Can anyone tell me anything about this rifle?

[chc]

My wife's family story is that her grandfather found this gun in the woods in Lancaster Pa. many years ago. It is a full stocked Pennsylvania type rifle. I measured the caliber at the muzzle and it was about .39 inches. The barrel has the initials J.L. on it and other than some simple scroll work on the lock and hammer has no other marks I can find. I do know there was a rifle maker named Joseph Long, but examples of his that I have seen have more inlays and accoutrement's than this rifle. This rifle is plain and doesn't even have a patchbox in it. I have included some pictures, any help in providing information about this gun that I can share with her family would be greatly appreciated.

[nord]

My first impression is that your rifle is, indeed, a Joe Long. That "football" sideplate more or less seals the deal. Probably Joe's version of a Poor Boy. Plain, utilitarian, and still a very nice rifle.

[Tanselman]

Nord, Joe Long never stocked a gun in such an awkward fashion in his life. Perhaps his barrel, not his stocking. Shelby Gallien

[nord]

Shelby,

After looking at the photos once again...

Barrel is not in question as far as I can tell. Trigger group is what I'd expect. Muzzle treatment seems right. Same with the trigger guard.

I noted the cheekpiece but assumed it was more the photo than the stock itself. Same with the comb as I assumed perspective and not the actual piece.

Given the overall plainness of the gun, I can't say the lack of a patchbox would surprise me. That the gun is signed does somewhat causes me to rethink. Then again, Joe signed his rifles more often than not.

If the photos truly represent the architecture of the stock, then I'll have to agree with you. More to the point the cheekpiece. I just can't quite believe that it's as awkward as depicted in the photo.

In any case a rifle without much artistic flair and without a patchbox. The signature helps, but in truth this isn't a rifle I'd spend a lot of time analyzing. If the photos correctly represent the gun, then I agree. An assembly of components. If the perspective was thrown off, then likely an economy model by old Joe. 

[chc]

Maybe I can provide a few more photos of the cheeck piece/stock of the rifle because the picture doesn't quite do it justice. In fact when I first picked up the gun  the cheek piece and curvature of the grip and stock was something I found intersting. I'm off to work now but will upload those pics later. Thank you for your input so far.

[Don Getz]

Interesting gun.    Has some Joe Long parts on it, but, there is no way that he built it.   Appears to have one of his signed
barrels on it, the side plate, trigger guard and trigger appear to be correct, but after that, it is just too clunky to be made
by him.   Even the buttplate is set at a crazy angle.   Joe Long had rather big sideplates, but not this big.   It could be a
re-stock, but done many years ago.   This "Kentucky Rifle" and "Lancaster" seem to be magical things to the novice, or
unknowing, they seem to go together.  Looks like someone concocted this story, probably many years ago and it  just was
carried forward.  At this point there is no way of knowing where this gun may have been made.    I would be curious as to
where the current owner lives.............Don

[Don Getz]

After going back up and looking at this gun, how about this for some conjecture.    The general architecture of this gun is
somewhat that of a Joe Long.    I think he probably had the original stock, but busted up, to copy from and he copied in
in somewhat the same manner as one might be done today by a complete novice.  Possible??............Don

[nord]

Don,

Depending on what a good set of photos tell I might be convinced... Or not.

I base some of this on the Angstadt Poor Boy featured in the library. Certainly an Angstadt, but not one you might readily pick out if not signed. (He cut some corners.)

All in all not a huge deal here. A utilitarian rifle signed by old Joe. If it was heavily carved or inlaid and sported a nice patchbox, then I'd wish to get into the finer details.

As it stands we have a good example of a working rifle. As long as it doesn't morph into something it's not I have no problems with the gun. And if restocked, it was done in period... Which is part of its history. And while many of us place a high value on originality, most of us also appreciate an example that carries hints of its use and value to an owner over decades of time.

As stated by the gun's owner... Interesting!

[Tanselman]

There is a big difference between a "poor boy" type rifle made by a good maker, which usually retains the architectire of his better guns but omits parts and artistic details to reduce cost, and a "clunker" like this. I don't believe any quality gunmaker would put together a low cost rifle that might embarass himself. It may be a low cost gun, but it still shows his hand, and skills, in the stocking. To me, this is an obvious restock of an earlier, good quality rifle, and restocked by a much less competent stocker/maker. The quality of the triggers and guard, and even the height of the grip rail off the wood, suggest the parts are earlier than the stock. Look at those late percussion side leaves, big enough to serve dinner on, then look at the side leaves on the plainest Joe Long rifles known. No comparison. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck, or in this case an uninspired restock of a much better, earlier rifle. Shelby Gallien

[chc]

Here are the additional pictures I said I would provide (there are a bunch). Again I want to thank everyone for their input.

