Nosecaps

[Archie]

I've done some searching here on the forum, and elsewhere, but I still have a question about nosecaps.

I am building TVM's "Early Virginia Rifle", .54 cal with a 36" barrel, which is basically a generic transitional. I am aiming, when completed, for a 1760ish beefy, field/working/hunting rifle with transitional characteristics. In other words, big bore, thicker and less ornate.

My question is, considering the scarcity of any surviving artefacts and the questionable provenance of others, what exactly is the foundation for the conclusion that the majority of the frontier/period rifles were nosecapped? Was it their generally accepted ancestry and evolution from German hunting rifles (before modification for bayonet)? Or the prominence of caps on period military/metal ramrodded muskets? 

Just curious. Personally I like the aesthetics of a wood terminated rifle, but I want to be as accurate as possible within the obvious limits of this kit, with established data.

I'm obviously a rookie here, so your patience is appreciated.

Thanks, and keep your powder dry.

Rich

[Old Ford2]

Great question!
I am also standing on the sidelines for the posts to follow.
Fred

[smylee grouch]

When anyone makes a statement about how an old gun was made they most likely base their opinion on surviving examples. There were, I'm sure, a lot of guns that did not survive the rigors of service and we dont know what they looked like, so there could be many guns made with or with out certain features that we take for granted like nose caps, patch boxes,etc. Some had them-some didnt.

[Mike Brooks]

I've done some searching here on the forum, and elsewhere, but I still have a question about nosecaps.

I am building TVM's "Early Virginia Rifle", .54 cal with a 36" barrel, which is basically a generic transitional. I am aiming, when completed, for a 1760ish beefy, field/working/hunting rifle with transitional characteristics. In other words, big bore, thicker and less ornate.

My question is, considering the scarcity of any surviving artefacts and the questionable provenance of others, what exactly is the foundation for the conclusion that the majority of the frontier/period rifles were nosecapped? Was it their generally accepted ancestry and evolution from German hunting rifles (before modification for bayonet)? Or the prominence of caps on period military/metal ramrodded muskets? 

Just curious. Personally I like the aesthetics of a wood terminated rifle, but I want to be as accurate as possible within the obvious limits of this kit, with established data.

I'm obviously a rookie here, so your patience is appreciated.

Thanks, and keep your powder dry.

Rich

Here's where you need to concentrate first with your research.

beefy

 

thicker

These words should be avoided when building flintlock rifles. German hunting rifles  were neither "beefy" or "thick". The same could be said of early colonial rifles. The issue of nose caps become irrelevant with your current notions.......but, they were almost universally used on early colonial rifles.
 I assume since your using a TVM product with a 36" barrel it's going to be a straight barrel. Completely incorrect and makes worrying about being as historically accurate as possible not much of a worry.  You have to be very careful where you look for your information. I'd buy books and not pay particular attention to what you read on the internet.
 Send back what you have and start with a good base, something that at least has a swamped barrel if historical accuracy is important to you.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

What I'm reading into the OP's thread, is that he would prefer to build his rifle without a nose piece, and is looking for documentation to support this.  In all my time pouring over the usual library of original rifles, seeing guns without a nose piece is not an impression I am left with.

[Mike Brooks]

I may have come across harsh.....(what a surprise.... )  I think the straight barrel is more of an issue that the nose cap.  I don't think a nose cap matters much either way in this case. Historically I think it should probably have one. Just my opinion.
 To save time and money I often will omit them, right or wrong.

[Archie]

This is my first build, so I was reluctant to hand out a significant amount of cash for a more expensive components kit until I first established the ability to actually build one. Granted, nothing of the TVM Early Virginia is entirely accurate in every facet - one of those being that it comes with a straight barrel, not swamped. I understood that implicitly, going into the project. It is basically a generic entry-level build representation of a pre-Rev. So what I am doing is necessarily compromising, but trying to do it in the spirit of authenticity if not in its every detail, which is why I am here. I will save that kind of detail for the next build, if my meager talent pool will support it.

