Author Topic: Information on English made longrifles  (Read 7049 times)

Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #25 on: August 17, 2021, 03:05:27 AM »
Because there was never much demand in Britain for rifles, I think it is safe to assume that the capacity for making rifle barrels on the massive industrial scale that characterized gun locks and smooth bore barrels ever developed – at least until the mid-19th century. It is probably not a coincidence that one of the gun barrel makers that could make them was TK's son-in-law, who also made rifle barrels for the Ordnance Office.

Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #26 on: August 17, 2021, 05:15:39 AM »
I think the salient point that nearly all collectors fail to take into consideration is that the English (and American) gunmakers were in it for the money. If they could make a product that sold and they made a profit - they would do it. Making American-style rifles in England - for sale in America – is perfectly logical but I suspect that it involved costs - primarily making the barrels - that compromised the profitability. Otherwise, there would be a lot more of them. Could the English make them  – of course. Could them make them cheaply enough to justify the costs of transportation – maybe not.

realtorone

  • Guest
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #27 on: August 17, 2021, 05:39:26 AM »
I have a Flint London marked long rifle unless I sold it. I not even sure if half round or all flats.If I remember correctly its about 44 inch barrel. Ill get it out if anyone cares.
George Hebling

Offline Rajin cajun

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Ragin Cajun
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2021, 06:19:41 AM »
George, please get it out and take some photos and let’s have a look at it .
Thanks for taking the time to do this.

Bob
It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog !

Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2021, 12:34:03 AM »
Yes, please...

realtorone

  • Guest
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #30 on: August 18, 2021, 03:26:30 AM »
Sorry but neither of the rifles I had in mind were it both were long but neither had patch box or cheek piece and  both had been bored smooth. Only one has the London stamp  but has both sights.
Sorry  George

Offline Rajin cajun

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Ragin Cajun
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #31 on: August 18, 2021, 01:32:36 PM »
Sorry but neither of the rifles I had in mind were it both were long but neither had patch box or cheek piece and  both had been bored smooth. Only one has the London stamp  but has both sights.
Sorry  George
George, thanks anyway Buddy..!

If anyone has one of these London Longrifles please consider posting photos of them on this blog.
I think the collectors who are interested would like to see them . I for one think that those who own one are fortunate indeed. I hope to have one someday myself, but going on 81 it can’t happen soon enough.

Bob
It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog !

Offline Mike Brooks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13415
    • Mike Brooks Gunmaker
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #32 on: August 18, 2021, 04:22:41 PM »
Sorry but neither of the rifles I had in mind were it both were long but neither had patch box or cheek piece and  both had been bored smooth. Only one has the London stamp  but has both sights.
Sorry  George
George, thanks anyway Buddy..!

If anyone has one of these London Longrifles please consider posting photos of them on this blog.
I think the collectors who are interested would like to see them . I for one think that those who own one are fortunate indeed. I hope to have one someday myself, but going on 81 it can’t happen soon enough.

Bob
Are you looking for the early  Wilson & Grice  guns or the Ketland marked guns? They aren't the same.
NEW WEBSITE! www.mikebrooksflintlocks.com
Say, any of you boys smithies? Or, if not smithies per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wanderin'?

Offline Rajin cajun

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Ragin Cajun
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #33 on: August 18, 2021, 08:56:42 PM »
I would like to see photos of all variations...!

Bob
It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog !

Offline Mtn Meek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • GRRW Collector
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2021, 08:19:39 AM »
Bob, I would have thought someone would have posted the photos you requested by now.

I have a few I scanned from George Shumway's articles in Buckskin Report from Feb 1982 through Oct 1982 as well as some pictures I saved from the internet, mostly from auction houses.

This is Shumway's intro to the four types made in England.




Fig. 1 is Shumway's Type A.  He distinguishes it by the sliding wooden patch box.  In 1982, Shumway knew of three Type A's made by Wilson, one by Barnett, and one by unknown maker or he had forgotten the maker.

Here is a picture of a Type A in the Colonial Williamsburg collection.  It is marked "Wilson" on the lock.


These are scans from the Mar 1982 issue of Buckskin Report of another example of a Wilson marked rifle.  Note these rifles have the architecture, mounts, and decoration of a 1770s Pennsylvania longrifle and closely resembles some of the rifles made by Lancaster gunsmiths of the period.  The lock has been re-converted.


This is a picture of a Type A that sold at auction some years ago.  My notes indicates that the lock on this rifle was marked "Whatley" and was from the Dresslar Collection.  If Shumway was aware of this rifle, it may be the one of unknown manufacture.




Moving on to the Type B.  This is the version made by Ketland & Co., and I posted some color photos of one in Reply #17 on: August 16, 2021.  In 1984, all known Type B's were made by Ketland.  This is a scan from the Apr 1982 issue of Buckskin Report.


The carving behind the cheekpiece varies some on the surviving Type B's.  While some have the double C-scrolls, at least one has a lower C-scroll and upper volute.




