Who bought longrifles during the Golden Age?

[northmn]

Mention was made when the Lakota had their little misunderstanding in the 1860's in southern Minnesota that many of the settlers they attacked did not have guns. The common man if armed likely had an imported fowler that cost about one third to one fifth of a rifle.  Most people living in the Eastern area could manage with a smoothbore.  Also the militia units that young men were required to serve may have expeditied gun ownership, but generally a smoothbore.  Old Hickory was mentioned to be upset when he had recruits that showed up unarmed as he thought all men from Kentucky had a rifle a jug of whiskey and a deck of cards.  Another major cost back then was powder, whcih sold for about $1 a can.  Even if some owned guns they may not have been able to afford to shoot one.

DP 

[starrbow]

"Who were their bread and butter customers"

There is no good answer as to whom or class of people. I bet lots of Gunsmiths were very close in proximity to taverns, because taverns was the place for a meal and drink for the traveler, and taverns were located on wagon routes/roads of the time. So if you could answer the question who visited taverns? then you would know who then visited the gunshops. I can see it now, a traveler went to the tavern to eat and drink rum, after a long day traveling, he drank more then he ate, after his meal, he wonders over to the gunshop and spys the longrife of his dreams, so he starts to dicker with the smith on price, the smith smells the rum and being a shrewd horsetrader and devoted to God, shows no mercy and gets the traveler to loose his purse strings more so, then if he was not full of rum! The gunsmiths church will thank him on Sunday for that little extra in the offering plate!

[sonny]

my thoughts........If i was a wealthy landowner with many slaves an huge crops coming in,with a lot of time to hunt over fancy dogs,would certanly have a fancy adorned rifle or gun ,as if i could afford the best,i would buy the best.The inexpensive lack of fancy foo foo would not be on the list of things to get if a poorer farmer needed a rifle or shotgun to get along with there needs.I know if i was an indian.The guy with the fancy gun with neat bag an nifty horn or knife would be my first target.Thats for sure!The rich want the best toys,an the poor want to make do with what they have!....always did,an always will................I know this because i lived back then as i am reincarnated.This is my fourth time around!!!!.......sonny

[Artificer]

Who bought a long rifle?  I would suggest anyone who really believed he had the real or perceived need for one.  If it is that important, you find a way to afford one.  Sure, the less affluent would not have had the fancier guns that cost so much more.

I was glad to read Gary write about handing down guns in a family of father and sons.  That only makes sense and is something I've believed in for years.  I've also often wondered if the very affluent had guns made for young sons that were shorter to better fit them, and/or if some of the older guns were ever cut down for use as a "boy's rifle."  I don't think many guns were ever shortened down, but that's pure speculation on my part.

Also, thanks in part to a link Gary provided, we have now been able to document six members of the families we came from that were War of 1812 veterans from Virginia.  They registered their land grants from military service from that war in Illinois (2) and Iowa (4) from 1831 to as late as 1852. (For four of the six we already had documentation of the land grants, but we were able to better identify/document two of the others.)  I realize that proves nothing how far West veterans from the Rev War would have registered their land grants, but it may give us an idea that it could have been further west than many of us had thought before.  Our direct line of ancestors settled in Kentucky due to the land grants from the Rev War, though, and moved further West after the War of the Rebellion. 

Gus

[Dphariss]

"Who were their bread and butter customers"

There is no good answer as to whom or class of people. I bet lots of Gunsmiths were very close in proximity to taverns, because taverns was the place for a meal and drink for the traveler, and taverns were located on wagon routes/roads of the time. So if you could answer the question who visited taverns? then you would know who then visited the gunshops. I can see it now, a traveler went to the tavern to eat and drink rum, after a long day traveling, he drank more then he ate, after his meal, he wonders over to the gunshop and spys the longrife of his dreams, so he starts to dicker with the smith on price, the smith smells the rum and being a shrewd horsetrader and devoted to God, shows no mercy and gets the traveler to loose his purse strings more so, then if he was not full of rum! The gunsmiths church will thank him on Sunday for that little extra in the offering plate!

Bread and butter was likely repair work for many.
Taverns used to put on rifle matches. Draws a crowd.

