Author Topic: Your thiughts on Shimmels  (Read 35955 times)

Bentflint

  • Guest
Your thiughts on Shimmels
« on: June 18, 2010, 08:52:19 PM »
I'm collecting parts for my next build. So far I have a plane maple blank and a 46" Rice .50 B. I'm thinking a pre Rev shimmel type of gun.

This is the experimental gun, I have 3 more stock blanks and have never built this type of gun.

I'm open to lock and architecture opinions.

Any help would be appreciated.

Bruce

Offline Stophel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
  • Chris Immel
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2010, 10:17:55 PM »
My opinion, take it or not, is if you want anything resembling historical, then there was no such thing as a pre-rev "Schimmel".  The barn gun was a 19th century phenomenon.

 ;)

I know, I know, I've done one myself, but now I think that such things are pretty much fantasy guns.

I have also done a Berks county barn gun, 1820-30-ish.  Real fun gun to do.  Now those are real, and there seems to be quite a few of them that still exist.   ;)
« Last Edit: June 18, 2010, 10:19:39 PM 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."

Offline smshea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • www.scottshearifles.com
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2010, 11:00:33 PM »
 I agree with Stopel that there are not PRE war examples of schimmel rifles to base a contemporary gun on, however there are so few surviving pre war  rifles that it is no surprise that plain(workhorse)rifles would not have a high survival rate, or any survival rate at all. While it is pure speculation on my part , I would not be ready to say they didn't exist. I might speculate that the percentage of them may not have been as high as in the early19th cen. But again ...who knows. Stophel is right, you are not likely to find one to point at.
 Having said that, picking a regional profile that you like and that has a pre war example in existence and building it plain with at least the proper early butt plate might be the PC way to go. ???
 If we all limit ourselves to building copys or rifles inspired by particular pre war rifles made in the colonies....we would all be building the same few rifles over and over. 

Offline Jim Kibler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4474
    • Personal Website
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2010, 11:26:02 PM »
Add a butplate entry pipe and nose piece.  A little more work, but not too awful much.  I'd also consider a bigger barrel if pre Rev war is your aim.

Offline rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19534
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2010, 11:36:39 PM »
I agree with the philosophies stated above. A pre-Rev schimmel w/o the furniture is a fantasy gun. There are a few examples of severely plain early Pennsylvania rifles, with no carving, not even a lock molding beavertail.  They have all the furniture, buttplate, sideplate, guard, entry thimble and 2 more thimbles, and a nosecap.  Doing w/o a patchbox is an option.  A build like this gives a nice spare look that is representative of some originals.  Shumway wrote a Muzzle Blasts article on one such plain rifle with Christians Spring or Lehigh connections that is a real hoss of an early rifle.
Andover, Vermont

Offline Stophel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
  • Chris Immel
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2010, 12:12:35 AM »
My feeling is that of those relatively early rifle-type guns that are super-plain, they may be of expedient wartime manufacture, with NO time to waste on carving.

About the plainest and earliest I have seen was the one illustrated by Shumway in the magazine several years ago (I don't have it in front of me to give a reference) that was bought from a "small private museum" in North Carolina.  Of generic rifle type, big smoothbore barrel, Brown Bess lock, no sideplate, and it LOOKS LIKE there is no nosecap, but I can't tell for sure.  Has all the rest of the ordinary hardware, though I wouldn't call that cool buttplate "ordinary", with the raised flats.  My thought would be that this was a wartime gun.

There are earlier (MUCH earlier) guns from New England that are ultra plain, even crude, but these aren't quite the same thing.  These gunsmiths were working from an entirely different gunmaking background.
When a reenactor says "They didn't write everything down"   what that really means is: "I'm too lazy to look for documentation."

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2010, 12:26:46 AM »
I have a blue print if you will of an early North Carolina gun dated about 1760 that is about as close to a Shimmel as you can get, but it had a hodgepodge of parts including a barrel square at the breech and a lock about the size of a trade gun.  Mostly I would go a shimmel if I were in a hurry for a build.  I built a poor boy in a 25 for that reason, as I wanted to play with the 25.  As to building another, I probably will not and start building more complete guns.  There are more knowlegeable people than I am about what has been discovered so far and one could debate reasons for survival of certain types over others forever. 