As to the "beefy" or "thick" issue, I think, if we are using historical precedence, then Edward Marshall's rifle is both of those, much more so than any Golden Age, smaller caliber rifle, though even its provenance is not iron clad. Yet it still appears as an example of a transitional rifle in nearly every source. It is shorter, thicker and beefier than most subsequent artefacts. Since I am building a transitional rifle and trying to maintain the spirit of authenticity with the obvious limitations of the kit, this is one of my historical templates.

So back to nosecaps. I am wondering whether there is empirical evidence of their utility (to protect a stock?), if they were mainly decorative features, and what information there may be about their appearance on mid-18th century rifles. Sure, I have personal preferences like everyone else, but I do not have a predisposition for the build one way or the other. Nor am I seeking justification for a decision I've already made. If that were the case, I wouldn't have asked in the first place....

Thanks,
Rich

[JCurtiss]

As to the "beefy" or "thick" issue, I think, if we are using historical precedence, then Edward Marshall's rifle is both of those, much more so than any Golden Age, smaller caliber rifle, though even its provenance is not iron clad. Yet it still appears as an example of a transitional rifle in nearly every source. It is shorter, thicker and beefier than most subsequent artifacts.

I agree! But Mr. Brooks is VERY sensitive to words like: robust, beefy, big-honkin, etc, to describe a flintlock rifle or smoothbore.

Back to the nose cap. I think they were installed to protect the stock at the muzzle-end of the gun, much like a toe plate protects the ass-end of the gun.  What's more I think they look really cool on flintlock rifles. So I vote that you put one on your kit.   

Jason

[Mike Brooks]

Have you ever examined the Marshal rifle in person? What makes you think it is "beefy" or "thick"? The size of the gun is dictated by the parts that are used. The Marshal rifle is a "big" gun. But, it's the barrel and buttplate that dictates that size, not left over wood. The only dimension that is "robust" on that gun is the wrist. There is no extra wood on the forestock, lock panels, or cheek piece. Same thing with Jeagers, they are actually kind of petite in person, no extra wood.

I've always wondered, transitioning from what to what?

In my opinion, they are decorative. I have never had a gun with out  a nose cap come back to me that was damaged at the nose. Neither the English nor the french found a use for them. (for the most part)

[Mike Brooks]

As to the "beefy" or "thick" issue, I think, if we are using historical precedence, then Edward Marshall's rifle is both of those, much more so than any Golden Age, smaller caliber rifle, though even its provenance is not iron clad. Yet it still appears as an example of a transitional rifle in nearly every source. It is shorter, thicker and beefier than most subsequent artifacts.

I agree! But Mr. Brooks is VERY sensitive to words like: robust, beefy, big-honkin, etc, to describe a flintlock rifle or smoothbore.

Back to the nose cap. I think they were installed to protect the stock at the muzzle-end of the gun, much like a toe plate protects the ass-end of the gun.  What's more I think they look really cool on flintlock rifles. So I vote that you put one on your kit.   

Jason

That's me, Mr. Sensitive. Toe plates are useless too, but they are a great place for decoration. I've seen busted toes on guns with and with out toe plates, doesn't seem to make much difference.
 My sensitivity over the issue is due to the large number of slab sided porky guns I have seen over the decades. I would really be great to not have to see any more of those when they could easily be avoided before they start by proper education.

[Acer Saccharum]

Fatties are going to haunt you for the rest of your days, Mike.

Archie, I've not seen an American rifle-gun without a nosecap, unless it went missing, or the gun had been cut back and cap got thrown out.

Fowlers usually don't have caps.... unless they are PA smooth rifles, which is a fowler with rifle-ish architecture.

You can make your own cap to fit your forend. This is not to save money, because I have not yet figured out how to save money building rifles. If I make my own cap to save money, well, I need a torch and solder, sheet brass.........and make it twice because the first one got burned up.....