I just cut a fairly elaborate design on a patch box lid.
Bow/arrow/tomahawk/quiver and a simple border. Plus a large 1/2 flower on the finial in front of the hinge.
Time from start to finish including figuring out what I was going to cut, drawing and redrawing, ungluing from the board I clamped in the vice and installing back in the buttstock. Just under 2 hrs 30 minutes. What would this add to the cost of a rifle in 1770? 2 bits maybe? I dunno. 2 bits was a pretty good chunk of change in 1770 yes. But if the rifle were going to cost 6-8 dollars would an en graved patchbox REALLY add that much?
And I am SLOW and had to draw everything from scratch or off a water stained drawing I had done 2-3 months ago.
So how much DID engraving, for example, cost relative the cost of the rifle?
According to Kindig gunsmiths took time payments.
Dan

[starrbow]

My question of building time was more directed to the Gunsmith who had to make the barrel and lock, it must have added at least 3/4 days on the build.

[northmn]

Sorry Dan I don't quite compute.  When you mentioned time payments did he mean charges for their time or time payment installments?  Both make sense to me and both may have been done.  Their may have been individual differences also, both in the gunsmiths and the buyers.  Today, some of the builders have a regular customer that likes their work and buys  more than one gun from them, likely happened back then also.  Also there may have likely been a second hand market.

DP

[Dphariss]

Sorry Dan I don't quite compute.  When you mentioned time payments did he mean charges for their time or time payment installments?  Both make sense to me and both may have been done.  Their may have been individual differences also, both in the gunsmiths and the buyers.  Today, some of the builders have a regular customer that likes their work and buys  more than one gun from them, likely happened back then also.  Also there may have likely been a second hand market.

DP

According to Kindig Reedy's estate was not paid for all work until after his death, a couple of years in some cases.

Dan

[rich pierce]

My question of building time was more directed to the Gunsmith who had to make the barrel and lock, it must have added at least 3/4 days on the build.

Very few individual gunsmiths (small shop; master and apprentice at most) made locks and barrels.  I cannot recall a documented instance.  Colonial Williamsburg did this to revive and demonstrate 18th century crafts, but there was no economic reason for an actual gunsmith in the 18th century to "do it all".  It's a popular myth that gunsmiths were isolated, backwoods, with no access to trade goods, and found it feasible and profitable to cut down trees, saw blanks, forge barrels, forge and finish locks, etc.  Barrels and locks and furniture were widely available wherever rifles were made in the Golden Age.

[northmn]

thank you Dan.  Some have stated that Dickert made locks for other smiths.  This implies to me that there may have also been some trading between smiths as locks for brass fittings, etc.  Personally I think a smith would have gone broke building all his parts.  For one thing, there is economy of scale in set up.  For instance if Dickert had the dies and lock making setups and another the foundary, they could both produce enough fittings to last for some time while set up.  Like Rich says, there would be no economic reason for the smith to do it all and would be poor production technique if he did. Some things could be more economically accomplished by a local blacksmith.  Even the Southern rifles used imported locks.  As I stated, we are also more used to a money economy.  many fo these areas were both barter and money.  Paper money was not trusted and coin had better be made out of the right stuff.  The "average joe" in a lot of areas did not see a lot of cash.

DP   

[flintriflesmith]

Very few individual gunsmiths (small shop; master and apprentice at most) made locks and barrels.  I cannot recall a documented instance.  Colonial Williamsburg did this to revive and demonstrate 18th century crafts, but there was no economic reason for an actual gunsmith in the 18th century to "do it all".  It's a popular myth that gunsmiths were isolated, backwoods, with no access to trade goods, and found it feasible and profitable to cut down trees, saw blanks, forge barrels, forge and finish locks, etc.  Barrels and locks and furniture were widely available wherever rifles were made in the Golden Age.

Locks were certainly imported in quantity and widely available. To me barrels are another issue entirely. Of course the "Golden Age" spans a long period and circumstances varied from place to place but it appears to me that many gunsmiths in that period were welding their own barrels, having them bored at a water powered boring mill and then doing their own rifling. There could be a lot of discussion about this and maybe it needs to become a separate thread.

Gary

[Jesse168]

"The Golden Age" how did it come about?  I believe it came about just as did the time right after World War II.  The American Revolution was over and time had eased the pain and suffering from the War.  People were free to spend their money on themselves instead of supporting Independance.

We all have either experanced or been told about the hardships before and during WWII.  I believe it was even greater during the American Revolution period.  Most of us remember how great it was for workers in the 50's and 60's compared to now.  

After the Revolution, America was on it's own and feared that it could still be taken over by some other country.  France, Spain, Germany and other countries wanted what England had lost.  These countries were established manufacturing worlds that had already offered goods to us but England had mostly stopped their shipments to us.  Now the America was open to them without restrictions for now.  Later restrictions were placed as tariffs to support Northern Industry.

