How much did it cost?

[Bill Raby]

   How much did a typical long rifle cost in the late 18th century? Seems like a simple question until you think about it a bit. The price of a rifle listed in 18th century dollars, shillings, or livres means nothing to me and there really is no accurate conversion rates to modern money.

   So what was the cost instead of the price? Lets say a modern hunting rifle costs me about a week pay. Mortgage is a week and a half and car payment is half a week of pay. That shows cost relative to other things, but it does not at all translate to the American frontier 250 years ago. A guy living outside Lancaster could get land fairly cheap and likely built the house himself with help from neighbors. He did not have a car payment, cable tv, electric bill. The kids were not screaming for a new video game machine or Michael Jordan shoes. And the government was not taking nearly as much money as they do today.

   If I had the monthly expenses of someone 250 years ago I could easily afford to spend a years pay on a rifle every couple years. But what were the monthly expenses back then and where did a rifle fit into it? And how much of a priority was a rifle? I have seen records showing the rifle as the most valuable item in an estate. Was the rifle really more valuable then the house? If you lived outside of town a rifle would have been vital to put food on the table. And what else did someone back then spend money on at a regular basis? Things that could be made yourself with local materials were cheap. But many things had to be imported from Europe and were very expensive. And there were shortages of labor in many areas. A trip to the local blacksmith could have been quite expensive. The value of one item compared to another is much different now than it was then. For example, last week I took the lady out to dinner. Also bought a shovel. Dinner was 4 times the price. Likely would have been a bit different back in the old days. A car that costs a year of pay is stretching the budget for most people. But if you have no other expenses, it is no big deal. So how long it takes to earn the money to pay for something is not always a good way to determine how much it costs you.

   How can you describe the cost of a rifle in the 18th century that would make any sense to me? Does this question even make any sense at all?

[deepcreekdale]

It is a very good and very interesting question that like you said, is difficult to answer. I did a lookup on an inflation calculator and that didn't help. I have seen documentation that a rifle in colonial times sold for around $8.00. Which according to the calculator is now about $145 dollars, which doesn't seem helpful. Most working people on the frontier in those days, rarely would have had one dollar in "extra" money to spend on much of anything, let alone 8 of them so for the average working man or farmer, a gun, unless of the poorest sort may have been out of reach. The frontier economy was mostly barter and trade so that opens up more questions. (How many bushels of corn for that thar carved, engraved longrifle  mister Dickert?) The idea that the average farmer hunted for his food with his longrifle is romantic and colorful but probably not accurate, at least until later when the economy began to improve. Farming meant working from first light until dark in those days, 365 days a year. Not much time for hunting for the average guy. But on the other hand, rifles certainly existed and someone was buying them, you might have opened up an interesting topic for debate.

[smart dog]

Hi,
A few years back, Bob Lienemann and Jack Brooks did a nice article in the CLA magazine describing gun work at Christian's Spring.  According to Bob, a Pennsylvania pound was worth about $1625 (in todays dollars) in 1750. Consequently, a rifle costing 2 pounds was worth $3250. A rifle costing 4 pounds was worth $6500.  A lock was a few shillings up to 1 pound, therefore about $250-$1500.  Finished barrels cost 15 shillings to 1 pound = $1200-$1625.  Again according to Bob, a dressed deer skin went for 9-18 shillings in 1749 Bethlehem, PA or $731-$1462 per skin. Hunters easily had the resources to buy a gun.

dave 

[oldtravler61]

?

[Ky-Flinter]

There was a discussion on this here on ALR a few years ago.  Gary Brumfield weighed in with some interesting comparative info.  A search could probably find the thread.

-Ron

[Bill Raby]

Hi,
A few years back, Bob Lienemann and Jack Brooks did a nice article in the CLA magazine describing gun work at Christian's Spring.  According to Bob, a Pennsylvania pound was worth about $1625 (in todays dollars) in 1750. Consequently, a rifle costing 2 pounds was worth $3250. A rifle costing 4 pounds was worth $6500.  A lock was a few shillings up to 1 pound, therefore about $250-$1500.  Finished barrels cost 15 shillings to 1 pound = $1200-$1625.  Again according to Bob, a dressed deer skin went for 9-18 shillings in 1749 Bethlehem, PA or $731-$1462 per skin. Hunters easily had the resources to buy a gun.

dave

   Good information. I did not know that. But it does not quite answer the question. The last gun I bought was a Smith and Wesson for about $800. I earn enough to buy one of those every week. But if I did, none of the other bills would get paid. So I can only afford something like that a few times a year. So if a hunter shot a few deer could he actually go buy a rifle, or did he have other expenses to take care of first? The value may have been 9-18 shillings, but could he have actually sold them for that much? Or would a gunsmith even be willing to take skins in trade when he could just go out and shoot a few deer himself? Or as deepcreekdale mentioned, would a farmer even have time to go out hunting? How hard would be to get 5 or 6 deer? For someone living in town it might not be so easy. The French traveled vast distances at enormous expense to collect hides back then. So maybe it was not so easy. I just do not know. Someone living a bit further out would have an easier time hunting, but have a harder time getting to a market to sell or trade. What about a farmer, cooper, or blacksmith that did not already have a rifle and had no means to hunt?

