Does anybody else think people build Tennessee rifles too nice?

[Justin Urbantas]

When I think of a Tennessee rifle I think of a good ol boy sitting under a big oak tree with a couple chisels and  a pocket knife inletting hand forged parts into a stock. I don't imagine one of these fellows would care about which style lock was used, spend 8 hours polishing a lock, 2 days scraping/sanding a stock, or 6 hours painstakingly inletting a buttplate.  I imagine they had livestock to tend, game to hunt and youngsters to wrangle. I guess what I'm getting at is that do you think the extremely high quality Southern guns some folks turn out are a reflection of what was made? I have seen some Southern guns on here that look like they were made by the finest London gunmakers. It seems out of place to me.

[Clark Badgett]

Southern guns were made by gunsmiths, primarily.

[Dphariss]

The idea of doing too high quality of work was discussed in our last Guild meeting.
Note. Almost all our modern guns are better quality than those of the past. When you REALLY look. Now the old makers, the good ones were !@*%&@ good but they did not do the quality of work I generally do BECAUSE THE CUSTOMER DID NOT HAVE THE FUNDS TO PAY FOR IT.
Some years back I was trying to get good enough to engrave a kentucky and got a close up or two of the Kuntz in the Metropolitan Museum and realized my practice plates were BETTER "Heck, I can do that good". So I went to work on the rifle. Problem? I had been looking at modern, very good to excellent quality engraving on custom brass suppository rifles I was stocking and modifying. Its a LOT better than almost any original engraving on an 18th 19th c firearm even many or most of the English work.
In his engraving videos, the first one, Lynton McKenzie points out that he did much better work than was done in the 19th and even the early 20th C on best grade English guns. One reason was because his customers were going over his engraving with a loop looking for mistakes.

Note. Many of the import locks were just that. Low quality import locks.
The blackpowder we use today is fwr better than the powder generally available in the US in the 18th c and early 19th.

I started stocking MLs and as completely self-taught for years, using Muzzle Blasts articles as a guide in the 1960s.
But over time I was exposed to some really good makers by the late 1970s and knew people capable of doing top of the line English quality work.
THEN I went to work stocking rifles for a manufacturer as part of the custom shop.  There was no compromise here. So I got used to doing the best work I could.
WE ARE PLAYING TO A DIFFERENT AUDIENCE. A different clientele.  If you look at some of the 18th and 19th c arms made for people with MONEY In Philadelphia or  Baltimore in the 1820s-30s the product is more like the English work of the time than a Kentucky. The English INFLUENCED US work to a great deal in some places. The 1/2 stocked Hawken rifle is an Americanized 1/2 Stocked English sporting rifle of about 1815-1825. Different buttstock. Smaller ball size. But other than than its a English sporter.

The SMR (and the PA etc "Poor Boys) were, for the most part, made for people in a economically depressed area or some farmer who only wanted a gun to shoot hogs and steers with when butchering. THEN we have the religious angle where plain living was being preached by some Christian pastors.

I can't do sloppy work. Unless I am doing carpenter work. Where 1/8 or 1/4" "tolerance" is the norm and holding things too tight causes issues.
Dan

[n stephenson]

Using the term Tennessee rifle , may be misleading?  I think you are referring to Southern rifles in general IDK? When referencing Tennessee makers , you might want to check out some work by Jacob Young . He among a few other Tennessee makers , could hold their own !! The notion of " a guy under a tree with a pocket knife " in any area north or south , is probably just a modern fantasy! Yes people have repaired  and restocked rifles in all types of places , but most gun smithing that represented a "school" was probably done in some type of a "shop" . The "poor boy" style of rifles is not just a southern phenomenon , simple plain guns / rifles have been produced just about everywhere , not to mention  restocks / salvages.  As to modern builders , it is pretty much up to the individual builder , as it SHOULD be , what level of fit and finish they want , or are capable of .Man how BORING it would be if we all made a "standard"  rifle .  I like to see them all , yes I prefer some over others , but I can learn something from them all , even if it just what I don`t want to do.        Nate

[Robby]

I think then as now most people do as I was taught, 'do the best you can with what you got'.
Robby

[rsells]

There are some rifles that were made in the South that had loose fitting inlets and the lines sometimes did not flow well, however, if you look at rifles made by Alfred Gross, Bean, Bull, and Richard Allen, their rifles had flowing lines and tight inlets.  I love the Southern rifles and the rifles I build incorporate characteristics of some of these makers.  My focus on building a rifle is to do my best to improve each rifle I build.  I try to make a rifle that has flowing lines, tight inlets, functions properly, and is accurate.  Most of all, I want the customer to be pleased with the rifle.  I have a desire to do the best I can do with my work hoping that the future will judge my work in a positive manner.  I don't build rifles for the money, but for the satisfaction I get when I get each piece finished.
                                                                               Roger Sells
                                                                     

