Barrel pinning locations on originals

[James Rogers]

I have read a couple of Wallace Gusler's comments associating guns who have their first pin location out front of the entry thimble as being a Virginia characteristic.  I (think) I see what appears to be similar pinning on the Faber sideplated rifle and the rifle listed just before it with the old "French" lock and re-used hardware as found in Of Sorts For Provincials by Jim Mullins. The trade gun marked Bumford is also done this way.
Are there Virginia guns from the same era as these two that are done in a similar manner or are the Virginia guns Wallace mentions that have this characteristic of a later period? He mentions 8 early wood box and 3 early brass box guns along with a large amount of later Virginia guns having this feature. With the way the sentence read I was not sure those early guns had solid Virginia provenance.
Are there any guns done in like manner from across the big pond where a location origin can be suggested or hypothesized?

[rich pierce]

I think the "woodsrunner rifle" and maybe the later "feather rifle" have this characteristic.  It would make sense that a pattern established by an earlier maker would be passed on down to those trained in his ways.  Early unsigned rifles, unless closely related to subsequent signed specimens can seldom be unequivocably attributed to a region.  The Marshall rifle being a nothern example, easily attributed to the Moravians in Pennsylvania by its carving similarities to signed Oerter, Albrecht and Dickert rifles, but most especially by it's history of being owned by Edward Marshall.  Few early rifle have such provenance.  I'd like to know where many of the early rifles were collected.  So many later signed Pennsylvania rifles were first discovered in the same township or county where they were made.

[Dennis Glazener]

maybe the later "feather rifle" have this characteristic

  I know that the entry hole on the Feather Rifle is extremely close to the breech when compared to PA style rifles. I can not remember the distance but I remember that when Fred Miller duped a Feather Rifle stock for me he wrote "Dennis, no mistake, this is correct distance for original" on the fore-arm to let me know that he did not place the entry hole too close by mistake! It seems to me that it was 8 inches or less and it has a 48.50 inch barrel. So with 4 cross pins I suspect the first pin would be well beyond the entry hole. Not sure about the Woodsrunner rifle.
Dennis

[bgf]

I'm interested in the answer also, if a definitive one is forthcoming .

I know the long pin placement is on the rifle marked "G.B." in the September 2004 Muzzleblasts article "A Fine Iron Mounted Rifle" by WG.  That one looks to be pre-1800 based on the lock, etc. and may be 1790.  Fits very well into "Southwest Virginia" or farther to west/sw, esp. being an iron mounted rifle.  Probably not early enough for your question, though.  One thing I've thought may be a vestige of the long pin placement on later rifles is when the foremost pin is very close to the muzzle cap, but I haven't really tried that notion rigorously.

RCA #145 was long pin originally according to what WG said in the BBR (also long pinned) auction thread -- that is roughly around the Rev. war., perhaps slightly later, despite "1789" date on the replacement sideplate.  Shumway has no problem assigning it to the south, at least, as it doesn't fit nicely anywhere else.  He thinks it shares a tang carving with #128 (Eaby) and I see some relation to the Faber rifle in the shaping of the cheekpiece -- sounds like Virginia is a likely candidate.  I can't figure out where the first pin on the Faber is by the picture in RCA, but it looks like you may be right.

From pictures, I think the H. Deming rifle may also have the long pin placement -- not that that will help you much, as it seems to defy classification in almost every respect.

One thing to keep in mind is that this characteristic seems to be gone generally by about 1810 from what I can tell.  I am not sure, but I think that the increasing use of plates and keys/wedges over pins was part of the reason, although it was somewhat rare even with pins. 

[Eric Kettenburg]

RCA #65 has the first pin way out there too.  But it sure isn't from the South.

http://www.erickettenburg.com/Site_3/RCA_65.html

[Dennis Glazener]

I have an early SW VA rifle that is built that way, its in the ALR library take a look where the first pin is on this gun



It is well forward of the entry pipe and hind sight. Only three cross pins and the barrel is 47 inches.
Dennis

[G-Man]

I can't recall for sure but perhaps someone else has the article handy - doesn't the Old Holston gun have the long pin placement as well? 