[Molly]

Too many variables in my view to even try to offer a general response that applies across the board.

Estates of deceased makers reflect a variety a values for similar items.  2 barrels valued at X and one barrel valued at 3 times X.  So quality of components did matter as would the degree of embellishments and naturally the overall finished product.  And what about the "labor market" in which it was produced?  Might a frontier made rifle with 1 maker every 200 miles have a different cost that a Philadelphia maker with 99 other makers within 100 miles of each other matter and a ready supply of imported vs "frontier fabricated" components?

I'm sure some can offer a variety of "calculators" and come up with a result which reflects evidence of a scientific approach....but what does it matter.

I have read accounts of rifles sold new at $10 to $20...yes dollars.  And wages of apprentices up to $50 a month.  OK so maybe that's not in pounds and schillings and later that 250 years ago but it works for me!

BTW, the frontier economy was not a currency based economy.  It was barter and trade so when you do your "calculations" factor in the value of milling my corn and wheat harvest into flour and meal plus the repair to my wagon wheel in exchange for the rifle.

If you want to understand the frontier economy visit the Museum of American Frontier Culture in Staunton, VA.

[smart dog]

Hi Bill,
Certainly a hunter or trader had other expenses to pay but I think Lienemann's point was that rifles were expensive but well within the means of hunters and traders, particularly since a gun was not an annual purchase. During the late 18th century, a family could live comfortably on 50 pounds annually so a common 2 pound rifle might be 1/25th of that income. Of course, it is really hard to compare worth then and now because our ideas of what a necessary income requires are different. Using the conversion that Bob cited, a 50 pound income in the late 1700s corresponds to a family income of about $81,000 today.

dave

[Mike Brooks]

Hi,
A few years back, Bob Lienemann and Jack Brooks did a nice article in the CLA magazine describing gun work at Christian's Spring.  According to Bob, a Pennsylvania pound was worth about $1625 (in todays dollars) in 1750. Consequently, a rifle costing 2 pounds was worth $3250. A rifle costing 4 pounds was worth $6500.  A lock was a few shillings up to 1 pound, therefore about $250-$1500.  Finished barrels cost 15 shillings to 1 pound = $1200-$1625.  Again according to Bob, a dressed deer skin went for 9-18 shillings in 1749 Bethlehem, PA or $731-$1462 per skin. Hunters easily had the resources to buy a gun.

dave

Seems to be accurate if a guy were actually making a realistic living making guns. I hope I can make a realistic living one day.

[WKevinD]

Not to muddy the waters more but in the mid 18th century currency valuations (based on Spanish Milled Dollars and British Pound Sterling) varied state by state.
For example in Pennsylvania 1781 one US dollar is equal to 22s6d (SPM) or 500(LbS) in 1786 equal to 7s6d (SPM) or 167 (LbS)
The American Negotiator published in London 1761-1765 was a handbook in use to determine values of American currency vs European and a method of determining trade values state to state that could vary by upwards of 150%

Kevin

[smart dog]

Hi Kevin,
That is why I mentioned "Pennsylvania pounds".

dave

[WKevinD]

Hi Kevin,
That is why I mentioned "Pennsylvania pounds".

dave

Dave,

Your earlier comment mentioning 1750s PA values is what prompted me to respond. I collect and study early US paper currency (pre 1790) so I have looked into currency values by state and region. I was glad to see your post.
Kevin
 

[spgordon]

This is the standard site that scholars use to answer this sort of question (and the essays on the site explain why it is a difficult question to answer): https://measuringworth.com/

I used it, for instance, in my article on Jacob Dickert: http://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entry.php?rec=180

Bob Lienemann and I published a exhausting (I mean, exhaustive) article on the Christiansbrunn gun shop in the Journal of Moravian History last year. It identifies the cost of rifles throughout the 1760s and 1770s (differentiated by "quality" of the rifle) at the shop. For more info on that article, see: http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=40085.msg388444;topicseen#msg388444

[WKevinD]

spgordon, Great links to fascinating articles !