Barrels, locks, tools, and all esentials that most blacksmiths weren't set up to make cheeply became readly available.  Manufacturing began to expand like never before in the Northeastern States.   With the expansion SOME people were able to purchase their dreams.  Women could buy materials for a new dress or finally put drapes over the windows instead of shutters.
Men would evenutally buy a new buggy, wagon or farm equipment to expand their crops.  With the War over people were able to get back to work instead of serving their Colony.   With all this growth the sons of large farmers, bankers, businessmen, Railroad men could buy with thier wages a fine rifle just as our kids have done in buying a fancy camaro, firebird, mustang, etc.  Also there use to be a tradition of giving either a fine gold watch or a fancy rifle at retirement for that long trusted employee.

With women working outside the household it gave families more money for the things they needed and wanted.  Old Dad could finally purchase a new gun to replace the well used one that he had traded for or bought for self defence and hunting.  He was finally able to fill the dream of owning the Cadillac of his dreams.  Others would purchase a fine gun to replace the one they had abused so badly fighting for their independance...by now it would have been repaired several times to the point it was better to replace than keep patching.

This is just a different viewpoint.  

[longcruise]

Who were their bread and butter customers.

Peter Alexander presents an interesting theory in his Recreating the American Longrifle.  He suggests that native americans were major customers.  These would have been indians engaged in the fur trade which was lucrative throughout the colonial and later periods.  He proposes that a successful native trapper/hunter had considerable disposable income and that they demanded quality guns and could afford nicely decorated ones.

[northmn]

Native American were a large customer, but they had no cash.  This was the period of the Fur Trade industry where both Americans and the HBC were competing over Indian trade.  The term cut throat competition actually fits in this era.  Trading posts were set up in prime areas and furs and hides became cash.  I saw a value once for what furs could buy and what equaled what.  The term buck for money came out of this situation with a buck referring to a deer hide.  NWTG was equal to 20 beaver hides or equivalent, other values were placed on other items.  The trade rifles I mentioned earlier as made by a few Pennsylvania makers were native and trapper oriented items and were not Golden Age weapons. 
What kicked off this period was the beginning of the industrial revolution.  We were benefitting from foreign immigrants that brought their knowledge of manufacturing over with them.  Eli Whitney introduced the milling machine to the Americans through some collaboration with a Frenchman at about 1800.  Contract military arms were made by people like Whitney as were trade rifles by people like Deringer of Henry.  The Harper's Ferry Armory had a stock duplicating machine (not as efficient as today's but it permitted a "precarved")  Remington started manufacturing barrels around 1820 through water powered machine tools.  The Golden Age gunsmith had a product that differed from the more consistently produced rifles as for the fur trade.  There was also a larger import market for things like English locks.  I could postulate either rightly or wrongly that the Golden Age gunsmith had more time to spend on  refinements and extras similar to a kit gun buyer today.  While they did not have "kits" they did not have to quite follow as many steps as the smiths before 1800.

DP

[Kermit]

I suspect that the research to answer the original question might prove onerous. Interesting, but tedious. Perhaps locating a documentable ledger or diary of a known 'smith listing gun sales with customer names, and then researching to learn more about each of those customers? I further suspect this will happen about the time hades ices over. Still, it produces some right interesting chatter. I'm enjoying this thread.

[Dphariss]

Native American were a large customer, but they had no cash.  This was the period of the Fur Trade industry where both Americans and the HBC were competing over Indian trade.  The term cut throat competition actually fits in this era.  Trading posts were set up in prime areas and furs and hides became cash.  I saw a value once for what furs could buy and what equaled what.  The term buck for money came out of this situation with a buck referring to a deer hide.  NWTG was equal to 20 beaver hides or equivalent, other values were placed on other items.  The trade rifles I mentioned earlier as made by a few Pennsylvania makers were native and trapper oriented items and were not Golden Age weapons. 
What kicked off this period was the beginning of the industrial revolution.  We were benefitting from foreign immigrants that brought their knowledge of manufacturing over with them.  Eli Whitney introduced the milling machine to the Americans through some collaboration with a Frenchman at about 1800.  Contract military arms were made by people like Whitney as were trade rifles by people like Deringer of Henry.  The Harper's Ferry Armory had a stock duplicating machine (not as efficient as today's but it permitted a "precarved")  Remington started manufacturing barrels around 1820 through water powered machine tools.  The Golden Age gunsmith had a product that differed from the more consistently produced rifles as for the fur trade.  There was also a larger import market for things like English locks.  I could postulate either rightly or wrongly that the Golden Age gunsmith had more time to spend on  refinements and extras similar to a kit gun buyer today.  While they did not have "kits" they did not have to quite follow as many steps as the smiths before 1800.

