EARLY RIFLE CHARACTERISTICS

[WESTbury]

Hello All,

We all read in books, magazines, auction descriptions, etc., quite a few references to "Early Rifles". Do we actually have a feel for what characteristics define a rifle as early?

Kindig discusses what he defines as early rifle features, long swamped barrels, screw mounted stock nose caps, thick buttstocks, pinned rather than wedge fastened barrels, etc. But, as we well know "early" is a rather difficult term to nail down.

I'm wondering what "Early Rifle" means to the members of this forum.

Thanks for your attention.

Kent

[Eric Kettenburg]

It means not late.   

[wormey]

It has a lot to do whether it`s mine and/or if I`m trying to sell it!   Wormey

[WESTbury]

It means not late.   

HA!  But time is relative, Professor Kettenberg, according to a little old guy with fuzzy grey hair, so how late is late!!? Is it early late or late late?

[WESTbury]

I purchased Pennsylvania Longrifles of Note 4th Edition copyright in 2020 by Dorothy Shumway and J. Rex Reddick, a couple of months ago and was struck by paragraph three on page 43 pertaining to J. P. Beck. I am going to quote it so as not to muddle it. By the way, this is a great book now with all color photos for most of the rifles in the book.

"This rifle is representative of pieces built in the early period, between 1750 and 1780, but this rifle could have been made at a later date. J.P. Beck was born in 1751 so he doubtless got in a few years of gun making before the Revolutionary War began. It is difficult to date Beck's work, but from the many surviving specimens it is apparent that he continued to put early flavor into the rifles he made up to the time of his death in 1811."

If this is the case with Beck, could the same hold true to one degree or another with rifle builders that were contemporaries of Beck?


 

[rich pierce]

Early parts. Someone said a gun is no older than it’s most recent part or feature that appears to be original work.

Typically, a rifle made around or before 1780 will have:
A buttplate that is quite flat in profile, and 1 and 7/8” wide or more at its widest
A guard with some width to the bow and rail, and the rail standing somewhat clear of the wrist
A barrel at least 15/16” at the breech, and exhibiting taper, then flare to the muzzle
A lock of styling pre-1790

May have:
A signature by a maker working in that period
A sliding wooden patchbox
Guard may have decorative acanthus leaf finials at front and rear extensions. Kinda rare but an early feature.

[WESTbury]

Early parts. Someone said a gun is no older than it’s most recent part or feature that appears to be original work.

Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough reply Rich that I've come to expect from you.

Any thoughts on my reference to J.P. Beck in the quote from the 4th edition of the PA Rifles of note?

Kent

[rich pierce]

JP Beck has long been considered rare in not changing style with the times. Dickert and Schroyer changed their styles quite a bit over the many decades of their work. Nicholas Breyer, an apprentice of Beck, changed with the times. But even among builders whose style changed little, one could likely see that a gun made by him in the 1770s would have a lock styled later than the same builder’s work in the 1770s. However, with most locks being reconverted and all, it can be tough to make a high probability best guess.

[WESTbury]

JP Beck has long been considered rare in not changing style with the times.

Kind of like me with my Leisure Suit!

Thanks for your insight Rich, appreciate it.

The changed and reconverted lock situation is a problem, in my view. My personal thought on that revolves around the fact that percussion alteration and other modifications to antique firearms were performed in most cases, I would think, to extend the working life of the firearm. It is part of the history of the gun and makes them more interesting.

Of course, in the field of collecting (American Military flint muskets) that I was in until the last couple of years, things are markedly different. There are many more original flint specimens available of most types by far than is the case with longrifles. Values for percussion altered muskets are at most 50% of an original flint. A recon, no matter how well done cuts the value even further and a musket with a stretched barrel and forestock is for the most part, worthless as a collector arm.

Kent

[Eric Kettenburg]

At the time George wrote the text and published that book, I think that folks tended to "early date" pieces considerably more often than happens know.  Here in 2021, we have the advantage of many more rifles having to come to light - and many more publications with additional research - that I think help 'fine tune' some of the dating of pieces into a more accurate range.  Since you mention that specific Beck rifle, I think the original notation that it being representative of an early period ca. 1750 through 1780 is a bit overly-ambitious on the early end; I (personally) think it might be better representative of the 1770s decade, perhaps early 1780s, although as George pointed out, given Beck's working style it may indeed be later.  Maybe this is splitting hairs while I look at it more as 'fine tuning' an estimate.  Not attacking old George in any way - he's an icon and was always a great guy.

[ScottNE]

At the time George wrote the text and published that book, I think that folks tended to "early date" pieces considerably more often than happens know.  Here in 2021, we have the advantage of many more rifles having to come to light - and many more publications with additional research - that I think help 'fine tune' some of the dating of pieces into a more accurate range.  Since you mention that specific Beck rifle, I think the original notation that it being representative of an early period ca. 1750 through 1780 is a bit overly-ambitious on the early end; I (personally) think it might be better representative of the 1770s decade, perhaps early 1780s, although as George pointed out, given Beck's working style it may indeed be later.  Maybe this is splitting hairs while I look at it more as 'fine tuning' an estimate.  Not attacking old George in any way - he's an icon and was always a great guy.

My general sense is that today, on the other hand, there’s almost an aversion to “early-dating” pieces.

[rich pierce]

Scott, the pendulum swings!

[WESTbury]

I recall in reading Kindig's book, he stated that in his opinion, people tended to date rifles too early, so to compensate, he dated rifles later! Kind of averaging things out I guess.

Another thing to keep in mind is that some rifle stockers from the Lancaster area and other areas as well were prevailed upon to produce muskets during the Rev War and in the 1790's Dickert, Gonter, Graeff, and others also contracted to produce rifles for the Federal Govt. I would have to believe that, all of that activity cut deeply into their production of civilian rifles at times. So, people like John Graeff my have actually produced quantities of longrifles from the mid 1780's to the early 1790's. John Graeff built rifles under the 1792 Contracts and did contract for 1797 Pa Contract Muskets with Henry. John Graeff died in 1804 so his active period building longrifles was foreshortened or at least limited by available manhours in his shop.