So you make your own cap because your forend profile requires a shape that is not available in a storebought cap, or the length is different, or you just want to make your own parts.

Or just make the gun now without a cap. Later on, make another gun with a cap you made, thimbles you made etc. Build your skill set alongside your increasingly complex projects. It kinda works out that way, building gets into your blood, and you can't get rid of it.

[smallpatch]

Fat seems to be EVERY new builders down fall.
I probably built 6 or 8 FAT guns before some one took me by the hand and showed me a couple of original guns.  Wow, what an education.
I've said this before, but it really made an impact on me.

Mr Martin told me..... "Take off wood till you're scared,  then take of a little more".

Words to live by!

[sqrldog]

There is an early rifle in Ivey's NC book that doesn't have a nose cap entry thimble or buttplate. I assume that is American just not Pennsylvania made. Tim

[Lucky R A]

     Mike is correct in his assessment that even the early guns are not big thick guns.  They often have a 2" wide butt plate, but things get much thinner quickly from there on and the forearms are quite spare.       
     Nose caps are almost always present,  I think they are as much a part of the gun as a side plate is---which could be two washers, but usually isn't.  If you omit a nose cap, I would bet you get asked a lot of questions about why you don't have one.   
      I find toe plates to be quite useful, as that is where I most often put my patchbox release----but if you don't build guns with patch boxes, they might seem less significant...I know you can put the P.B. release many other places....just saying...
     

[okieboy]

 I understand building a kit to get your feet wet, but I think that what Mike (bless his heart honesty is hard to come by) is trying to tell you is that if you are going build "this" kit, build it and don't worry about historical accuracy. On the other hand, if you stay up nights because you are worried about historical accuracy, get a kit that is going to produce a more historically accurate gun. Either way, if you go to the shop and build something, you are going to learn and improve and might even have some fun. Even now, you know more than you did a couple of days ago, so credit yourself with a success.

[crankshaft]

  Methinks our first impression of longrifles is the many, many, views from the side. 
Not actually having holding any original.  We never see a view from fore or aft, dorsal or ventral. 
 Ennyhoo, my first build and many other guys first rifle looks generally okay from the side view,   but thick as a 2x4 from other looks?  ?   We have these images  ingrained, but didn't know any better.  ? ? ?

[sqrldog]

I agree with Mike and others early rifles were not bulky. I had the pleasure of looking at several originals at the CLA in August. The highlight was actually holding a J P Beck rifle. Was that an experience for country boy from AL. I was amazed at the slim build of that early rifle. Very little wood on each side of the octagon barrel and the wrist was much smaller than I expected. A very trim rifle with a 2" or so buttplate. Pictures tend to make rifles look larger than they are. Yet the Beck was rounded and not at all slab sided. You can learn a lot looking at the real deal. Tim

[WKevinD]

Not exactly historically correct but it's mine and I like it, do what works for you then decide how you'll do your next one. Do what you like- its yours. I do appreciate your wanting to do whats correct but I really like that you want to build one more.

[flinchrocket]

As for the nosecap,I assumed it was to keep the wood from splitting. Is that correct?

[Dave B]

Yup it does, Having half fallen down the side of the mountain I was hunting on it surprises me I dint break any thing including the rifle. I did pick up some very unique dings while being a human pinball                                                                                          and finger nail impressions where I hung on to it for dear life. 

[Archie]

Have you ever examined the Marshal rifle in person? What makes you think it is "beefy" or "thick"? The size of the gun is dictated by the parts that are used. The Marshal rifle is a "big" gun. But, it's the barrel and buttplate that dictates that size, not left over wood. The only dimension that is "robust" on that gun is the wrist. There is no extra wood on the forestock, lock panels, or cheek piece. Same thing with Jeagers, they are actually kind of petite in person, no extra wood.

