in "to lack", rather than "want" as in "desire")

I also greatly dislike the term "Schimmel" (and the use of the word "Jaeger" to mean "rifle").  I prefer "barn gun".  It is descriptive, simple, and uncontrived.    ;)
« Last Edit: June 26, 2010, 04:27:15 AM by Stophel »
When a reenactor says "They didn't write everything down"   what that really means is: "I'm too lazy to look for documentation."

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #72 on: June 26, 2010, 07:42:00 AM »
I vote with you on this.  Incidentally, I would not be afraid to shoot most of the ones on Chuck's shop wall.  They are all plain, but also rugged.  Considering their apparent heavy use, they have held up remarkably well.  According to Chuck, they were all found within 25 miles of his shop.  Tom Ames has used the term "Blue Mountain Guns" on occasion, for if you were to trek 10 miles up and down the First Mountain from Dixon's, you'd be on the ground where these specimens surfaced.   

Incidentally, I saw one in eastern North Carolina years ago that was what we all agreed was a southern mountain rifle.  Late flint, no box, no butt plate, iron guard, no rear thimble, and different buttstock architecture from Chuck's PA specimens.  The southern gun also had the additional feature of a grease hole in the butt stock.

No joke, perhaps we could encourage some of the gang to post some pictures of their region's barn guns.  Guaranteed, we could all learn something. Does the regional plain piece reflect the architecture of the region as presented in the finer, embellished "classics"?  If so, how?  For instance, there are distinct "Lehigh/Northampton" characteristics to most of Chuck's guns.  If you get to the fair, look them over. Fair always the last full weekend in July. 

Offline stuart cee dub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #73 on: June 26, 2010, 07:46:04 AM »
For those of us looking for the contemporary style then ,perhaps we need look no further  than the ''shimmel'' .
There is no doubt the term is relatively new , the style is modern fantasy (as opposed to traditional  fantasy ).

The first time I heard the term was reading it in Mr Dixions gun building book and I liked the idea even then.I just never saw many examples .
Might have been a survival rate issue or maybe they never were there in the first instance.My lawyer pals tell me it is near impossible  to prove a negative.
 
Perhaps we imagined there were more shimmels than some of us would have hoped.Maybe what we wanted to find was a pure Doric order longrifle.  
  
Mr Getz has very honestly pointed out his barn guns are new creations not based on anything . Exactly right .

So there is a whole new area to explore .We might come up with a few original contemporary rifles based on the lines of the old and
maybe even something plain but clean that  Mr Stickley would approve of.As long as we are clear  about what we are doing and that we are not passing of these rifles as bench copies, not only is there no foul and perhaps we might be moving the idea of long rifles forward .

I differ with many here but in my humble opinion ,we are maybe the third or fourth wave of longrifle builders ,a distinctly American Art form.
We are past the revival period. Time to move forward by reinterpreting the long rifle.....As long as we are honest in what we are doing  .
 Shimmels may be the place to start.
Purchased furniture  defines stock architecture .No buttplate allows more artistic freedom. And a faster build time.
Something to think about anyway.    
  
« Last Edit: June 26, 2010, 07:51:25 AM by stuart cee dub »

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #74 on: June 26, 2010, 06:16:14 PM »
A barn gun might be a good place to start.  The apprentice will experience the fitting of a barrel, lock and stock.  The fundamentals are there, and that is actually where the newbe should be concentrating!  Build a safe, functional rifle. 

Some people want to start out by trying to out-carve N. Beyer and out-engrave J. Kuntz, when they should be concentrating on basic architecture and fitting.  Not only can you put lipstick on a pig, but you can find the results attractive.