The Type C English pattern trade rifle is similar to the Type A in architecture and decoration, but differs in that it has a simple two-piece brass patch box.




This is a scan from the May 1982 issue of Buckskin Report showing another example of a Type C.  Shumway knew of four Type C's made by Grice and one made by Wheeler.


You might notice that the lower C-scoll behind the cheekpiece on the Type C in the picture above and on the Type A shown earlier both have a carving error in the missing left half or volute.  Other aspects of the carving on the two rifles are essentially the same.  Clearly, Wilson and Grice were copying the same pattern rifle.  Interestingly, not only are the patch boxes different between Wilson and Grice, but the butt plates and trigger guards are also different.  This suggests that there was another pattern rifle available to Grice in addition to the one used by Wilson.



Shumway's Type D is a significant departure from the other three types.  It more closely resembles an English military rifle than a Pennsylvania longrifle.  Most surviving examples exhibit Board of Ordnance proof and ownership marks indicating that they were part of the 1813 Contracts for the War of 1812.  There are two, and a suspected third, by Wheeler that have pre-1813 Birmingham proof marks and may have been for the civilian market or the Indian trade.

All of the Type D rifles have a simple two-piece brass patch box similar to the Type C rifles.  They also have a cheekpiece with a curved lower edge.

This is a scan from the Jun 1982 issue of Buckskin Report showing a Wheeler Type D with pre-1813 Birmingham proofs.  It has a low comb but a slightly different shaped cheekpiece than the 1813 Contract rifles.


Most of the surviving Type D rifles have a very low comb with a nose that rises only slightly from the wrist.  There are two, though, that have a more pronounced comb with a well defined nose.  One of these is marked "Ketland & Allport" and the other is marked "Sharpe" on the locks.

A Type D 1813 Contract rifle with a low comb.


The Type D made by Sharpe in the Museum of the Fur Trade collection with a more pronounced comb.


A rifle similar to the Sharpe made Type D is probably what J. Joseph Henry copied for his English pattern rifle that he, and later his son, James, made for the American Fur Company from 1826 to 1845.  This is Shumway's Type E English pattern trade rifle.
Phil Meek

Offline moodyholler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2021, 11:39:48 AM »
What caliber, weight barrel and length barrel is the type C? Thanks in advance moodyholler

Offline Rajin cajun

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Ragin Cajun
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2021, 12:17:58 PM »
Phil,  thanks for posting the info. From the Buckskin Report on all the variations of this trade gun. I think this is a fascinating rifle. And a very hard rifle to add to ones collection. They are not plentiful by any means. Thanks again, those of us who are into trade guns really appreciate your help....!
👍🇺🇸👍
Bob
It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog !

Offline Mike Brooks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13415
    • Mike Brooks Gunmaker
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2021, 03:13:36 PM »
What caliber, weight barrel and length barrel is the type C? Thanks in advance moodyholler
All of that info in inDeWit Bailey's book. if I can remember I'll try and find the book today and report back.
NEW WEBSITE! www.mikebrooksflintlocks.com
Say, any of you boys smithies? Or, if not smithies per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wanderin'?

Offline Mtn Meek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • GRRW Collector
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2021, 09:15:10 PM »
What caliber, weight barrel and length barrel is the type C? Thanks in advance moodyholler

Below is a table that George Shumway prepared giving the characteristics of the Type C rifles he knew of and examined or had information on.



I'm often skeptical of caliber measurements reported by collectors and museums because they often make them with a modern shotgun gauge such as the one below.  These shotgun gauges measure right at the muzzle where there may be some rod wear or some intentional "belling" of the muzzle to aid in loading.  They also can only measure land-to-groove ID on barrels with an odd number of lands and grooves--7 lands and grooves being a very common number back in the day.



In the table above, the barrel length for this sampling appears to be a nominal 45 inches and the bore a nominal .58 caliber which would be equivalent to 25 balls-to-the-pound assuming a windage of 0.01 of an inch.  Note that Specimen #2 and #4 calibers are listed as approximate, meaning they were likely guessed rather than accurately measured.

De Witt Bailey does mention in British Military Flintlock Rifles 1740-1840, "The Quebec Board of Ordanance return mentioning 96 rifles for Indians in January 1782 refers to their calibre as taking 25 balls to the pound of lead, or .571" ball (using the table given in Smith's An Universal Military Dictionary of 1779)."

I don't know of any references that give the weight of the barrels.  The barrels are swamped.  Shumway mentions that the barrels of the Type A and Type D specimens that he illustrated measured 1-3/32 inches across the flats at the breech.  He didn't give an equivalent measurement for the Type B and Type C rifles.