DP

omark

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2010, 04:19:13 AM »
could any "assumptions" be made by studying gunmakers logs? estimating the difference by cost?  just an idea.  mark 

Offline Nate McKenzie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1019
  • Luzerne Co. PA
    • Nathan McKenzie Gunmaker
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2010, 04:38:44 AM »
How about a very plain military style Jaeger or an American restock of one in maple.

Offline Don Getz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6853
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2010, 02:42:36 PM »
Why not just get creative, and do anything you want.   My last "barn" gun is not a copy of anything.   I used a basic lancaster pattern stock, shortened the comb, put a slight concave shape to the lower buttstock, put a wood box on it,
and shaped the top of the heel to look like a faceted buttplate extension.   It's stained very dark and I think it looks pretty good.   I made this for for my Lodge....they needed something to make money with.     I will have it at Dixon's  and
will discuss it in my "dissertation" on sunday.   I started to do guns like this when I fell in love with one hat Jud Brennan
did some years ago.   As a matter of fact, a friend of mine now owns that gun, I might also bring it along.....it is very
interesting...............Don

Bentflint

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2010, 03:06:04 PM »
Thank you all for your responces. This is the great value of this board, ask one question and years of study are handed to you in 24 hours.

I saw on another board that the gun Chuck Dixon labeled (shimmel) could be dated as early as 1740 in a place known as Allemeangal. This is not first hand information but, I feel a reliable source with his openions based on conversations with Chuck and KRA research and articles.

As I said I have 4 blanks, the first one will be sold, I want one for me and the other 2 are spoken for waiting to see what I come up with. We are all post F&I reinactors as well as hunters. We need rifles for both.

Just got Don's post, thank you. That is very close to my plan Don. Just hopping for some historical evidence to follow.

By the way Don, did you get my email a week ago?

Offline Stophel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4532
  • Chris Immel
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2010, 07:45:11 PM »
I have a blue print if you will of an early North Carolina gun dated about 1760 that is about as close to a Shimmel as you can get, but it had a hodgepodge of parts including a barrel square at the breech and a lock about the size of a trade gun. 
DP

That odd gun is only "dated 1760" by people who desperately want it to be 1760.  There are those of us who consider this gun to be MUCH later....nearly 100 years later.
When a reenactor says "They didn't write everything down"   what that really means is: "I'm too lazy to look for documentation."

Offline Luke MacGillie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2010, 09:17:58 PM »
I have a blue print if you will of an early North Carolina gun dated about 1760 that is about as close to a Shimmel as you can get, but it had a hodgepodge of parts including a barrel square at the breech and a lock about the size of a trade gun. 
DP

That odd gun is only "dated 1760" by people who desperately want it to be 1760.  There are those of us who consider this gun to be MUCH later....nearly 100 years later.

Thank you!

And I love the sig line, make sure you get that haversack embroidered and beeswax impregnated ;D

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2010, 11:54:44 PM »
I have a blue print if you will of an early North Carolina gun dated about 1760 that is about as close to a Shimmel as you can get, but it had a hodgepodge of parts including a barrel square at the breech and a lock about the size of a trade gun.
DP
That odd gun is only "dated 1760" by people who desperately want it to be 1760.  There are those of us who consider this gun to be MUCH later....nearly 100 years later.

I was rather disappointed in the plans anyway.  Bought them many years ago, I think from Log Cabin shop.  The gun was not interesting enough for me to pursue and as it was built out of leftovers I would not argue dating it.

DP
« Last Edit: June 20, 2010, 12:14:41 AM by northmn »

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2010, 12:23:35 AM »
As this is referring to building shimmels, I have a couple of questions also.  Were they common in a particular area or school?  Also I have noticed that many built today have a finish like on a finer rifle.  While I would not want to make one too rustic, when I did my poor boy I backed off a little on the sanding and finish as I felt that that would go with the gun.  Wouldn't a shimmel be a little more rustic in finish.  I used a scraper for some of my finishing and had a few more blemishes than I would normally leave in a gun with a patch box and other decorations. (I tried not to leave it too crude).
Generally, I agree with Don G. in that it is fun to build something like he does.  I think the most fun I had building lately was putting together a "sort of" English half stock fowler out of a birch tree I had cut down. 