I've always wondered, transitioning from what to what?

No, I have not. However, I have tried to research rifles for some time before beginning this build, at least as much as I could. It is generally described in the literature I have had the opportunity to read as significantly heftier than those that followed - a glimpse into the period where the long rifle as we know it had not yet arrived, but was on its way. "Transitional" as I understand it, describes those rifles in the colonies that spanned the developmental period between the traditional German big-bore, stocky rifles as they evolved into the much thinner, much more decorative Golden Age pieces that were not relied upon for robust field usage, but rather were looked upon as works of art and treated as such, which is why they survived in quantity - as opposed to those that preceded them. So, generally, "transitional" as I understand it, would be rifles produced in the early mid-18th century / Pre-Revolutionary PA frontier (such as Christian Springs builds) that were not yet sleek, elegant, and "gilded".   

I was sorry to see you infer that some kind of complete education is required prior to attempting a build to avoid mistakes. I completely disagree. What is required is a desire to do it, the will to try, and a desire to do it as properly as possible. Learning from the process in order to improve would seem to be axiomatic. Were I already a professional builder, obviously I would not need to ask questions.

As a novice, I was just trying to seek some direction about nosecaps for my first build. I thank those that have offered it in the spirit it was asked.

Rich

[Mike Brooks]

I thank those that have offered it in the spirit it was asked.

Does that mean since I have bad spirit you don't want to hear me blather on anymore? ...Too bad! I shall blather on as you are still slightly confused on the entire subject.

It is generally described in the literature I have had the opportunity to read as significantly heftier than those that followed

That's not at all true, you need up to date resources. Stop reading gunmakers  website propaganda that is used to sell and justify their products. In fact be very carefull of anything you read on the internet. The stuff I have read from these high volume lesser quality outfits is based on pure fantasy, nothing else.

"Transitional" as I understand it, describes those rifles in the colonies that spanned the developmental period between the traditional German big-bore, stocky rifles

Transitional was a nifty little phrase that was quite popular in the 1980's. Lots of big blocky chunky monkeys with shortish barrels were built with no historical back up, only the fantasy of our own minds created these beasties. These guns were quite popular, even most of the top makers produced them and the rest of us loyally copied them.

"Transitional" as I understand it, describes those rifles in the colonies that spanned the developmental period between the traditional German big-bore, stocky rifles as they evolved into the much thinner, much more decorative Golden Age pieces that were not relied upon for robust field usage, but rather were looked upon as works of art and treated as such, which is why they survived in quantity - as opposed to those that preceded them.

If you study this for a while you'll find short German hunting rifles didn't just continually get a few inches longer every couple years nor did they get just a bit slimmer every couple years.  Colonial Americans required and desired something much different than the Jeager rifle. Longer barrels and smaller bores  were required for longer shots and more accuracy. Also, powder and lead were expensive in colonial America, forcing a smaller bore size there fore enabling a smaller barrel which made a smaller gun..... Consider the Marshal rifle. There has been speculation it was built possibly as late as the 1770's. The 1770's certainly isn't a "transitional" period. Also consider that the Marshal rifle has a previously used German barrel that is 42" long. Interesting the barrel is German and 42" long, not something that supports your "transitional" theory.. I have read that there is  somewhat of a consensus that the long barreled trade guns were an influence on the longrifle, I can see that but I'm open to more theory.... As far as intended usage goes being the early guns were built for "heavier field use" VS the later guns weren't all you have to consider is these later guns saw action in several wars, conquered the "dark and bloody ground", went to Texas to defeat Santa Anna, shot their way across the plains and into the Rockies and ended up on our western shores. Not bad for a fragile gun....
 Here's what makes these earlier and later guns look different. It's all in the size of the main parts. The early guns have larger barrels, locks and buttplates. All of these things were a matter of style related to the time period. The later guns had smaller barrels, locks and buttplates, yet again a matter of changing style related to the period they were made.
 You really have this fat gun thing stuck in your head. You really need to see some originals. German jeagers are not fat, clumsy, clubby, beefy robust...etc....The wood is no more nor no less than it takes to take on the size of the barrel or mounts. In other words, there is no extra wood than it takes to build the gun. Early American rifles are the same.

