They were the best that could be made at the time and place of there manufacture, usually by men that were good all around smiths. The European pieces were generally made by piece workers and subs. It is always easier to make a trigger guard if all that you do is make stacks of trigger guards. Even Ezekiel Baker, who made complete pattern rifles for the Pattern Room probably did no other smith work on a daily basis like any small town gunsmith could do. And BTW there was some really crude work done in Europe also. There are whole arsenals of muskets still on their racks in Europe and many are very crude with Draw knife and scraper marks on the stocks, vents burned out, vice marks on the breeches, hammer marks on the tangs and trigger guards, locks held on by nails, etc.
No barrel liners anywhere but I bet that they ignite on demand.
Cheers,
Danny
I did not think we were discussing military arms.
Look at a the external finish on a S&W "Victory Model" vs an otherwise identical M&P revolver made in 1938 for the civilian market. Yet they were made on the same equipment by the same people. I doubt that the S&W employees were happy doing this level of work. But it kept the company from going bankrupt at the eve of WW-II. The INTERNALS were properly polished just like the civilian models, they were "right" where it counted. Some the the Webleys of the same era had even cruder exteriors looks like 80 grit belt sander polish. But a crudely finished revolver would shoot the enemy just as well as a well polished one and at the time this was the key point.
A few years back a friend of mine was looking at handguns in the local guns store, specifically the rounded snag free things that are popular with some. He states, to paraphrase, "I spent too much time trying to keep edges sharp to buy something with a botched job of polishing".
I guess my question would be, "why would I make a poorly finished gun if I did not have to for some reason beyond my control?"
What was the opinion of the poorly finished guns by the people MAKING them. But then the ruler was likely not paying much for them either.
I see no point in of celebrating mediocrity. Why would Baker, for example, make a barrel when he could order one cheaper than he could make it.
A great many American rifles had locks and barrels made somewhere besides the gunstockers shop. The castings were probably purchased as well.
So you see "Virginia" rifles with "Dickert" buttplates. Or is it the other way around?
Barrels and locks from England and Germany were in shop inventories in PA by the 1750s.
The idea that the American Gunsmith made everything "in house" is a myth. They bought a lot of parts. Birmingham was making gun parts by the ship load by the time of the American Revolution and exporting them anyplace there was a market.
It was cheaper to buy than to make.
I like to make things in house when I can or as needed for some project. But locks from Chambers, for example, are so nicely done that I see little point in making something they can furnish that only needs polish.
Dan
