Revolutionary War Era Iron Mounted Pennsylvania Rifle???

[mstriebel]

With iron hardware being popular among many contemporary rifle makers, I have become intrigued with the question of why brass mounted hardware rifles seem to been the choice on the great majority of Revolutionary War era longrifles of which we know. 
I then came across a beautiful iron-mounted longrifle attributed to Philip Sheetz that had been sold on the Aspen Shade website:

http://aspenshadeltd.com/inventory_iron.html

Of course, it’s impossible to say who the original owner of this fine old rifle was, but the Aspen Shade website speculated that it was possibly used by a longhunter or ranger.  As one who has spooked more whitetails than I care to admit, the utility of a simple non-reflective all-iron rifle makes sense.  Considering that during the Revolutionary War era there was also the not insignificant threat to a longhunter on the frontier of crossing paths with someone wanting to do him harm, the idea of an all iron-hardware rifle would seem to have merit for some, even if they had to pay a bit more for the hand forged parts to produce such a weapon. 

If there was indeed at least a small niche demand for all-iron rifles among longhunters and the like during the Revolutionary War era, I wondered why while there are a few iron mounted longrifles attributed to the era (the Old Holston rifle, Thomas Tileston rifle, etc.) I have never seen an all iron Pennsylvania rifle from this time period.  It certainly would not seem to be for a lack of opportunity.  According to the History of Metals in Colonial America, the colonists were producing around 24,000 tons of iron per year just before the Revolution, and the area around Lancaster, Pennsylvania with 1/4th of all the furnaces in the colonies, was the heart of American iron production.  Page 124 of the same book also states that at the time of the Revolution iron was cheaper than brass.

Can any members of the forum enlighten me as to any legitimate 18th century iron-mounted Pennsylvania rifles from the last half of the 18th century that they may know to exist?

Thanks,
Matt

[Molly]

Interesting topic and one I also raised -sort of - some time ago.  Came to absolutely no conclusions however, yet lots of opinions. (Nothing new about that.)  The proliferation of brass across the board just seems to suggest to me it was a matter of style and decorative preference by makers and customers.  For those who work with the raw materials maybe there is also the factor of "easier to work with" for brass, if that is actually the case.  I have come to appreciate iron mounted rifles but it was not the initial reaction.  Brass!  Give me lots of brass!!  And after a room full maybe one looks for something different?  And so it may have been in that day as well.

[smart dog]

Hi,
Very nice rifle.  If that lock is the original as described, the Ketland & Co. name on the lock indicates it was made during 1785-1800. I am not sure when importing from England began again after the Rev War but probably pretty soon after the treaty of Paris in 1783 that ended the war.  With respect to using iron mounts on guns made in colonial and Rev War period America, a key factor likely was that it had to be forged. Unless the maker used dies and swedges to reproduce parts, it was a one-off process that had to be repeated from scratch for every new rifle. Brass could be cast so a model could be made and reproduced many times easily.  The other advantage to brass is that it does not rust like iron. Certainly, there must have been iron mounts imported from Europe but I don't recall any examples of long rifles using them at the moment.  Perhaps somebody can provide an example.

dave

[spgordon]

Would there be a weight different with iron vs. brass hardware?

[54ball]

Would there be a weight different with iron vs. brass hardware?

 It's negligible. The short answer is no as forged iron can be quite thin while cast brass can be thicker so in the end the weight of the furniture matters little.

 I will say this concerning " shiny brass" and scouts using iron guns as kind of a "camo" that's modern fluff.

[54ball]

 Conventional wisdom would date that rifle from 1800-1820. You must understand that the study, true  really academic study of historical Longrifles is in it"s infancy. Even now!

 Through the years the study of these guns has been collector based rather than historical based. There are certain fads and trends in the collector world. It's only been in the past 50 years that historical study rather than collector value has come about.

There's a lot we do not know. A lot we do know comes from the great collections and notes from Dillon and Kindig. Keep in mind though these were collectors of the great Pennsylvania type rifles to the East. There was little collector interest in the Southern or Hillbilly guns until quite recently.

 If this rifle is legit and after a closer look I think it very well could be, it is very significant.

 Compared with the Jos Bogle Rifle, the rifles of the Cumberland School, the Humble rifles out of Kentucky the G.B rifle attributed to SW Va....all of these Rifle appear to have some later features yet they appear to be 1780s-90s rifles. It would seem the "Western Gunsmiths" may have been stylistically ahead of their Eastern counterparts.

 More study, real historical study is needed.