Thanks
Kevin

[Bill Raby]

Hi Bill,
Certainly a hunter or trader had other expenses to pay but I think Lienemann's point was that rifles were expensive but well within the means of hunters and traders, particularly since a gun was not an annual purchase. During the late 18th century, a family could live comfortably on 50 pounds annually so a common 2 pound rifle might be 1/25th of that income. Of course, it is really hard to compare worth then and now because our ideas of what a necessary income requires are different. Using the conversion that Bob cited, a 50 pound income in the late 1700s corresponds to a family income of about $81,000 today.

dave

   I think that this is probably about the best answer that anyone could come up with. That would put the price of an average rifle at about $3200. Expensive, but not unreasonable. A while ago I was just curious what a rifle would cost in todays dollars and could not find any reasonable answer. Then the more I thought about it, the more complicated it got. I just don't really know that much about 18th century economics. I remember when I was a kid my dad bought an electric calculater and financed it. Same sort of thing that costs less than a cup of that fancy coffee now. Remember when coffee was cheap? Makes me start to wonder how much different things between the time of the Hawken rifles and the Lancaster rifles. Seems like things change over time more than you realize. Just ask anyone under 25 years old if they can figure out how to change the TV channel with a pair of pliers. My nephew gets any set of Legos that he wants if he can figure it out.

[smart dog]

Hi Bill,
It gets even more complicated because right after the Rev War, the new US went into a deep, deep recession. There was another hard recession early in the 19th century and with the scarcity of actual currency, it is hard to judge worth then compared to now.

dave

[Bill Raby]

   I am starting to think that it likely cost about as much to get a rifle made in the 18th century as it does today. And probably just as much of a burden to get one. Sure, I can afford to hire someone here to make a rifle for me, but I will have to save up for it. I think that the big difference between then and today is that today a custom longrifle is a luxury and if I actually need a rifle for hunting today I can go to the store and buy a Savage for $400 that will work just fine. Not an option back then.

[WKevinD]

" if I actually need a rifle for hunting today I can go to the store and buy" an off topic gun " that will work just fine. Not an option back then."

I somewhat disagree. Don't forget shimmels/ barn guns or guns put together from battlefield pick ups or grandpas old musket.
I think your correct to assume that todays market prices for a quality gun are close to the 18th century values.
Especially if you consider the need vs want variable.

Kevin

[Seth Isaacson]

   I am starting to think that it likely cost about as much to get a rifle made in the 18th century as it does today.

A trade gun cost $20-25 in 1820 from the American Fur Company which is roughly $475-$500 adjusted for inflation. Per capita income has been calculated at $1,150 for that year or about $22,350 adjusted for inflation which is pretty close to the per capita income today. Prices for Indians and on the frontier would have likely been higher than in the East. I can get a cheap but serviceable shotgun today for half the price of one in 1820, so its is certainly easier now. Edit: It is at least easier to afford now when comparing your average economical shotgun today to what was available then. I don't know the average costs of long rifles in the same period, but I imagine there was decent amount of range from the plain production style rifles from the more industrialized shops when compared to the old masters most of us revere. Some have said a real Hawken rifle cost six times a trade gun so that would be around $3,000 in the present which would certainly buy a man a pretty fine rifle today.

[PPatch]

Here is an idea of the price of a "courting horse" in 1806.



and the rifle;



dave

[JTR]

There's not many Kentucky's that have come down through time with an original price still attached, but there are a few. One is a Bucks County George Weiker rifle, and on the patchbox cover is engraved;                                                     G Weiker gun Smith
                price $16 - 48

This rifle would have been made about 1800, give or take a few years. And it would have been considered a upper mid range priced gun, I'd think. Also, the $ sign is made as a dollar sign, but I don't know if that was US dollars or PA dollars, or what.

John

[ron w]

one thing to consider is that as we, today, look at ownership of firearms as a recreational pleasure, the people of that time and the frontiersmen thought of it as an absolute necessity of life.....no question about it.  8 dollars , although probably quite a bit at that time, was akin to our buying car insurance today. it's expensive, but without it we are risking everything we have, so it's an expense that becomes part our cost of living. additionally,... if the extrapolation to todays money is accurate, it was a pretty darn good deal. I can't imagine being able to buy even an entry level rifle for 150 bucks !.

[bcowern]

Found this in The Kentucky Rifle and Me by Edith G. Cooper which shows the value of a rifle Joseph Long made in the 1800's which was used to settle a debt for various other goods.

[JV Puleo]

In 1804 RI gummaker Welcome Mathewson delivered what he referred to in his day book as a "best finished rifle." The price was $25.00. He walked some 20 miles to the buyer's house to deliver it and thus recorded the name of the purchaser. The rifle still exists and belonged to a friend of mine so we were able to compare it to his price. It was an exceptional NE rifle albeit with nowhere near as much "bling" as later Pennsylvania rifles might have. In the same day book he recorded selling gunpowder to his neighbors. The price was (if I remember correctly) $.50 for 1/4 pound or... roughly $2.00 a pound. Thus, the rifle was valued at about the same amount as 12-1/2 pounds of powder. I don't think this means the rifle was cheap... but that powder was, relatively much more expensive then than it is now.

[mr. no gold]

I have seen an interesting Peter Angstat rifle having a dust covered notation in the bottom of the patch box cavity. When the dust was brushed away it revealed numbers written in India ink. The figures seem to be the price of the gun and appeared to be the equivalent of $7.60 today. The rifle was made about 1805-19810. Not the 1700s, but close.
Dick