August Angstadt?

[DaveM]

I saw this before online and always meant to ask about it on this forum.  It says it is a 1750-1760 pennsylvania rifle made by August Angstadt and is on a virtual museum of the american revolution.  Anyone know if this is indeed signed or anything about it?

[Stophel]

I found the site it is on:

http://www.nationalmuseumoftheamericanrevolution.org/museum/display.asp?id=3

Neat gun.  Looks like a south German rifle, mid century.  I have no clue where they got the idea it was by August Angstadt, nor do they state on the website the origin of the story that it belonged a Captain Reynolds.   

[mr. no gold]

Nice rifle; as Chris noted, it looks pretty Germanic, but could be Colonial. There are some loose similarities to the Schreit gun, but this one appears to be walnut stocked, (American?). The carving is somewhat sophisticated, suggesting Europe, but perhaps it could have been done here. Have never heard of an August Angstadt and/or anyone of that family in the Berks County region so early, but that doesn't mean anything. Hope that someone comes on here who has more information about this rifle. Thank you for posting it.
Dick

[Eric Kettenburg]

That used to be down at Washington's Crossing.  They might still have it there on loan, or maybe it was donated.  There is absolutely no signature on it anywhere, nor anything about it that could point to an attribution unless you are REALLY looking to pin a name on it and decide that some fine chip carving here or there as shading must mean that it is an early Angstadt.  Don't know anything about the Captain Reynolds story.  This was written up in a MB article about 10 years ago. 

[nord]

Nice rifle! Very nice, but I'd be disinclined to attribute to the Angstadt family without provenance. Just too many details that don't quite add up enough to make the leap from similar to an Andstadt to being one.

[G-Man]

Neat rifle. I am not familiar with this one.  You guys who have seen it more might know - it looks to me like the mounts - at least the guard - are iron(?).  The profile of the guard is close to patterns you see showing up later on rifles made in the North Carolina piedmont.

Regarless of where it was made, if it is ca: 1760 it demonstrates a good point regarding the discussion of longrifle evolution the other day - some places perhaps retaining what we think of as very early styles while others look more "evolved" within the period  or even earlier- stylistaically this gun looks pretty close to pieces  we think of as a full blown Rev. War era American longrifle to me in form.

Thanks for posting the pictures and link.

Guy

[rich pierce]

At Dixon's last year (I think) there was an outstanding display of Angstadt family rifles with a geneology.  There was an Adam Angstadt who was born in 1740 and died in 1812.  I do not see an August in this geneology.



Here are 2 pix of the earliest Angstadt rifle shown in the case, photo'd through the glass.  The barrel was signed A. Angstadt.  Spectacular folk-ish carving.





Just based on furniture and style I'd place this rifle as post-Revolutionary War and maybe as late as 1800.  But this and the other examples suggest that formal carving such as seen on the rifle being discussed was not in the Angstadt wheelhouse.

[rich pierce]

Just a comment on the rifle being discussed. I don't see any "Americanisms", it's stocked in walnut, looks Germanic to me and is not particularly worn out.  That suggests to me it's a European rifle.  The lock could easily pre-date 1750.  The robust and straightforward buttstock architecture is impressive; the height of the comb at the wrist and the lack of change in drop from comb to heel are unusual to see on a colonial rifle-built gun, with a couple notable exceptions. 

[Jim Kibler]

At face value, it seems riduculous to think this gun is anything but European.  Wonder why anyone would think any different?

[Eric Kettenburg]

I should add that - unrelated to this rifle, but since the Angstadt topic came up - it may prove to be very interesting (or not) to research 1st Gen. immigrant George Angstadt and his sons Adam and Peter.  George and Adam have long been "rumored" to have been gunsmiths, and while I have "heard tell" of some scant documentation to this effect, I have never personally seen anything - no *primary* sources, that is.  Family oral tradition is not enough:  it would be SPECTACULAR to find an indenture or other legal document specifying "gunsmith" or some variant, or a probate/will indicating gunsmithing tools/supplies etc.  Something concrete!  In light of the recent new information regarding John Moll, and in light of the fact that Adam's sons Peter and Joseph (3rd generation) were also proven gunsmiths, there might be some very interesting information to be found.

[rich pierce]

Not sure how the rifle got to be labeled American or "August Angstadt" but it is possible that the A.A. being referenced was the owner not the builder.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Did you look at the Moll rifle they have on their site as well?  It has been given quite a history!!
http://www.nationalmuseumoftheamericanrevolution.org/museum/display.asp?id=56

[rich pierce]

I think and hope they are speaking of longrifles in general!

[G-Man]

Yes - I agree with Rich - I think they are speaking of longrifles in general.

On the first rifle - I also think it is not American, but it does have some features that would be very much at home on an American 1770-1780 era longrifle from the south.  That guard in particular is one of the more "American" looking iron guards (if I am correct in assuming it is iron) I have see on a German gun.

Neat gun, wherever it was made.  Do you guys think it is as early as they claim?

[rich pierce]

I think it could be 1740's if the lock was new when the gun was built.

[Stophel]

Of course, I can't see it well enough, but I'm going to guess the hardware is brass.

The lock is kind of awkward looking, isn't it?  I'd say it's a 1740's-50's-60's gun.  And note how long the barrel is, relatively speaking. I've been noticing more and more longer barreled German rifles here lately.

That neat type of incise carving I have seen elsewhere, probably in the Steinschloss Jägerbüchsen book, I'll have to look and see.  I believe it was on a Bavarian or some other South German gun.

 But sure, it is the type of thing one would expect to see in a 1750's American rifle, though perhaps with more "normal" type carving.   