Guy

[bgf]

I have an early SW VA rifle that is built that way, its in the ALR library take a look where the first pin is on this gun



It is well forward of the entry pipe and hind sight. Only three cross pins and the barrel is 47 inches.
Dennis

Dennis,
I didn't think before that it was the same "G.B." as the one to which I referred based on other differences, but the pin placement is interesting; I missed that entirely before as the tearout on the forearm made me think there was a pin there!

[Dennis Glazener]

Dennis,
I didn't think before that it was the same "G.B." as the one to which I referred based on other differences, but the pin placement is interesting; I missed that entirely before as the tearout on the forearm made me think there was a pin there!

Its not the same rifle but I have always wondered if its by the same maker.
Dennis

[rich pierce]

where is that one in the library?  what's it called?

[G-Man]

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=14832.0

It is under Southern Longarms/GB.

(Don't want to get the thread off track but for those of you who remember Myron Carlson, the rifle Dennis is showing is the rifle from which Myron copied the hardware and triggers  for his "Rowan County North Carolina" set but others have suggested Virginia or Tennessee as the place of manufacture.   It is a very nice rifle and the hardware is very well made.  The rifle originally was collected in Tennessee by Robin Hale, but has features that suggest a possible western piedmont North Carolina origin or southwest Virginia origin as well.  The guard has some faint engraving in guilloche style and that funky design at the front that looks a lot like a British broad arrow.  The gun is sort of an enigma but a nice piece that has always fascinated me.  Hard to say on the GB question - if there is a relationship to the other GB rifle - - after handling both rifles they seem very different in style and feel, to me anyway.  But you never know.)

Guy

[RifleResearcher]

"From pictures, I think the H. Deming rifle may also have the long pin placement -- not that that will help you much, as it seems to defy classification in almost every respect."

I think many folks are still unaware that H. Deming is Harman Deming.  That rifle was made in Canaan, Connecticut after 1802, and is not a southern gun at all.  A good lesson in prejudging rifles that defy easy Pennsylvania attribution to having to be a product of the south.  I personally have always suspected that the early rifle dated 1771 mentioned already, with its fish belly stock, like the Deming gun, is actually from north of Pennsylvania, not south.

Alan

[bgf]

"From pictures, I think the H. Deming rifle may also have the long pin placement -- not that that will help you much, as it seems to defy classification in almost every respect."

I think many folks are still unaware that H. Deming is Harman Deming.  That rifle was made in Canaan, Connecticut after 1802, and is not a southern gun at all.  A good lesson in prejudging rifles that defy easy Pennsylvania attribution to having to be a product of the south.  I personally have always suspected that the early rifle dated 1771 mentioned already, with its fish belly stock, like the Deming gun, is actually from north of Pennsylvania, not south.

Alan

Interesting, thanks.  I admit that all the rifles I find interesting or attractive do get assigned to the south as likely first candidate, but New England seems to have a talent for some individuality of its own !  Do you think it is safe to guess that part of the confusion is likely due to common British and continental influences on the coastal areas, influences that differ somewhat from the specific influences we see in PA work?

[RifleResearcher]