DP   

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9920
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2010, 12:27:17 AM »
Here is another angle that I think I have mentioned before.
You were judged by what you wore and what you owned.
Walking around with a barn gun and shabby clothing in 1770 would indicate that you were the bottom rung and could not afford a better quality goods and you would be treated as such in all likelyhood. So if one could possibly afford clothing or belongings of better quality it was desirable to have them at least for Social gatherings, Church and travel.
A traveler dressed in a smock carrying a musket could be viewed as a possible deserter or runaway and might even be detained for investigation. A traveler dressed in better clothing I.E. as a gentleman would dress and carrying a good grade fowler or rifle would be looked upon differently.
Before ornamentation became pass′e and was even considered vulgar in some circles most wood was carved to some extent. Even the Brown Bess had some minor additions.
So while it is a fad now to have rusty, pitted guns or "barn guns"  I don't think either would be desirable in 1770. For one thing the rifle was the most expensive item a common man might own, his wifes was her spinning wheel. Neither would be abused.
Once the more austere fashion of the 19th century took hold then ornately carved guns went out of fashion though inlays were common, but even the low end guns from Connestoga Rifle Works etc (the cheap factory mades of the day) still had all the basic parts. Buttplate, TG, rod pipes etc.

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

Offline LRB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1567
    • WICK ELLERBE
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2010, 12:36:18 AM »
  Good point!

Offline Mike Brooks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13415
    • Mike Brooks Gunmaker
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #17 on: June 20, 2010, 12:44:28 AM »
I see strong evidence for bare bones buttplateless guns in several areas. Lehigh, in the early to mid 1800's, New england fowling guns before or during the rev war,  and some new england club butts of and before the rev war. Other than that the evidence is pretty slim. Even cheap trade guns had buttplates.
NEW WEBSITE! www.mikebrooksflintlocks.com
Say, any of you boys smithies? Or, if not smithies per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wanderin'?

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2010, 01:28:11 AM »
The point on clothing reminded of an exerpt I had read in "Life in colonial America" or some such book.  As the middle class grew, there was a proposition that rules be set on who could wear what clothing as it was getting harder to tell the classes apart.  Back then "clothes made the man" so to speak.  This was in pre Revolutionary times.  I go back to a question I had on trying to profile who owned rifles.  As they cost 4-5 pounds and the average trades man made about 20-25 pounds a year, I feel that those that bought rifles were likely more "set up" in their positions.  As such when a rifle was purchased it may have been a nice one.  Barn guns may have been just that, guns for some of the farmers.  Turkey and beef shoots were also common get togethers where a person may have wanted something at least to keep up to the Jonses.  There was quite a market for fowlers and imported fowlers, which cost much less than a rifle.  There were still backwoods communities and so forth where a cheaper gun may have been desired?

DP

Offline Long John

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1618
  • Give me Liberty or give me Death
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2010, 03:32:54 AM »
Think of what Dan said.  Then add to this that in the pre-Revolutionary time frame most of the gun makers were European trained.  They were brought up in the European craft guild environment.  I spent a summer working for an old German tool and die maker while I was in college.  He had that old-world mentality that there were 2 ways to do things: the wrong way and his (right) way.  Would a colonial gun-maker who had been brought up in the guild system in Europe be willing to turn out a rifle-gun that did not have the requisite finishing touches?  What would that say about him?  I know that Klaus Dieter (the old guy I worked for that summer) would not have allowed anything that was not absolutley right out of his shop.

This probably will get me chastised but I think we have to keep the cultural context in mind when we seek to re-create an historical image.  We can't transpose our very utilitarian notions into the 18th century.

Best Regards,

JMC

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2010, 07:06:45 AM »
I would humbly ask, how many have you actually seen and handled?  How do you date with certainty a long gun that carries no embellishment or standard furniture?  I've seen some very, very old barrels on "Shimmels."  Were these barrels perhaps restocked in "Shimmel" configuration?  How could you tell?  Can you establish to any scientific or acceptable historical research standards that what I have seen with my own eyes was not originally made that way, and made quite early?