[louieparker]

I have a strong interest in both Pa style  rifles and Tenn rifles..  I don't see the Tenn rifle as an example of poor workmanship.. I consider it a completely different  style of rifle.  A rifle that took a few skills that a Pa. didn't. Not saying there isn't some poorly made rifles in both schools.. On a Tn rifle the wood in the trigger guard area can be competently flat across the bottom under the lock.  To me its just the way they did  it. On a Pa rifle I would consider that shoddy work. There are several features on the Tn rifle that you don't see on Pa rifles. These mountain smiths didn't do a lot copying of the northern rifles. So a completely different rifle.. LP

[David Rase]

I have always said that poor workmanship is not the same as workmanlike.  Workmanlike to me means utilitarian, but still of high quality, minus the bells and whistles.  A man back in the early 1800's depended upon his rifle for food, protection as well as occasional recreation so anything less than workmanlike was not acceptable.  A good lock, a straight barrel and a good set of triggers made the rifle.  All the other components were the gingerbread.
David 

[PPatch]

"When I think of a Tennessee rifle I think of a good ol boy sitting under a big oak tree with a couple chisels and  a pocket knife inletting hand forged parts into a stock."

Not really, while the region was economically depressed (and still is in some areas), there may have been only a few individuals who fit your "good ol' boy" image. I grew up in the north Georgia mountains and east Tennessee, and culture, when there was, and still are, a lot of true craftsmen around, men who took great pride in their work. It is a mistake to lump all of the very diverse southern mountain folk into the "good ol' boy" category so popular with outsiders. Alongside one another there lived the dirt poor subsistence farmers, and the quite well off, with a middle class of merchants, government workers, and factory owners/workers. Generally the further up the mountain valleys you went the poorer the people living there.

" I guess what I'm getting at is that do you think the extremely high quality Southern guns some folks turn out are a reflection of what was made?"

In some cases very much yes. Roger Sells has already posted on some of those old gunmakers he feels were superior in their craft, I second his opinion, I would like to add Willey Higgins, a southern Georgia boy. Tomorrow I am headed to Knoxville, TN. for the annual TN/KY longrifle show, there I will see and get to handle some fine examples of the Southern Mountain Rifle. There will be a few stinkers in there too, rifles that were fairly crudely made with architectures off in left field.

So, Justin, who should I emulate? The guy without a clue to form working with the most basic tools, or the savey old gunmaker who was meticulous in their craftsmanship and possessed an unerring eye for form?

Dave

[hanshi]

The best builders then and today did & still do amazing work; I don't like "shoddy" or "crude".  I don't care that much for fancy but they have to be of excellent quality and esthetically nice +.  Being a native Georgian I tried to study as many of the originals as possible; a display at the UGA art museum left me drooling during one visit.  Those old guns were works of art, some with lavish use of gold, silver and masterful engraving.  That's the level of craftsmanship I'd never tote in the bush.

[WadePatton]

There's a huge difference in wear and tear and normal aging, and put together hap-hazardly, or showing lack of skill or determination.  Look at the originals, the ones in great condition. They are not shoddy and are not what the school is built upon.

Sure there are some busted down old guns (and VARIOUS (one TN fundamental is variety) levels of skills exhibited), but that's not how most of them were made.

Go ahead and build your hatchet and pocket-knife let in, French-locked, simple trigger,  fantasy gun, but I'd not call it "Tennessee".  I'd call it _your_ gun.    You might start a fad.

[rich pierce]

Ahh, we like fine work around here.  But do what floats YOUR boat.

[flinchrocket]

Bet it was cold under the ol' oak tree about January! Amazing the quality of rifles made without the modern conveniences we enjoy, like lights and electricity.

[conquerordie]

Depends on the gun. If you choose to copy a rifle you should copy it as it is. If it's crude, then copy that, if fine, then copy that. If making  it in a style of a certain piece, then make it how YOU want. Just how I feel.
Greg

[Stophel]

I think some people today would be aghast to see many old guns.  Rough inlets, file marks, scraper marks, EGAD!  The horror!

That said, I also think that probably most people are utterly incapable of discerning detail.  Even if something is pointed out to them, they won't see it.  The average Joe would never notice a crooked buttplate, or scraper marks, or whatever.   Plus, they knew it was hand made, just like everything else.