bgf,
I think that is a likely reason.  But, I think that some of this is also that we don't actually fully understand yet what diversity and "individuality" Pennsylvania and other "northern" regions had to offer.  Look at the work of John Newcomer or G.F. Fainot in Lancaster, or Deming in New England.  I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but attributions are just that.  They are not facts, but speculation.  And speculation, no matter how well reasoned, is often incorrect.  How many guns that we "know" today are Virginia, if a signed example or two by the same maker turn up, are going to be reassigned twenty years from now to Pennsylvania, South Carolina, or Connecticut for that matter?  There were gunsmiths at work in Detroit during the Revolutionary war era.  Anybody want to hazard a guess at what an 18th century Michigan rifle might have looked like?  What about John Dodd's work in Charleston in the 1750's?  Where did they place their pins? If we were staring one in the eye, would we even know it?   
I think if we are going to be honest with ourselves in assigning regional characteristics, we have to stick to signed and located work, and not figure attributions in the mix.  Eric already posted a Pennsylvania rifle with the long pin placement.  I believe the Deming does have it too.  How many other rifles that have the long placement that are documented as NOT being from Virginia are out there?  If there is even one, don't we have to watch attributing unknown rifles as "southern" based on that characteristic?  I have no doubt that the long pin placement is a Virginia characteristic, but I don't think it is by any means exclusive to the south. 
(I have some of the current Deming information included in my talk at Landis this weekend if anyone is interested.) 
Alan

[bgf]

bgf,
I think that is a likely reason.  But, I think that some of this is also that we don't actually fully understand yet what diversity and "individuality" Pennsylvania and other "northern" regions had to offer.  Look at the work of John Newcomer or G.F. Fainot in Lancaster, or Deming in New England.  I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but attributions are just that.  They are not facts, but speculation.  And speculation, no matter how well reasoned, is often incorrect.  How many guns that we "know" today are Virginia, if a signed example or two by the same maker turn up, are going to be reassigned twenty years from now to Pennsylvania, South Carolina, or Connecticut for that matter?  There were gunsmiths at work in Detroit during the Revolutionary war era.  Anybody want to hazard a guess at what an 18th century Michigan rifle might have looked like?  What about John Dodd's work in Charleston in the 1750's?  Where did they place their pins? If we were staring one in the eye, would we even know it?   
I think if we are going to be honest with ourselves in assigning regional characteristics, we have to stick to signed and located work, and not figure attributions in the mix.  Eric already posted a Pennsylvania rifle with the long pin placement.  I believe the Deming does have it too.  How many other rifles that have the long placement that are documented as NOT being from Virginia are out there?  If there is even one, don't we have to watch attributing unknown rifles as "southern" based on that characteristic?  I have no doubt that the long pin placement is a Virginia characteristic, but I don't think it is by any means exclusive to the south. 
(I have some of the current Deming information included in my talk at Landis this weekend if anyone is interested.) 
Alan

You'll get no argument from me on any of those counts -- I don't even think we know how little we know. I think the idea that all one needs to know about rifles begins and ends in any one place is ludicrous, although I'll admit to a bias towards VA just to balance all the rhetoric from PA .

I would love to see your talk notes on the Deming if possible -- even if it isn't southern it still is interesting!  I like the New England guns in general and think they deserve more study, although I'll not be the person to do it, having no real knowledge of or relation to New England more direct than one of my sister-in-law's parents !

[RifleResearcher]

After rereading my previous post, I would only add to my rant, that in addition to being skeptical of some southern attributions, I would say I also believe that not all unsigned rifles attributed to Pennsylvania or anywhere else will eventually pan out as being from there either, for all of the same reasons.  I would argue that some unsigned guns may be better left unattributed and just appreciated for being American, rather than for a real or imagined regional association.  We all want to "know" where these things were made, but sometimes the only honest answer is that we don't know.  Too often attributions take lives of their own and become Gospel Truth.  Attributions are then made off of rifles that are themselves only attributions.  All this creates is a house of cards that only takes debunking the first attribution to make the whole thing collapse.  I think we all need to drop the regional bias and pride on occasion and be willing to accept the more obvious truth, that sometimes we simply don't have a documentable answer.  Sometimes the most honest thing we can say about an unsigned early rifle is that it was most likely made in that specific region that is generally north of Miami, generally south of Montreal, and generally east of the Mississippi River.
Alan

[Eric Kettenburg]

Sometimes the most honest thing we can say about an unsigned early rifle is that it was most likely made in that specific region that is generally north of Miami, generally south of Montreal, and generally east of the Mississippi River.