I need to share that today the apprentices and I attended a gathering and were in the fine company of about a dozen of our state's finest builders.  This thread came up and was dismissed promptly as being based on insufficient evidence.  And that's the other side of the story from the home of the "Shimmel."  Incidentally, that term is a colloquialism used by some gun collectors to refer to a simple gun.  I question its etymology and avoid it personally.  That coming from one whose language is frequently colorful and occasionally substandard.  

You asked for thoughts.  These are just mine. 
« Last Edit: June 20, 2010, 07:11:38 AM by jwh1947 »

Offline stuart cee dub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2010, 07:44:58 AM »
I think you may have the truth by the tail Long John .

Not only do we transpose our values but I would add that virtually all the guns being built today are fantasy guns greater or lesser extent in the strictest sense. This may be an affront and truly I mean no disrespect to  the extremely high level of craftmanship exhibited by the  best contemporary  builders.  
Some of this as hinted at on another thread recently. Many of the current guns are finished to ''1860 standards'' which is to say very high standards indeed,much higher than 18th century standards .I think the thought was that that was what modern customers expected .And they do .They are us .

And  it goes further ..
We have the finest basic materials available a phone call or a few clicks away on the computer delivered to us in just a couple of days .
Pure sheet brass ,select woods, perfect steel barrels ,superbly fine files,abrasive papers, quality drills ,down to the electric lights in our shops which extend our nights into days .Even the quality of our healthcare which extended our lives long enough to perfect our craft instead of dying at 40 from being just worn out from the physical labor of trying to stay alive in a pre-industrial setting .

For most of us this is a hobby or started out as such , an avocation,something only the very rich (and eccentric) gentry could afford to indulge in once upon a time .(Wood turning was a popular way back when). Free time is only a recent by product. Ironically only hunter gatherers had free time like we have today ,at least when the hunting was good .At the top end, the visual lines of the new made stuff ,from an artistic standpoint, is better than the 18th century work.And while it is all inspired by the best of the old work to say it is ''recreating'' it may be part of the self delusion .It is all new stuff .

There is a parallel in art history in 19th century France where the very best work was being done at the time. Many of the best artists  were part of the Salon,they were all first rate painters , very popular,and well respected  .The Salon had a recognized set of standards in regards to how things were painted ,and subject matter  They looked down at the fringe painters who called themselves Impressionists  and the Realists  
We recognize names today like Cezanne ,Van Gogh, Matisse. All innovative but not recognized in their time .Those guys were not part of the Salon.
Most of us would be hard put to think of the names of any of the great Salon painters but have certainly heard of the names I just mentioned .The first two were commercial failures but brillaint artists
  
As gun builders  I doubt that the work done today constitutes art that will be recognized in the future as any kind of major art movement .Other than within our own little group, gun culture Artisans are more likely to be vilified than praised for what we spend our creative energies making.

Here in Minneapolis, at the Art Institute maybe eight or so years ago  under Evan Mauer,there was an excellent  exhibit of the some of best of the old  and the new contemporary makers work which toured the country.One of the local art critics called it a glorified ''gun show'' .Oh well.... some of us got it right off, some other learned that a lot of effort was made to make guns into works of art and some people count not be budged from their belief system as it threatened there entire world view.  

 What I liked best about this show is there was no effort made to show that the modern work was by any means historically correct ,the past was the inspiration but not the endgame .All the work of the contemporary makers of muzzleloaders was a fresh .All the works selected were all distinctive styles and this was on purpose I think . Hershel House was represented as was Frank House (two guys who have their own recognized school ) Jud Brennan had one of the most elaborately decorated gold embellished  longrifles I had ever seen or had ever been made in the 18th century .Wallace Gunsler  had one of his recently made Virginia guns there,but it had much racier lines and better looking  lot better looking than any Virginia gun I ever saw .

These guys are makers of the first order but we would have to agree that all the guns represented there would be called a fantasy guns .
Frankly that level of original work is beyond a lot of us casual builders .
And more importantly there has been a real trend recently towards historical accuracy and authenticity ,driven in part by historical re-creationists, living history types juried fairs etc. And that there are professional builders today who are are an extension
of that trend .That is a legitimate market which demands certain things. But perhaps in the big picture that to may be just another  passing phase like the  19th century French Salon.