The modern day muzzleloading rifle enthusiast is already a particular person, above and beyond the average Joe.  If he wasn't, he'd be happy with ordinary modern guns.  Most of "us" are very discerning, and we have keen eyes.  Some demand perfection beyond what is even practical.  (They also seem to not realize that most modern guns are nowhere near perfect either.)

I've always tried to make guns that look and feel like actual 18th century guns, and I try to do a good job, but I don't strive for a modern idea of "perfection" (and I am probably at least as much of a picky perfectionist as anyone here).  Glass smooth surfaces, perfect barrel contact in the inlet, mirror polished brass, etc.  Basically, I just don't have the patience to do that! 

[Dennis Glazener]

I think there was as much variation back then as it is today. Just in my Gillespie family of gun makers you will see a wide variance of quality in their work. Most of the work by Mathew and his sons Harvey, John, James and some of Philip's was well done. If you look at some of the work signed PG (for Philip) you will see some rough looking work. I suspect that all the rifles that came out of Philip's shop carried his PG stamp but I have good reason to believe that many of Philip's cousin's and at least one brother (Wilson) worked in his shop and evidently they did not have the skill that Philip did, some of the rifles that have Philip's initials stamped on the barrel were pure butt ugly and not very well made rifles.
Dennis

[Mark Elliott]

I am currently trying to build an Alfred Gross rifle and I can tell you that I have to give 100% to come close to the quality of the original.   I could probably say the same for one of the better Beans or a Bull.    You have to imagine what these guns looked like when they were new and everything fit the way it was intended.   It is terribly difficult to make an proper East Tennessee trigger guard these days.   I am sure the original makers didn't sweat it nearly as much as I do and they still ended up with a very fine product.   I think the skill and professionalism of the makers of southern iron mounted guns is considerably under appreciated. 

[smylee grouch]

I am assuming the original poster is asking about the rifles being made with too much embellishment and he can correct me if I'm wrong but I am curious about some of these rifles made with extra inlays,carving and engraving. How much embellishment was put on the originals and how much is too much on the modern recreations?

[Sharpsman]

Hmmmm....this is akin to asking "Can you have too much money?"

[BOB HILL]

Some folks back then did better work than others, just like today. Some folks took more pride in their work, just like today, no matter where they lived. Look at some of the more common things men made back then like an axe handle. You can feel the pride the maker took scraping that handle. I would guess that you could feel the same care taken in that mans other work As well.
Bob

[Justin Urbantas]

I am assuming the original poster is asking about the rifles being made with too much embellishment and he can correct me if I'm wrong but I am curious about some of these rifles made with extra inlays,carving and engraving. How much embellishment was put on the originals and how much is too much on the modern recreations?

My question was mostly about the amount of time they would spend on tedious things that don't affect accuracy or function. Would they spend the time perfectly inletting a lock piece by piece, would they finish the wood as perfectly as say a NY or PA rifle, would they take hours and hours filing every facet of a forged triggerguard until it shone like a mirror and there were no signs of hammer marks.?  Or would some scraper marks,  rougher wood finish, file marks, loose inletting etc. even bother them?

[Stophel]

Scraper marks and file marks are pretty common (and so far, from my limited experience, it seems quite universal) on all types of guns.

[rich pierce]

Here’s a Goss in out library.

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=4476.0

[Dphariss]

I am assuming the original poster is asking about the rifles being made with too much embellishment and he can correct me if I'm wrong but I am curious about some of these rifles made with extra inlays,carving and engraving. How much embellishment was put on the originals and how much is too much on the modern recreations?

My question was mostly about the amount of time they would spend on tedious things that don't affect accuracy or function. Would they spend the time perfectly inletting a lock piece by piece, would they finish the wood as perfectly as say a NY or PA rifle, would they take hours and hours filing every facet of a forged triggerguard until it shone like a mirror and there were no signs of hammer marks.?  Or would some scraper marks,  rougher wood finish, file marks, loose inletting etc. even bother them?