DP

By the 1840s at least factorys and such could and did, make stocks that wer "snap fits" for the parts and were basically finished size.
Todays precarves are crude by comparison.

Dan

[Mad Monk]

Very few individual gunsmiths (small shop; master and apprentice at most) made locks and barrels.  I cannot recall a documented instance.  Colonial Williamsburg did this to revive and demonstrate 18th century crafts, but there was no economic reason for an actual gunsmith in the 18th century to "do it all".  It's a popular myth that gunsmiths were isolated, backwoods, with no access to trade goods, and found it feasible and profitable to cut down trees, saw blanks, forge barrels, forge and finish locks, etc.  Barrels and locks and furniture were widely available wherever rifles were made in the Golden Age.

Locks were certainly imported in quantity and widely available. To me barrels are another issue entirely. Of course the "Golden Age" spans a long period and circumstances varied from place to place but it appears to me that many gunsmiths in that period were welding their own barrels, having them bored at a water powered boring mill and then doing their own rifling. There could be a lot of discussion about this and maybe it needs to become a separate thread.

Gary

The area of Berks County now known as Mohnton was noted for barrel making shops along the Wyomissing Creek.  Barrel production began sometime between the F&I War and the Rev War.  The Pannabecker family having owned several shops.  These were water powered trip hammer shops.

Baird's book on Hawken Rifles shows one rifle with the barrel stamped "H Reeds" Reading PA.  This stamp was actually H. Deeds.  This was around 1834-35.

Not all wrought iron produced was suitable for gun barrels.  Harper's Ferry had tried using barrels produced from Juniata iron.  A large number of them failed proof.  The best barrels were produced from magnatite iron ore.  Those produced from hematite ores were marginal.

Forges working with trip hammers and specalizing in barrels could turn out a fair number of barrels in a day.  Many of these barrel shops also made files when the barrel business was slow.

[northmn]

By the 1840s at least factorys and such could and did, make stocks that wer "snap fits" for the parts and were basically finished size.
Todays precarves are crude by comparison.

Dan
[/quote]

I didn't think they had that close of tolerances but probably close enough.  Didn't Colt start manufacturing the Paterson about 1836?  Depends on opinion I guess but to me the revolvers were a little more complex than the rifles.

DP

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Very few individual gunsmiths (small shop; master and apprentice at most) made locks and barrels.  I cannot recall a documented instance.  Colonial Williamsburg did this to revive and demonstrate 18th century crafts, but there was no economic reason for an actual gunsmith in the 18th century to "do it all".  It's a popular myth that gunsmiths were isolated, backwoods, with no access to trade goods, and found it feasible and profitable to cut down trees, saw blanks, forge barrels, forge and finish locks, etc.  Barrels and locks and furniture were widely available wherever rifles were made in the Golden Age.

Locks were certainly imported in quantity and widely available. To me barrels are another issue entirely. Of course the "Golden Age" spans a long period and circumstances varied from place to place but it appears to me that many gunsmiths in that period were welding their own barrels, having them bored at a water powered boring mill and then doing their own rifling. There could be a lot of discussion about this and maybe it needs to become a separate thread.

Gary

The area of Berks County now known as Mohnton was noted for barrel making shops along the Wyomissing Creek.  Barrel production began sometime between the F&I War and the Rev War.  The Pannabecker family having owned several shops.  These were water powered trip hammer shops.

Baird's book on Hawken Rifles shows one rifle with the barrel stamped "H Reeds" Reading PA.  This stamp was actually H. Deeds.  This was around 1834-35.

Not all wrought iron produced was suitable for gun barrels.  Harper's Ferry had tried using barrels produced from Juniata iron.  A large number of them failed proof.  The best barrels were produced from magnatite iron ore.  Those produced from hematite ores were marginal.

Forges working with trip hammers and specalizing in barrels could turn out a fair number of barrels in a day.  Many of these barrel shops also made files when the barrel business was slow.

Mad Monk, I am not from PA nor do I know a lot about the area, but I was digging through  some Lancaster County records online last year and saw that there were many mills being built in the area of Conestoga in the early 1700s....I did see a notice that a Swiss named Henri Leman  who arrived in 1714 had a barrel mill on the river in 1718.....So maybe barrels were being manufactured quite early?

[Artificer]

I'm not sure in what book I have or have read,  but it had a ledger/account book of at least one gunsmith in what I remember as being in the Rev War or slightly later time period.  There were a LOT of entries for mending things other than guns, including mending at least one iron spyder.  (Three legged skillet aka "spider.")  The pay for most of these entries seemed to have been barter items, though I believe the gunsmith put the value of the work down in money and then what he accepted for it in barter. 