[louieparker]

There is no doubt in my mind, the rifle is legit. I have known it for years. Two of my friends owned it for well over thirty years. Can't recall the exact years. As I recall it was sold to one of them by RE Neville .  RE tuned up some great things......Louie

[rich pierce]

Wonderful original but requires many exceptions to what we think we know, in order to consider it pre-1810.

Such a deep crescent buttplate is not seen on any rifles that can reasonably be argued are pre 1810.

Such a narrow buttstock; same.

The lateness of the lock has been noted.

There is great desire and monetary reward in having a rifle be “early” and that encourages people to suspend logic or speculate that so and so was ahead of his time by 30 years.

[Mike Brooks]

No way that is a 1750-1775 gun. It's 1790's at the earliest, probably a bit later. I'd suggest it's a southern Appalachia made gun built gun, not  PA.  Labor costs of making iron mounts is what kept this practice far back in the mountains. Brass mounts are far less labor intensive.

[louieparker]

I did not see where it was said to be made in 1750 t0 75. Certainly not the period we thought it was from.  Never considered it being made until well after the Rev. War...  I doubt that script signed lock was even imported until the late seventeen eighties .  Only an opinion....LP

[Eric Kettenburg]

I think the best representation of what a Rev War era iron mounted rifle might have looked like is the Tileston rifle. However, it's not looking like that is a PA gun.  There has been a lot of back-and-forth as to whether it's a NE gun as originally believed, or a VA rifle as others contend.  I fall into the NE camp, as some of the carved designs on it are practically identical - as in, same hand identical - to one of the NE fowlers in Grinslades book.  In fact I find it impossible to not associate the fowler and the rifle as attributable to the same stocker.

It's unfortunate that while there are quite a number of detailed photos of the rifle that have been taken over the years, none of them have been granted permission for public dissemination.  It's an extremely impressive piece in my opinion and should be broadcast.  Extremely well-made iron furnishings and excellent stocking.

[Mike Brooks]

I did not see where it was said to be made in 1750 t0 75. Certainly not the period we thought it was from.  Never considered it being made until well after the Rev. War...  I doubt that script signed lock was even imported until the late seventeen eighties .  Only an opinion....LP

The auction description states "3rd quarter of the 18th century".

[Pukka Bundook]

You beat me to it, Mike.

As stated numerous times above, brass easier and faster to work than iron.  No rolling mills back then.

Very nice rifle but later than speculated.

[mstriebel]

Thanks to all for the input and furthering my longrifle education.

I had assumed that with not insignificant number of custom and semi-custom rifles being made today in styles consistent with that of rifles produced in the last quarter of the 1700s there would at least one or two known examples of an iron mounted Pennsylvania out there as a basis for those rifle.  If nobody on the forum has seen a Pennsylvania made rifle made with iron mounts, then I am confident that none such is known to exist. 

If iron mounted rifles were then just a regional niche produced by makers in Appalachia and at a later time period, I am scratching my head as to why someone would spend the considerable sums required to build a rifle that never would have existed in reality.  Why not then put laser sights and a scope on your flintlock while you are at it and make a real fantasy gun?  Anyway, I suppose that's a topic for another post.

Thanks,

Matt

[Eric Kettenburg]

If iron mounted rifles were then just a regional niche produced by makers in Appalachia and at a later time period, I am scratching my head as to why someone would spend the considerable sums required to a rifle that never would have existed in reality. 

Because Herschel makes one $#*! of a believable fantasy rifle and everyone else jumped on the bandwagon.

[JV Puleo]

I am not sure when importing from England began again after the Rev War but probably pretty soon after the treaty of Paris in 1783 that ended the war. 

No. Following the Treaty of Paris, commercial relations with the former colonies were managed in the Privy Council. Since there was no commercial treaty, this couldn't be done in the Foreign Office and it was obviously not the responsibility of the Colonial Office. The Privy Council embargoed all "military stores" to America. This included everything even remotely military, including all gun parts and small arms. It wasn't until the signing of the Jay Treaty in 1794 that commercial relations were officially reestablished. Nevertheless, America remained Britain's largest trading partner between those dates although the trade was confined to areas not  addressed by the Privy Council.

It wasn't until 1792 (I have to check my notes as to the exact date) that the Council started issuing licenses for the export of military stores. This is when the Anglo-American trade in arms restarted. During the interim period, I seriously doubt that any interest was taken in small, individual sales. The K's had a London warehouse that was literally within walking distance of the Thames waterfront where they sold all sorts of Birmingham produced items, arms included. If an American came in and purchased a pair of pistols, or perhaps even a crate of ships' muskets, I doubt there would have been any raised eyebrows but the wholesale export of arms and parts, especially locks, doesn't begin until after the Jay Treaty took effect.