[nord]

Well Shelby... You're diplomatic as usual.

I don't dislike this gun nearly as much as you and I'd like to see better photos before I decide that some of the features aren't a matter of perspective.

I certainly agree that there are features here which would be unexpected on a Long. Should this gun be more high end I'd spend more effort worrying. As it stands the gun is largely a tribute to the value its utility represented over many decades.

Then again I tend to appreciate NY rifles... SOUTHERN NY RIFLES!

[nord]

Just viewed the photos. They were placed while I was writing... OUCH!

Shall we say that whomever stocked this rifle wasn't an artisan, however we must give him credit for building (rebuilding) a firearm that has survived for many decades.

[Loudy]

Regarding the gun in question here.  The multiple holes in the back of the buttplate may also be indicative of a possible restock.  One of these holes may have originally been for a Snyder County or Berks County type patchbox release stud.  The roman-nose stock profile also point to a central PA origin.        

Mark Loudenslager

[smshea]

 I cant say I would know if this is Joe Long or not as I have not handled a great many of his guns. I would like to see some close ups of the more critical areas of the gun.
 It always amazes me when something like this shows up that sends up all the 'Restock' flares but the guy(whoever stocked it) managed to get the inlets done in a fair manner, someone Else's set triggers in and working etc. and then seems to miss the mark on architecture by a football field or more. Maybe its just me, but I have to scratch my head at things like this and ask myself: the guy obviously had the ability to make the gun work, If its a restock, he likely did not have much if any of the original rifle in front of him or the gun would look closer to the known work of the original maker. He must have seen some guns ,as he has the working knowledge to put it together, so why does it not look like anything else. I'm not drawing conclusions, just thinking out loud.
 I have a few guns in my picture files that make me ask the same questions.         

[Spotz]

Joe Long had several sons, including Jesse, that built guns, but it is my understanding that they did not quite inherit their father's talents.  With that said, someone once told me that a Joe Long that sorta looks like a Long but isn't quite right may be a Jesse Long or one of his other sons' work.  Here, there are some Long features and it doesn't quite look right to me--maybe a second generation Long?  With that said, this is still someone's family rifle and I wouldn't be too quick beat this up--I can appreciate it. 

[bgf]

The way the lock is canted, it looks like the stocker might have been used to mule-ear locks.  Its a pretty amazing rifle in its own way, as it sometimes seems like nit picking when people are critiqued on the size of their lock panels, leaving too much wood on the fore-end, or awkward cheek piece placement.  This one should be in the museum (clearly marked with warning labels) just to point out what happens when you really ignore all that .

[smshea]

  With that said, this is still someone's family rifle and I wouldn't be too quick beat this up--I can appreciate it. 

I could not agree more and I apologize if the owner got the impression that I don't like it, quite the contrary, Ive learned to appreciate every rifle as a stand alone piece rather than comparing it to the  pieces we see as standards. Someone worked hard on this at some point. It just provokes questions ...and that's good!

[nord]

Spotz,

I thank you for your insightful and sensitive comments. Someone or a long list of someones thought this a worthy rifle. You understand this fact and it's perhaps more important than great beauty as artistic merit didn't (and doesn't) always place food on a table.

I believe we all agree that this piece doesn't exemplify a level of artistry we'd expect from a master. Still, so many features point to a Long connection. Perhaps not Joe but another Long. This is something I don't know.

What I'm getting at is that we sometimes treat a submission as if the owner were trying to sell or we to buy. It's no sin for us to opine as to why this gun is not the product of "our" Joe Long because we strive for the truth, but the gun nevertheless deserves a bit of respect as does the family who owns it whether this rifle be truly a Long or a mere compilation of parts.

Once again I'll point out that this is not a high dollar gun. Perhaps a restock. Perhaps a product of a relative of old Joe. In any case familiar components seemingly put together in an unfamiliar form.  An abomination it seems for some of us. Others appreciate the fact that whomever did the work did an excellent job from a technical standpoint. In my opinion this is a fine utilitarian rifle. While not a piece that I'd seek to collect, I'd be willing to bet it would have an interesting history.

