I also think there is allot of confusion about PC/HC.
Oh that's for sure. There were a few renown gun-wrights. The tendency is to think of the finest piece left existing is the typical gun. Nope, the typical gun wasn't carved, didn't have a patch-box, had no brass doo-dads. It was hammered out by the local blacksmith. It was a tool for harvesting dinner, the farmer wasn't paying for "optional equipment" that didn't make it kill more efficiently. These "barrels strapped on a strong bit of wood" guns were the common gun and more historically correct.
It's a bit like saying a stretch limo would be the historically correct example of personal transportation of the late 20th century.; when really it is the Ford Taurus or the like.
Guns were like recipes for spaghetti sauce, everybody had their own idea of what works.
This is going to depend on the era. A blacksmith could build a gun probably. It would likely look like it was made by a blacksmith as well. Lots of people were stocking muskets during the Revolution who were not trained gunstockers. Some of these musket reflect this.
Some believe that people like this making guns after the war were part of the reason that the Golden Age guns were built.
Carving was cheap. Most wooden articles were carved in the mid-18th century. Even the Brown Bess had carving around the tang. I suspect that even plain guns had mouldings and perhaps some carving in other places.
If the gunstocker had a plane or scratch stock that formed the forestock moulding it was no more work to put on a moulding than not. And many plain rifles have such mouldings.
It was how things were done. Wood was carved.
This was abandoned in the late 18th- early 19th century, wood carving disappeared on furniture and other items, it was considered old fashioned and in America it finally died out on guns. The English duelers were starkly plain in many cases even in 1780s if not before..
Also what you wore and what you owned helped to set you position in society. It did not matter who you were if you dressed poorly and your other possessions were shoddy it indicated you were the lower rung of society.
Especially if you were travelling and were unknown to people.
If a person arrived who looked like a runaway bound servant he might be detained until his identity was known.
If the stranger was dressed like a gentleman and carried a fine rifle he would likely be treated like a gentleman even if he were a pauper in actuality.
So people had the best they could afford. And they could barter for rifles and even pay them off over time.
A rifle was expensive so adding 10c or 20c for carving was not a big deal I suspect. After all even the imported indian trade rifles of the 1780s were carved. They also came in 3 grades and the lower grade rifle was the poorest seller. Apparently the Natives of the 1780s did not like the cheaper less well finished rifles either. Apparently they felt that a long rifle was carved and had a patchbox. This indicates that this is what they were used to seeing and using. Before 1780 or so the Indian rifles were usually American made so its likely that the "typical" American rifles the natives were using before the Rev-War cut British access to American rifles were carved and had "boxes" at least in the majority of cases..
Dan