I thought it may have been in "The Gunsmith in Colonial Virginia," by Harold Gill, Jr and copyrighted in 1974, but it is not in there.  It does have some estates of gunsmiths and that's interesting information.
Gus

[flintriflesmith]

Mad Monk, I am not from PA nor do I know a lot about the area, but I was digging through  some Lancaster County records online last year and saw that there were many mills being built in the area of Conestoga in the early 1700s....I did see a notice that a Swiss named Henri Leman  who arrived in 1714 had a barrel mill on the river in 1718.....So maybe barrels were being manufactured quite early?

A "barrel mill" did not necessarily make barrels. The term mill would have often referred to a place that used water power to bore barrels forged in other shops or by the individual gunsmiths at their shops. (Several boring mills were combined operations that used the same sluice way and water wheel to grind grain after harvest time.)

A place that used water power to operate a trip hammer was usually called a "forge," as in Valley Forge, Providence Forge, Clifton Forge, etc.
Gary

[54ball]

 A very short answer is ..... the middle class.

There is more to that than it seems.  A hunter, farmer, or pioneer were of the rapidly emerging American middle class.  Of course the rich also bought these rifles but they were primarily a middle class weapon.

[longcruise]

Native American were a large customer, but they had no cash.  This was the period of the Fur Trade industry where both Americans and the HBC were competing over Indian trade.

That's undoubtedly true, but I would suggest that the closer one was to the frontier, the more likely that barter would be essential to any craftsmans success.  Not all fur trading was conducted with the fur companies.  Many frontiersman became fur traders by default.  While the fur companies  may have kept a stock of "trade rifles" on hand to facilitate trading with indians,  I expect much trading took place on a very local basis with indians bringing in local fur and fresh meat to trade for whatever they deemed neccessary.  These indians would have been familiar with local smiths and their products and would probably prefer an nicely made longrifle to a common trade gun.  This in contrast to the inidans engaged in fur trading beyond the edge of white civilization who were able to trade only for what was brought west by the fur companies.

Fur traders in the west found very quickly that the indians demanded quality in the rifles and smooth guns shipped west specificaly for trade purposes.  Company men in the west were known to complain that their bankrollers in the east had sent trade guns of a poor quality that were rejected by the indians and therefore resulting in lost trade opportunities as those indians looked elsewhere for better quality.

[Mike R]

Who were their bread and butter customers.

Peter Alexander presents an interesting theory in his Recreating the American Longrifle.  He suggests that native americans were major customers.  These would have been indians engaged in the fur trade which was lucrative throughout the colonial and later periods.  He proposes that a successful native trapper/hunter had considerable disposable income and that they demanded quality guns and could afford nicely decorated ones.

If I recall Pete's quote, he was referring to the early American rifle development period, not the Golden Age.  I think there is a little truth in his statement, but not the whole story. Indians certainly were clients for rifles as early as the 1740s. One report of PA Rangers during the F&I War [ca. 1756 quote] indicates the capture of rifles and fusils from French -led Indians in PA--the rifles were undoubtedly from PA. So who bought Golden Age rifles?  I think of these rifles as high works of art and they were pricey in their day.  Old records indicate that plain rifles cost about half that of fine rifles. My hypothesis is that the working stiff--backwoods hunter-farmer, etc., mostly bought the plainer rifles [or shotguns] and the fancy Golden Age rifles went mainly to the more well-to-do in both settled and frontier areas. There may be some truth however to the 'fad' hypothesis that frontier types liked the fancy guns and would pay for them.  I like to remember Dan Boone's experiences through the pre-and post onset of the Golden Age, when he lost about 5 rifles over the years to Indian theft--that [plus his Quaker upbringing] might suggest he took to plain less expensive rifles.  Late in life he and his youngest son were robbed by Indians once again out in Missouri and he stated that his son lost a fine new rifle, but his was of no account.  The rough use of a gun on the frontier argues for plainer types.

[longcruise]

First off, I completely misrepresented my source.  Should always engage the brain before typing.  The correct reference is Alexander's Gunsmith of Grenville County.  You are correct in that his beginning references are more about the early period of the longrifle.  The discussion does begin to edge into the later part of the century, however.

There is considerable discussion and some documentation to the effect that the indians were demanding well made and decorated "rifle guns", along with the speculation that shipping invoices of the period reflect that the dominant "fur" or hide in shipment were deer skins by a large margin.  Deer of course are shot as opposed to trapped.