What school / style?

[mudcat dale]

Not sure where to post this but I'll try here.

Would like to build a rifle similar to what may have been used by some of my family pre revolutionary war.  They were in Virginia during from sometime after 1680 until shortly prior to 1750. 

Can anyone tell me what style/school of rifle they might have been likely to use?  I would like to know in order to be able to do some more research.

Thanks,
Dale

[Chris Treichel]

Where in Virginia where they located?

[mudcat dale]

They were in Norfolk county ..... eastern Virginia, Chesapeake area I believe.

[Chris Treichel]

More likely they would have owned fowlers in the eastern areas.

[Chris Treichel]

Seems there has been an extensive discussion about Virginia Rifles here
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=10985.0

[mudcat dale]

Thanks, I see that I have extreme amounts of learning to do.

Dale

[rich pierce]

Take your time and keep in mind that in the very early period, "schools" or styles were not yet well established.  Very early rifles don't necessarily have hallmarks that help us say "came from Virginia" or "came from Pennsylvania" because next to none of them are signed and there are so few as to provide a poor sampling.

Prior to 1750, an imported rifle might be considered also.

The comment that a fowling piece or trade gun may be suitable was a good one as well.

Wallace Gusler just had an article in either Muzzle Blasts or Muzzleloading magazine (will check) about an early, large bore, colonial stocked rifle that is believed to have come from the Carolinas.  It has English musket styling, a recycled French or Liege lock and sideplate, a fowler style guard and buttplate if I recall. It's also shown in Shumway's Rifles of Colonial America Volume 2 under "rifles with military connections".  He's going to teach a class somewhere soon where students will build that rifle.  Hang onto your hat when you shoot it- I think the original is around .68 bore rifled with 9 or 12 grooves.

[Bill of the 45th]

Rich, December Muzzleblasts.  That might be an appropriate piece.

Bill

[Mike Brooks]

If they lived by the Chesapeake there is a good chance they owned a large bore waterfowling gun, probably an english import. I doubt rifle ownership that early and wouldn't know (and neither would anyone else) what a rifle from that area looked like in that area even in 1750 let alone 70 years before then.

[James Rogers]

Mud at,

My 5 th grt. grandfather's inventory of 1749 central VA listed a rifle gun. I have imagined for years what that could have looked like. I believe that even if made in America which I think doubtful, it would have looked more like one from across the big pond.

[mudcat dale]

Thanks for the info everyone.  I really appreciate it.

[Dphariss]

Thanks for the info everyone.  I really appreciate it.

Rifles in the early years: Current re-enactor mantra is that everyone had a smoothbore. To some extent this is true. But it had little to do with effectiveness or utility.

There is the 1680s letter from the Gov of NY to the Gov of PA in which he states that  almost 10% of his force (500 foot and 50 riflemen) was rifle armed. Where did they come from? Probably from Europe.
While is currently the in thing to discount the rifle as to numbers and availability in earlier times. The documentation does not agree. Its pretty obvious the rifle was common by the 1740s. There were issue rifles with Braddock (who may have been sniped by an native with a rifle for all I know)  and in New York during the F&I War. The PA area Natives (Shawnee, Delaware and others) were heavily involved with rifles by the 1740s this begs the question of how they learned of the rifle. Somebody had to be using them for the natives to take notice and realize they wanted one.
But it gets all the re-enactor smooth bore advocate guy's back up when things like this are pointed out.
Lenk's "The Flintlock" has a number of "guns" from the 1600s with very rifle like rear sights and one on plate 31-3 that is pretty obviously a rifle from a relatively heavy octagonal barrel to the patchbox with a wooden cover. Stated to be mid-17th century.  This firearm could easily be similar the those carried by the 50 riflemen mentioned by the Gov of NY.
The book is pretty useless but might be available through interlibrary loan at little or no cost. It is mostly dedicated to the study of the locks and decoration and its rare to see a plain arm as in plate 31-3
Yes, the smoothbore was more common. Everyone had to have a long gun for Militia and many chose the cheapest thing that would meet the need, and muskets were cheap as were low end fowlers and such. But there have always been guns owners (typical eastern Militia member if you will), shooters and riflemen. At least since the spiral grooved barrel was invented.

So if you want a rifle do some research and have one made or find one that meet the criteria. It will be simpler to have something made representing 1740, use a European arm as a pattern. Like a 1720-1750 German rifle.

Dan

[mudcat dale]

Once again, thanks.

This place and you guys are a wealth of info.

Dale

[Long John]

Here is another dimension to your ponderings.  It comes from years of historical trekking and hunting. 

My riflegun shoots a 1/2 once round ball.  That one ball will take a deer, bear, turk, buffalow, elk or other similar creature.  A fusil shooting twice as much lead (1 ounce of shot) will take a rabbit, grouse, turk, squirrel or similar creature.  If lead and powder are expensive which would you prefer?

If you were in the settled areas and used your gun as a supplement to what your farm produced then a smoothbored gun would be handy.  But if you were on the frontier and were feeding your family with your gun or earning cash money from the deer skins you brought in, you would want a riflegun.

Best Regards,

JMC

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

William Bartram walked all around GA, TN and FL in 1776 and in his own words says he carried a fusil...............  So really I would suggest that whichever gun you want....would be right!!  

[rich pierce]

I split the topic, moving subsequent discussion which was primarily about the benefits of rifles versus smoothbores to a new topic.  You'll find the bulk of the discussion of rifles versus smoothbores here.
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=19659.0

Probably it would be good to limit this topic to discussing specific arms of the area and timeframe in question.

Original post:
"Not sure where to post this but I'll try here.

Would like to build a rifle similar to what may have been used by some of my family pre revolutionary war.  They were in Virginia during from sometime after 1680 until shortly prior to 1750. 

Can anyone tell me what style/school of rifle they might have been likely to use?  I would like to know in order to be able to do some more research.

Thanks,
Dale"

[Bentflint]

Prior to 1750? Anything from the colonies would be made from Euro parts. Either new import (not so likely that early) or reused from older guns. Fowlers would be large bore and long barreled, 50” or more. But you did say “rifle”. There just were not very many guns being built here at that time. Full service gunsmiths were still in short supply as well as usable materials. The King had a thing about  us being self sufficient and producing taxable goods on our own.

I would think at that time rifles would be short barreled (36” to 42”) .58 or even bigger. Brass mounted and more heavy stocked than most contemporery rifles are. Wood patch box, most likely. Coming from Europe the engraving and carving would be of good quality and well executed.

This is by no means the finial word, just the picture in my mind. I don’t by any means have all the books and they haven’t all been written yet. Government contracts and civilian  business deals leave records but, I’m sure there were guns that got here by individuals that were never documented. There for they are lost.

Just my 1c

Bruce

[excess650]

Prior to 1750? Anything from the colonies would be made from Euro parts. Either new import (not so likely that early) or reused from older guns. <snip>I This is by no means the finial word, just the picture in my mind. I don’t by any means have all the books and they haven’t all been written yet. Government contracts and civilian  business deals leave records but, I’m sure there were guns that got here by individuals that were never documented. There for they are lost.

Just my 1c

Bruce

The Bakers had set up a shop (in what was part of Chester Co at that time) prior to 1720.  It later became Lancaster County (Pennsylvania), but the shop was south  and west near the Susquehanna river in an area know known as Pequea.  They had set up a forge and mill for makng iron and boring barrels from locally mined iron.   This is from tax records.   While known specimens of their guns are not know, remnants of guns have been found in native american graves uncovered in the area.  They were reputed to be very Jaeger like.