I was sorry to see you infer that some kind of complete education is required prior to attempting a build to avoid mistakes. I completely disagree. What is required is a desire to do it, the will to try, and a desire to do it as properly as possible. Learning from the process in order to improve would seem to be axiomatic. Were I already a professional builder, obviously I would not need to ask questions.

 Well you were the one that asked after all. If you don't want to learn why ask? You are given the answers but don't want to hear them, instead you have a warped view of what early guns are from some out dated source probably found on a  gunmakers website trying to sell their clunky guns.
You will learn as you build your gun. You will learn the hand skills that are required to physically make the gun. But, you don't appear ready to learn anything past those mechanical skills.
  I've only been doing this for 35 years, what do I know?   Go ahead and build your Chunky Chuck. I'm sure it will serve your purpose well.

Post Script.....

 If you really want to build an early  "big" gun start with a big barrel, say 1 3/16" to 1  1/4" then use a big buttplate that is 5" tall  by 2" to 2 1/4" wide, use a lock that is around 6" long by 1" tall, then use a stepped wrist. You won';t need to leave any extra wood, it will be a big gun all on it's own.
Looky here at this....
http://www.fowlingguns.com/rifle12.html
This is my interpretation of an early gun. 44" .69 cal barrel that is 1 1/4" at the breech. Large 6" long lock. Buttplate that is 5" X 2 1/4". There is NO extra wood anywhere. It IS a BIG gun. Why? The PARTS.
Looky here at this one, Jeager...no extra wood.
http://www.fowlingguns.com/rifle7.html
Looky here again, another "big" rifle because of it's parts. No extra wood.
http://www.fowlingguns.com/burrifle.html
Seeing a pattern yet?

[bob in the woods]

One thing I love about this site, is that you will find the truth here. You might not like it, but .....ask and you shall receive.    If you just want to build a rifle, there is nothing wrong with that; but ...and this was a a real lesson for me; the correct components will give you a rifle that will handle and look much better both historically and aesthetically . If you want to end up with a "correct" rifle, you simply can't go wrong by starting with a Chamber's or Cabin Creek kit.. TVM are what I call "historically inspired ".  No sugar coating here.

[smallpatch]

Let's see Mike..... How many guns have you built so far ?  Only around 300.
Don't know why you would think a guy building his first gun would listen to your suggestions!  After all, why would an Iowa chicken farmer know about building guns?

[Archie]

I thank those that have offered it in the spirit it was asked.

Does that mean since I have bad spirit you don't want to hear me blather on anymore? ...Too bad! I shall blather on as you are still slightly confused on the entire subject.

It is generally described in the literature I have had the opportunity to read as significantly heftier than those that followed

That's not at all true, you need up to date resources. Stop reading gunmakers  website propaganda that is used to sell and justify their products. In fact be very carefull of anything you read on the internet. The stuff I have read from these high volume lesser quality outfits is based on pure fantasy, nothing else.

"Transitional" as I understand it, describes those rifles in the colonies that spanned the developmental period between the traditional German big-bore, stocky rifles

Transitional was a nifty little phrase that was quite popular in the 1980's. Lots of big blocky chunky monkeys with shortish barrels were built with no historical back up, only the fantasy of our own minds created these beasties. These guns were quite popular, even most of the top makers produced them and the rest of us loyally copied them.

"Transitional" as I understand it, describes those rifles in the colonies that spanned the developmental period between the traditional German big-bore, stocky rifles as they evolved into the much thinner, much more decorative Golden Age pieces that were not relied upon for robust field usage, but rather were looked upon as works of art and treated as such, which is why they survived in quantity - as opposed to those that preceded them.