We once made a mistake when vetting a rifle for the Library & Museum. It was obviously a compilation of reused components, but an honest rifle all the same. I regret to this day that we didn't promote it to exhibit status because it exemplified the importance placed by a family on a good rifle. They hadn't a care whether Joe Long or George Schroyer made it as long as it did what a rifle should have done. There's room for this type of gun and it deserves our respect.

And to be clear... This is not intended to lecture nor insult any of my friends here. It's more along the lines of observing how differently we see the same object and how different our individual reactions seem to be.

Quite interesting really.

[smshea]

Spotz,

I thank you for your insightful and sensitive comments. Someone or a long list of someones thought this a worthy rifle. You understand this fact and it's perhaps more important than great beauty as artistic merit didn't (and doesn't) always place food on a table.

I believe we all agree that this piece doesn't exemplify a level of artistry we'd expect from a master. Still, so many features point to a Long connection. Perhaps not Joe but another Long. This is something I don't know.

What I'm getting at is that we sometimes treat a submission as if the owner were trying to sell or we to buy. It's no sin for us to opine as to why this gun is not the product of "our" Joe Long because we strive for the truth, but the gun nevertheless deserves a bit of respect as does the family who owns it whether this rifle be truly a Long or a mere compilation of parts.

Once again I'll point out that this is not a high dollar gun. Perhaps a restock. Perhaps a product of a relative of old Joe. In any case familiar components seemingly put together in an unfamiliar form.  An abomination it seems for some of us. Others appreciate the fact that whomever did the work did an excellent job from a technical standpoint. In my opinion this is a fine utilitarian rifle. While not a piece that I'd seek to collect, I'd be willing to bet it would have an interesting history.

We once made a mistake when vetting a rifle for the Library & Museum. It was obviously a compilation of reused components, but an honest rifle all the same. I regret to this day that we didn't promote it to exhibit status because it exemplified the importance placed by a family on a good rifle. They hadn't a care whether Joe Long or George Schroyer made it as long as it did what a rifle should have done. There's room for this type of gun and it deserves our respect.

And to be clear... This is not intended to lecture nor insult any of my friends here. It's more along the lines of observing how differently we see the same object and how different our individual reactions seem to be.

Quite interesting really.

 Well said.....Bravo!

[California Kid]

Maybe Joe drank too many Yuenglings while working on this one!

[chc]

Again I want to thank everyone for their input. I understand stories like this one get changed and twisted as they are passed down but one fact I do know is that it has been in my wife's family for a long time. My wife's mother is in her late eighties and always remembers that gun in her home. That her father "found it in the woods" may be suspect but is part of the attraction this gun has held for this family for so many years. Again thank you all for your comments, I at least have something to share with them (the gun may have been originally made by Joseph Long but it has likely been restocked prior to them acquiring it and that the original maker probably lived near where they did). This is more information than they had which was nothing.

[Don Getz]

Some of you may recall the name Dallas Ewing, a collector and descendent of Joe Long.    He died way too soon from cancer.   He and my brother Dick looked at a lot of Joe Long rifles, Dallas owned some.  They did a lot of research on Joe,
and I can remember them talking about his family.   Joe Long, like so many families of that time, had a lot of children, and
some died as infants.   They did occassionally run into a Long rifle that was not up to par, and it was their thinking that it
may have been made duriing one of those times when he was in mourning from the loss of a child.   Just something else
to enter into the equation............Don

[nord]

Don,

I hadn't considered this and should have.

I did a lot of research on my William Lloyd rifle after discovering no other remotely like it and never having seen another signed example. After speaking to family members it all became more clear.

Lloyd lost two young sons on the same day in 1839. Probably typhus or some other sort of virulent bug going around at that time. Family tends to agree that Lloyd seems to have lost all interest in gunmaking after that date.

I can't imagine the devastation the loss of a child would cause, let alone two on the same day. While I'm not sure this is the case with the Long rifle we've been discussing, I can certainly appreciate how Long's gift for artistry might have been drained to a point where about the best one could expect was a mechanically sound rifle.

In which case I might be more correct than I could ever have imagined when I said "Poor Boy". Correct, but not in the intended context.

Thanks for the input. We'll likely never know the facts here, but your commentary puts flesh and blood back into just a name. Perhaps we've done Joe proud.