Smart answer!  I like that one.

I was shown a copy of some correspondence quite a while back between Wes White and another individual; the subject was the now infamous 1771 rifle noted above and Wes was of the opinion that it was made somewhere up the Hudson River.  When you look at it from that slant, one has to admit that it does kind of "fit."

And it's still south of Montreal.

[RifleResearcher]

Food for discussion:
My main thought on the 1771 fish belly gun is simply this; if that same gun, identical in every detail, had a four foot long, full round, or octagon to round, smooth bore barrel, would any other region besides one north of Pennsylvania pop into your head as its most likely place of origin?  If you answer that as I do, then why should the addition of rifle barrel change that view?  Is there a tradition in any other region that lies south of New York of making fish bellied fowlers during the 18th century?  Are there southern signed or attributed fowlers shaped like that?  I honestly don't know.  Again, I am not a fowler expert, but I just always felt that I see several first cousins of that gun when I pop open the first half of Merrill Lindsay's New England Gun book or look at the stock patterns associated with Hudson Valley related guns. 
In spite of the modern collector mythology, some rifles were absolutely in use in the north east, and even specifically New England, in the decades prior to the Revolution.  I see absolutely no reason to rule out that area, (since it is still south of Montreal and north of Miami  ), as being just as likely as the source of that particular gun.  Have any of the actual New England gun gurus ever taken a serious look at that rifle for its architecture and decoration, ignoring the octagon barrel?  Again, not my intention to declare those who see Virginia in that gun wrong, I just see an affiliation with a entirely different region. 
Alan   

[heinz]

If you are referring to the Brass Barrel Rifle as a "1771 fish belly gun" it would appear you have not handled it or studied it very closely.  Don't fall into the sme faulty habit you are criticizing just to give an example. 

[RifleResearcher]

Heinz,
No, we have not been referring to the Brass Barreled gun.   If you read the thread beginning with Mr. Roger's initial post, you will see he cites, "the rifle listed just before it with the old French lock and re-used hardware" pictured in "Of Sorts For Provincials", otherwise known as #142 in Shumways, Vol. 2.  If you take the time to look at it, you will see it does not have stepped wrist, nor does it arch upward, but bulges downward, "fish belly" style.

"Don't fall into the same faulty habit you are criticizing just to give an example."
Excellent advice. 
Alan

[Eric Kettenburg]

Hmmmmm.  Well, since you mention the BBR (and it's always-forgotten sibling...):  there really is not much tying those to anywhere specific either.  South of Montreal indeed!

[James Rogers]

If you read the thread beginning with Mr. Roger's initial post, you will see he cites, "the rifle listed just before it with the old French lock and re-used hardware" pictured in "Of Sorts For Provincials", otherwise known as #142 in Shumways, Vol. 2.  If you take the time to look at it, you will see it does not have stepped wrist, nor does it arch upward, but bulges downward, "fish belly" style.

I think this gun is very interesting. I think it is an American restock (using the same basic profile of the original stock) of a Dutch made piece down to the lock marked with a Maastricht maker. Now as far as the rifled barrel...... it could have been stocked anywhere a rifled barrel was to be had and the stocker used a long pinning from the breech.

[heinz]

Alan, Thank you for correcting me.  I did go back through the thread when you made the fish belly comment, I just did not go far enough.  I agree on 142 as a fish belly, and that it could well be a northern rifle.
Eric, The BBR is always more interesting when you throw 145 into the mix.  Sort of suggests the maker was not too iron bound in his architecture.  But I would still hypothesize that the Hudson River valley has a low probability density as the point of origin, although we could be wrong about south of Montreal   

[heinz]

James, I like your premise about the restock on 142.  I alwas thought it puzzling how the builder nailed that tricky wrist transition with the highly curved lockplate and yet has a number od other lines that seem very straight line and hasty.