If you study this for a while you'll find short German hunting rifles didn't just continually get a few inches longer every couple years nor did they get just a bit slimmer every couple years.  Colonial Americans required and desired something much different than the Jeager rifle. Longer barrels and smaller bores  were required for longer shots and more accuracy. Also, powder and lead were expensive in colonial America, forcing a smaller bore size there fore enabling a smaller barrel which made a smaller gun..... Consider the Marshal rifle. There has been speculation it was built possibly as late as the 1770's. The 1770's certainly isn't a "transitional" period. Also consider that the Marshal rifle has a previously used German barrel that is 42" long. Interesting the barrel is German and 42" long, not something that supports your "transitional" theory.. I have read that there is  somewhat of a consensus that the long barreled trade guns were an influence on the longrifle, I can see that but I'm open to more theory.... As far as intended usage goes being the early guns were built for "heavier field use" VS the later guns weren't all you have to consider is these later guns saw action in several wars, conquered the "dark and bloody ground", went to Texas to defeat Santa Anna, shot their way across the plains and into the Rockies and ended up on our western shores. Not bad for a fragile gun....
 Here's what makes these earlier and later guns look different. It's all in the size of the main parts. The early guns have larger barrels, locks and buttplates. All of these things were a matter of style related to the time period. The later guns had smaller barrels, locks and buttplates, yet again a matter of changing style related to the period they were made.
 You really have this fat gun thing stuck in your head. You really need to see some originals. German jeagers are not fat, clumsy, clubby, beefy robust...etc....The wood is no more nor no less than it takes to take on the size of the barrel or mounts. In other words, there is no extra wood than it takes to build the gun. Early American rifles are the same.

I was sorry to see you infer that some kind of complete education is required prior to attempting a build to avoid mistakes. I completely disagree. What is required is a desire to do it, the will to try, and a desire to do it as properly as possible. Learning from the process in order to improve would seem to be axiomatic. Were I already a professional builder, obviously I would not need to ask questions.

 Well you were the one that asked after all. If you don't want to learn why ask? You are given the answers but don't want to hear them, instead you have a warped view of what early guns are from some out dated source probably found on a  gunmakers website trying to sell their clunky guns.
You will learn as you build your gun. You will learn the hand skills that are required to physically make the gun. But, you don't appear ready to learn anything past those mechanical skills.
  I've only been doing this for 35 years, what do I know?   Go ahead and build your Chunky Chuck. I'm sure it will serve your purpose well.

Post Script.....

 If you really want to build an early  "big" gun start with a big barrel, say 1 3/16" to 1  1/4" then use a big buttplate that is 5" tall  by 2" to 2 1/4" wide, use a lock that is around 6" long by 1" tall, then use a stepped wrist. You won';t need to leave any extra wood, it will be a big gun all on it's own.
Looky here at this....
http://www.fowlingguns.com/rifle12.html
This is my interpretation of an early gun. 44" .69 cal barrel that is 1 1/4" at the breech. Large 6" long lock. Buttplate that is 5" X 2 1/4". There is NO extra wood anywhere. It IS a BIG gun. Why? The PARTS.
Looky here at this one, Jeager...no extra wood.
http://www.fowlingguns.com/rifle7.html
Looky here again, another "big" rifle because of it's parts. No extra wood.
http://www.fowlingguns.com/burrifle.html
Seeing a pattern yet?

I'd say thanks for proving my point, but I'm guessing I'd have prepare for another 6,000 word response. I need more coffee for that.

All I will say that some others warned me about this site, saying there are multi-posters on there that are not really interested in sharing knowledge or promoting building, but are more interested in trying to make themselves look good at the expense of others. 

I told them, nah. Couldn't be.

I asked a question about nosecaps and got lectured and condescended to on everything I don't know....

There you go.




Rich