I for one would love to see some more real honest fantasy guns  . Some of the best work I have seen recently has been southern mountain guns.
Or build something like Mr Getz's plain  barn guns which I think are one of the better studies in pure stock architecture unencumbered  by embellishment
that I have seen in a while .I would have liked to see the gun that inspired that series of guns .
18th century gunmakers were not free to pursue that style for numerous reasons bound by their market ,the conventions and their customers demands .

Since you are the ultimate enduser build what you want.
 

      
    
 
« Last Edit: June 20, 2010, 07:48:30 AM by stuart cee dub »

Offline smshea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 592
    • www.scottshearifles.com
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #22 on: June 20, 2010, 07:48:24 AM »
 Ive seen very plain guns that I would date rather early but cant say for sure are Rev war or PRE rev war. My educated guess from handling more than a few is that it is very possible they are that old...but no one can prove it.

 As to European trained gun builders building fancy guns for folks that want to put there best foot forward publicly by owning a gun at the extream end of what they can afford....Ill bet those builders built every one of those they could get paid for. The question is could they make a living here doing that? They seem pretty quick to adapt to what there local market could bare. Lots of Gentlemen and wealthy German farmers in Pa , but lots of working poor immigrants as well, many of which would be owning there first guns in the new world. Lots of immigrants heading into the frontier where" fancy"  would not only be unnecessary, but possibly a liability.  One would have to think that aesthetics might have been somewhat of an after thought for anything stocked up with the war effort in mind.  Again...I cant prove anything either   

northmn

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #23 on: June 20, 2010, 03:29:22 PM »
Even in modern rifles, we take certain embellishments for granted, such as a checkered stock.  I have an old Savage 340 that has a very nice walnut stock that is checkered.  Remington made a line of 721's that were not checkered and did not go over well.   Their replacement was an ugly press checkering, but it was checkered.  We expected those embellishments.  I have an old Stevens 22 that is a Shimmel of modern guns in that it has no buttplate and a very crude stock.
Whether or not a plain rifle existed would depend upon a market.  Rev or pre Rev guns were not as gaudy as the later "golden age" guns and had as basics carving and simpler patchboxes.  Rifles today, and I am sure back then, have to meet certain standards of function.  I am sure that before a rifle left a gunsmiths shop the lock had better spark, the trigger had better be reasonable and his barrels shoot.  We concentrate so much on the embellishments of the old longrifles today that we may forget that fact.  When reading Irwins book on Tennessee rifles, one hears his references to the lore of how well certain rifles shot.  These rifles did not make their reputations on shiny patchboxes.  Was there a market in a rural area for plain simple guns ???  How many survived that can be dated ???


DP

jwh1947

  • Guest
Re: Your thiughts on Shimmels
« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2010, 05:00:29 PM »
Scott, I agree with your assessment that some are old, but not pre-Rev.  Stuart, I like your thinking...a lot. 

Again, I know this will agitate, but the inquiry is serious.  How many pre-Rev guns are out there for evaluation?  How many have you examined in your own hands?  I live in the epicenter of good gun territory, and I have seen very few.  Many base their assumptions on but a few examples.  Simply stated, very few per-Rev guns have made it to the present day.

Something to consider. One can learn much from mutilated remains and shards of old guns, just like a pathologist does.  Reminds me of my old friend Dr. Hal Fillinger, former ME of Philadelphia who conducted over 7000 autopsies in his lifetime.  Above his work area was a sign in Latin.  Translated it said, "Here the dead teach the living."  We have learned much from broken-off forends, abandoned stocks and old locks.  Here there is no fantasy, just honest remains to be studied.

Please do not assume that most early guns were fancy.  They were anything but!  Remember Kindig, et al. cherry picked their pile of stuff and included only what they saw as the significant stand-outs.  He didn't photograph or keep the plain Janes, but they exist in significant numbers. 

I have always wondered, what did all of our "knock-out" examples look like 100 years ago, prior to them being worth mega-bucks?  Between 1960 and 1990 there were some absolute artists out there "rebuilding" and "enhancing" guns.  They, perhaps, should be listed as grand masters, because some of their handiwork is now being presented as old standards.  Most of these wizards are now long passed, peace be with their souls, but their work is still out there, mixed right in with the few originals.  One even won a big prize at a noted collectors' club one day, which is living proof that some supposedly knowledgeable "experts" don't know what they are looking at, or, simply don't care.