For a using rifle with no frills a coat of oil or varnish on the wood and its good to go. But back in the day it had to SHOOT, it had to work and if a rifle it had to be accurate. I have made rifles, put on a coat of boiled linseed oil, let is soak a little, wipe it dry and be shooting the rifle the same afternoon.  If they rifle had a decent lock, a good set of triggers and a good barrel and a usable stock with some oil on it it was a very serviceable rifle.
Scraping, a coat of varnish hide many scraper marks.  Also we do not know who did the last scraping on the stock.  If the owner thought it was too shiny he might scrape the finish then oil the thing. We don't know unless we have several rifles by the maker that all show the same scraping.  Locks get replaced many were not that great.
The American Fur Company ordering flintlocks in the 1830s was VERY specific that the locks be carefully selected so as to avoid poor locks on the rifles. In the 1830s W. Greener in "The Gun" wrote of the quality of locks coming out of Birmingham and how it sometimes took an experienced and careful person to determine the quality since the lockfilers were very good at hiding the problems.  Greener states: "In Birmingham, if you know how to go about it, you may buy them sometimes at almost a half-a-crown a bushel; so low have they brought the manufacture or the gun-trade". He further states that; "Locks with steel scears and tumblers...can now be bought at three shilling and sixpence a pair; but so good in the outside appearance of all locks between twelve shillings a pair and four pounds, it requires a good judge to ascertain their quality".
I suspect  that very few American rifles made away from places like Philadelphia had locks costing more than 4-5 shillings each if that. 
 I once looked at a mint 1840 dated Conestoga Rifle Works flintlock (low grade Leman) with a lock that was poor just looking at it, I was not able to remove it from the rifle but it was definitely one of the low end Birmingham locks.
 I looked at a box full of Golcher percussion locks  John Baird had in the old Buckskin Report offices that were shockingly poorly made.
So the original lock may well not still be on the rifle. Especially since we know of rifles that could date to the 1760s that had been converted to percussion. Meaning they were in use for maybe 100 years. So the lock wearing out  and being replaced is a real possibility.
One other thing about the American gunsmiths that came over the Germany and the people they trained. Germans tend to do things the way they are supposed to be. Or so I have been told.  "Make it nice". Was the term that was used to explain this.
Dan

[Justin Urbantas]

I am assuming the original poster is asking about the rifles being made with too much embellishment and he can correct me if I'm wrong but I am curious about some of these rifles made with extra inlays,carving and engraving. How much embellishment was put on the originals and how much is too much on the modern recreations?

My question was mostly about the amount of time they would spend on tedious things that don't affect accuracy or function. Would they spend the time perfectly inletting a lock piece by piece, would they finish the wood as perfectly as say a NY or PA rifle, would they take hours and hours filing every facet of a forged triggerguard until it shone like a mirror and there were no signs of hammer marks.?  Or would some scraper marks,  rougher wood finish, file marks, loose inletting etc. even bother them?

For a using rifle with no frills a coat of oil or varnish on the wood and its good to go. But back in the day it had to SHOOT, it had to work and if a rifle it had to be accurate. I have made rifles, put on a coat of boiled linseed oil, let is soak a little, wipe it dry and be shooting the rifle the same afternoon.  If they rifle had a decent lock, a good set of triggers and a good barrel and a usable stock with some oil on it it was a very serviceable rifle.
Scraping, a coat of varnish hide many scraper marks.  Also we do not know who did the last scraping on the stock.  If the owner thought it was too shiny he might scrape the finish then oil the thing. We don't know unless we have several rifles by the maker that all show the same scraping.  Locks get replaced many were not that great.
The American Fur Company ordering flintlocks in the 1830s was VERY specific that the locks be carefully selected so as to avoid poor locks on the rifles. In the 1830s W. Greener in "The Gun" wrote of the quality of locks coming out of Birmingham and how it sometimes took an experienced and careful person to determine the quality since the lockfilers were very good at hiding the problems.  Greener states: "In Birmingham, if you know how to go about it, you may buy them sometimes at almost a half-a-crown a bushel; so low have they brought the manufacture or the gun-trade". He further states that; "Locks with steel scears and tumblers...can now be bought at three shilling and sixpence a pair; but so good in the outside appearance of all locks between twelve shillings a pair and four pounds, it requires a good judge to ascertain their quality".
I suspect  that very few American rifles made away from places like Philadelphia had locks costing more than 4-5 shillings each if that. 
 I once looked at a mint 1840 dated Conestoga Rifle Works flintlock (low grade Leman) with a lock that was poor just looking at it, I was not able to remove it from the rifle but it was definitely one of the low end Birmingham locks.
 I looked at a box full of Golcher percussion locks  John Baird had in the old Buckskin Report offices that were shockingly poorly made.
So the original lock may well not still be on the rifle. Especially since we know of rifles that could date to the 1760s that had been converted to percussion. Meaning they were in use for maybe 100 years. So the lock wearing out  and being replaced is a real possibility.
One other thing about the American gunsmiths that came over the Germany and the people they trained. Germans tend to do things the way they are supposed to be. Or so I have been told.  "Make it nice". Was the term that was used to explain this.
Dan

That makes sense Dan.  People trying to make a quick buck with a cheap lock.  Yeah, the quality of earlier German wheellocks speaks for their craftsmanship.