[smart dog]

Thanks Joe,
That implies the Ketland & Co. signed lock on this rifle may not have been available to the maker until the 1790s at the earliest.

dave

[Pukka Bundook]

If iron mounted rifles were then just a regional niche produced by makers in Appalachia and at a later time period, I am scratching my head as to why someone would spend the considerable sums required to a rifle that never would have existed in reality. 

Because Herschel makes one $#*! of a believable fantasy rifle and everyone else jumped on the bandwagon.

Eric,

I'm guilty of this too.
I think that Herschel is building these in the spirit of the originals.
By this I mean, working with what is on hand (Junk and scrap iron).   Same for me really.
I have no brass to speak of on hand, but a yard full of old farm machinery and such so I use what I have.  I believe Herschel does the same, or did when he started.
Plenty of old iron bits kicking around, and brass has to be bought in.
Anyway, that's how I justify it!  :-)

[vanu]

Very compelling thread...Regarding 18th century iron mounted rifles; In the Kindig collection is a very intersting and certainly 18th century iron mounted rifle, RCA No. 136. Of note however is that it originally had a wooden patchbox, which was replaced by the current sheet iron metal box as witnessed by the notch in the butt plate and grooves in the box cavity. This was likely made somewhere between Virginia and East Central Pennsylvania as its overall architecture falls into a rather wide range of options... MESDA also has a wonderful iron mounted rifle that likely dates to the 1790's these will give give an idea of the stylistic range of 18th century iron mounted rifles and point to their overall scarcity.

Bruce

[54ball]

 
 Here"s two from the museum.

 1st is the Jos Bogle Rifle. The Bogle could be late 1780s. Note the resemblance in furniture to the Sheets of this article.
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=11592.0

 Next is the G . B Rifle. The G . B rifle is interesting and it's overall stock architecture seems earlier than the Bogle or the Sheetz. Likely it is contemporary or even later to these rifles as sometimes these are difficult to date. Whatever the exact date this rifle is very interesting.
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=14832.0

 If you note all these rifles use identical Ketland styled locks.

[rich pierce]

Were narrow buttstocks and deeply curved crescent buttplates something that sprung up in the 1780s to 1790s in Appalachia but didn’t catch on in the rest of the country for another 20 years?  Do we have any documentation about that, for example a signed iron-mounted, narrow buttstocked rifle with a deep crescent buttplate by a maker who died pre-1810?

Where do these dates come from?

[WElliott]

I have previously been privileged to live for some years with both the Jos.Bogle rifle and the iron mounted Sheetz rifle. In my opinion, the Bogle rifle dates to the mid-1780s. The iron Sheetz rifle to the mid 1790s.  I have a silver mounted London 1791 halmarked pistol with the identical script-signed Ketland & Co lock that the Sheetz rifle has in it. I believe the iron Sheetz Rifle was made shortly after the post-Revolution time when English locks were again imported to America. Joe’s 1794 date that imports could have resumed suggests the rifle may have been made in the mid 90s, as I have surmised. My 2 cents worth.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I don't see any of these rifles - the attributed Sheetz, nor the two noted immediately above - as being any earlier than the later 1790s at the earliest.

I have to reiterate that if we want to look at what is possibly the earliest *currently known* iron mounted American long rifle, we should be looking at the Tileston gun.

Caveat:  there might be others of which I'm not aware.  The Tileston rifle sure is one early-looking piece, though, and it's dated.

(We'll leave the issue of potential restocking, which has been brought up by others, for another day...)

[rich pierce]

The other competitor for earliest iron mounted “Kentucky” rifle is the Old Holston Rifle with the open guard.

Like all other rifles most likely made in the Revolutionary War period, it has a buttplate between 1 and 7/8” and 2 and 1/4” wide with little to no curvature or crescent shape.

[smart dog]

Hi,
With respect to the rifle shown above, we have one piece of hard data concerning dating, the lock is marked Ketland & Co. According to my references, they marked locks that way during 1785-1800. Assuming the lock is original to the gun, there is no way the gun was made before 1785, well after the Rev War.  Joe Puleo has provided another piece of compelling circumstantial data, that imports of arms and gun parts from England to the US probably did not resume until 1792. Consequently, the objective evidence available indicates the gun likely was made after 1792. Unfortunately, no one can make a plausible case for this gun being made before or during the Rev War eliminating one more surviving iron-mounted gun from consideration as early.  Does anyone have any information or ideas about the iron mounted square barreled rifle in the collection at Valley Forge?

dave