[DaveM]

Stophel, I was wondering if anyone else noticed this - to me, the lock looks kind of "colonial awkward" rather than refined german.  And the grain of the butt seems rather open as well more like American walnut, looking below the carved area of the cheek side.  I also wondered if the forestock was shortened for a bayonet as it is hard to tell from the bad overall photo.   Otherwise to me it looks very german.  It would be very interesting if it had a "AA" on it anywhere.

[eastwind]

I saw this rifle when it was at the Washington Crossing Museum (NJ Side) some years ago, as Eric indicated. I do not recall it being labeled "August" or even Angstadt. However they did have an verified Angstadt-Joseph or Peter as I recall.
It is possible that someone plugged the Angstadt name onto this one, perhasp during the transition from the one museum to the other. It does happen and more often that you might think. And it always possible the one musuem has wrongly attributed it and the next msueeum just repeated the label.
 Even so I can't account for any use of the name "August" and I dont know where they would have gotten that.  In my years of Berks County gun reseach, I didn't run into an "August" Angstadt on any primary source and the rifle in question sure does look European and not like any Angstadt I've seen

[Eric Kettenburg]

Years back, when it first appeared in the MB article, it already was being referenced in relation to Angstadt work because much of the carving looked to either have been executed with a very fine-bladed knife in a short, slicing-cut manner which left the remnants giving the appearance of deliberate shading (as per the little v-gouge shading around some Peter/Joseph Angstadt carving) *OR* in fact, someone deliberately executed such shading.

I have more pictures somewhere that Selinda Kennedy gave me after Bill died, but I'll probably never find them.  I think Bill knew the guy who owns/owned it.

[Stophel]

There are plenty of goofy German/Swiss guns out there, so just because the lock doesn't look "refined", doesn't mean much.

There is actually very little difference in the grain porosity between good American and European walnut.  And some European walnut can be very coarse.

I noticed the muzzle end too, and wondered if it were cut for a bayonet, but the photo is pretty small.  I think it's just a normal nosecap, though.

The organization that runs the "museum" is owned or at least administered by H. Kels Swan.

[Eric Kettenburg]

That's the guy - he's the owner.  Or was.

[heelerau]

Pardon my ignorance, but were german gunsmiths making long rifles back in their native Germany? If so would have this been at the request of early American colonists, or would it have been German colonists returning to Germany but having liked the local longrifle instead of the shorter Jaegers of their native country?


Kind regards

gordon

[nord]

I'd speculate that our unique long rifles were not made in Europe. Rather they evolved from largely German designs based on  local needs. This isn't to say that early long rifles and their German counterparts didn't resemble each other. After all, a good many makers here came from Germany and made guns there. The early makers didn't just change gears when they hit American soil.

Witness the jaeger. While similar in many ways to American guns, it in general was shorter, bulkier, and had a larger bore than the American Long Rifle. Further, there was a matter of evolving style that was to make American Long Rifles unique in the world .

I happen to be the temporary caretaker of an A. Angstadt rifle. I always thought Adam. Joe Flemish opined August. The rifle by all appearances remains unmolested and is somewhat shorter than we might usually expect. I suppose this may well have been part of the evolutionary process of its maker as he adapted to the needs of his clients and the requirements of the time. That is, of course, if Joe is correct and the rifle is somewhat earlier than I had thought.

So back to the rifle in question... The walnut is likely the key here. If European, then we can then pretty safely assign a German heritage. If American, then probably a German maker here in the colonies. As others have noted this rifle looks remarkably European.

August Angstadt? Maybe or maybe not. Personally I'm disinclined to attribute the piece as there seems no particular need. The rifle stands upon its own merits with or without a signature. I suspect that a tiny sample of wood would answer a lot of questions.

[rich pierce]

Once upon a time most of us thought that long rifles were invented here because that's what was written over and over again.

Here is the old fairy tale:   "Jaegers were short, big bored, and used a lot of lead and powder.   The colonists needed and wanted the accuracy, but needed it to be cheaper to shoot, plus the powder here was "iffy" so long barrels were needed to burn it all.  So colonial gunsmiths wedded the long English fowling piece to the short Germanic jaeger and the longrifle was born."   I am poking fun at it, but lacking more data, it was a reasonable hypothesis or explanation, that unfortunately became accepted as real history or fact the more it was repeated.

Now we are seeing more original European rifles with longish barrels.  Not so many 4' long but not so many American rifles with barrels that long either.  We don't know much about the early imports, who made them, where, what they looked like, except for some newspaper ads which offer little detail.  Nor do we know why the American colonial market wanted long barreled rifles, but there are some good theories out there which are totally unsupported by any historical accounts, which are scant to non-existant.  Gunsmiths just didn't keep journals about why they built what they built, or what customers were asking for, and they didn't have hunting magazines with articles on the latest trends in guns and ammo.  So we are forced to speculate and folks take strong stands behind one theory or another, because that's all we can do.

[Stophel]

Once upon a time most of us thought that long rifles were invented here because that's what was written over and over again.

Here is the old fairy tale:   "Jaegers were short, big bored, and used a lot of lead and powder.   The colonists needed and wanted the accuracy, but needed it to be cheaper to shoot, plus the powder here was "iffy" so long barrels were needed to burn it all.  So colonial gunsmiths wedded the long English fowling piece to the short Germanic jaeger and the longrifle was born."   I am poking fun at it, but lacking more data, it was a reasonable hypothesis or explanation, that unfortunately became accepted as real history or fact the more it was repeated.

Oh, don't forget "they used oversize lead balls and drove them down with an iron rod and a mallet"....