The Firearm was just a tool, but a very needed tool, as was a tomahawk/hatchet/knife.
IMHO most firearms were just simple plain working guns, the fancy ones were the exceptions and were not as popular because of cost, I'm sure everyone wanted one, it's no different today, there are more plain jane blackpowder guns sold then fancy ones.
I look at it this way, as time went on and the American longrifle went out of style a simple plain gun got forgotton about because it was not pretty to look at, it was just like any other old tool, thrown in a corner to rot. But! a fancy gun was a sight to behold, it was beautiful and it had soul, it was art, it showed the love of the builder and there for people keep them and admired them for what they were.
In many books you can tell by the pictures, some fancy guns were used, alot, but most were not! I'm thankful for that, it gives use today fine examples to look at!
Points to ponder and I really don't know what the answer really is.
The survivors were not used as much perhaps or did not get broken. We have not the slightest idea of what the typical rifle of 1785-1810 really looked like. It is, however, obvious that there was a pretty good market for carved guns with brass boxes.
But then we have the spectre of people upgrading guns in the 20th century.
The Antes Swivel, for example, was a VERY expensive rifle, probably 12-15 pounds or 40 dollars and it shows a lot of use.
As I pointed out previous, an 1880s Cowboy making 20-40 a month might ride a $100 saddle and have other expensive gear. The leather gear, saddles etc was generally HAND TOOLED at least to some extent. Why would a what was the "common laborer" of the west, who might not even own his own horse, ride a fancy saddle that was no more serviceable than a plain one? If working hard they had a string of horses they rotated through. I knew a lady who grew up in the American west born sometime around 1900-1910 we calculate. I asked her about the cowboys not breaking riding horses till they were 5-6 years old. She said yes this was true "but they rode them awful hard". A young horse simply could not stand the work.
The fancy saddle, headstall and such was STATUS SYMBOL. It was a FASHION statement. Why else have long tapaderos for example? These things were/are still functional works of art. This is pretty well documented and you can find it in some of Charlie Russell's stories.
I think the decorated longrifle filled the same need.
Long/market/hide hunters were not the poor, they could and I suspect did make pretty good money so assuming they all had plain rifles because they could not afford a better one is surely not correct in all instances. Nor is a high grade gun somehow less useful/durable than a plain one. In fact a buttplate and forend cap greatly enhances durability. So we have to ask just how much use were those "barn guns" actually put to?
There are several possible conclusions, plain guns did not survive in the same percentages and the better grade guns, probably true. They did not make as many plain guns as we might think.
Some guns were better maintained over the years regardless of actual usage.
A rifle was 4-5 times more expensive than the smoothbore even if plain. The barrel was where the money was, far more iron and much more work. So a brass box and some carving was not near as big a deal.
Some seem to assume that rifle makers would keep low grade guns in stock that they could then upgrade. Why would they? Or that they made guns in the white. Why?
I would tend to keep a high end gun in stock given the choice. Upgrading a finished gun is a PITA more work that making it that way to begin with.
Is a maker going to finish a gun and leave it hang on the wall with excess wood etc so he can carve it later?
Americans today are notoriously cheap, in general, when it comes to firearms. But not everyone.
Also one must not confuse the 18th century American rifle with the 19th Century mass produced Lemans etc, some of which were also pretty fancy. But much cheaper than the individual could make.
We have to look at what the rifle was EXPECTED to be in 1770 to get a feel for what the American rifle was at the time. Was it EXPECTED to have a patchbox, some carving etc?
Bottom line.
What you owned and wore told people WHO you were AND what YOU thought of yourself.
This WAS important and I think needs to be considered.
To carry this on a little farther.
I see the modern fad of aged guns and accouterments as the equivalent of the kids running around in ragged, holed blue jeans. Stuff I would not have been allowed to go out into public in when I was a kid in the 1950s since it would have reflected badly on my MOTHER especially and my FATHER for not providing better. Something that seems to have been lost in the hippie culture of the 60s and 70s.
Dan