Ryan Gale's latest book, Rifles of the American Indians, has some great pictures and detail measurements of a Type C by Grice in Jim Gordon's collection.  The barrel dimensions he lists are 1.090" at the breech, 0.890" at mid-point, and 0.924" at the muzzle.  This barrel is given as 44.875" long, and Gale lists the bore diameter as 0.612".  The barrel length and bore diameter doesn't match any of the rifles in Shumway's table above.  I don't know if this is a rifle that Shumway didn't know about or if the measurement differences is a result of a different person taking the measurements.
Phil Meek

Offline rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19546
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2021, 02:41:32 AM »
Most of the well used original rifled barrels I’ve worked on are between 1 and 2 calibers larger at the muzzle. It’s concentric so seems deliberate. It’s not a coning as we think of it. The grooves are still there. So a barrel that measures .56 at the muzzle is often .55 or .54 further down an inch or 2 and consistent till we get to the burned out or eroded powder chamber.
Andover, Vermont

Offline RAT

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 699
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #40 on: August 26, 2021, 10:56:49 PM »
According to what I've read, they would have been made to take the standard "trade ball" that the HBC (and others... including the British govt.) would stock at trading posts throughout Canada. This would be the same size round ball used in common NW trade guns. I believe the ball was around .55 cal.
Bob

Offline Rajin cajun

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Ragin Cajun
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #41 on: August 27, 2021, 01:24:37 AM »
Very interesting.....!

Bob
It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog !

Offline lexington1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #42 on: September 04, 2021, 11:22:02 PM »
Here is a rifle with a Grice styled patchbox and barrel. This barrel is nearly 46" in length and is stamped with Wm. Grice markings on a top flat and RW marks on a bottom flat. Does anyone know if Grice and Wilson sold components or just completed guns? The balance of the furniture appears to original stocking, with no extra pin holes in the guard, thimbles, or barrel tenons, nor do the barrel tenons appear to have ever been moved. The trigger guard appears to me to be Bucks county. I'm guessing that the barrel and patchbox are from a Grice trade gun, but not sure as the barrel length is an anomaly and the pins look to have been drilled only once. Also I believe the Grice and Wilson trade rifles used a screw the attach the nosecap to the barrel, but I could be wrong. In any event there is no screw hole in this barrel for it.  This rifle appears to have been stocked by someone in a quick and dirty fashion and is crude, yet the inletting, etc. is actually pretty good. I think that the weird cheekpiece was fashioned this way because either the stock was too narrow to incorporate a cheekpiece or the stocker was unfamiliar with rifles.  It also has a knob at the rear pipe, such as a Brown Bess would have. This is a pretty heavy stock on this, although it looks fairly petite, but I think part of the illusion is that that it has a nearly 15 inch trigger pull length. The lock on this rifle is not the original, so pay no attention to it. It didn't have a lock on it when I acquired it.










Offline Rajin cajun

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Ragin Cajun
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2021, 01:16:24 AM »
NICE ......!



Bob
It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog !

Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2021, 05:16:34 AM »
Based on the Ketland shipping records and the government contracts, I think Shumway was wrong in assigning the K rifles to the Indian trade. There isn't any documentary evidence to connect them. My own thinking is that they were English made rifles in the American idiom, for sale in America and I doubt the K's cared who bought them as long as they got paid.

Offline lexington1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #45 on: September 05, 2021, 05:21:50 AM »
JV what do you make of the rifle barrel posted right above having RW and WG markings on it?

Offline Mtn Meek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • GRRW Collector
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #46 on: September 07, 2021, 08:43:22 PM »
lexington1,

Your rifle's barrel markings are interesting.  From my limited observations, the makers mark between the proof marks are usually the gun stocker or at least the firm that arranged to have the barrel proofed.  So that would suggest that Grice originally stocked a gun with the barrel or at least had the barrel proofed.

A makers mark by itself or not associated with the proof marks often signifies the barrel maker.  Sometimes the barrel maker and gun stocker are one and the same, but not always.

As Joe Puleo pointed out in an earlier post, there probably wasn't a lot of capacity for making rifle barrels in England at this time, so it's not too surprising to see a Wilson mark on a barrel as the barrel maker and the Grice mark as the gun stocker.
Phil Meek

Offline lexington1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #47 on: September 07, 2021, 09:30:39 PM »
Thanks Phil. A couple of things about the barrel that are somewhat odd to me is that the barrel is longer than any others I've seen recorded and the barrel tennons only have one set of pins holes in them. That would suggest to me that maybe the barrel and box were never on a Grice trade rifle, but were on their first stocking. The barrel tennons could have been replaced, but the quick and somewhat crude way that this was put together makes me think that they wouldn't have bothered. The barrel tennons have never been relocated either. What are your ideas about that?

Offline Mtn Meek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
    • GRRW Collector
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #48 on: September 08, 2021, 03:17:26 AM »
lexington1,

You said "This barrel is nearly 46" in length."  That's not that much longer than the longest Type C barrel that Shumway measured at 45¼".  I don't think they kept the tolerances on barrel length all that tight.  I'm not sure there is any significance to your barrel's length.

Shumway also lists a barrel at 48" and another at 47-15/16" in his table on the Type B rifles by Ketland & Co, while most of the others are in the 43" to 44" range.

Concerning the single pins holes and other evidence that the barrel and other parts "were on their first stocking", there probably are a number of possible explanations.  One is that the barrel and possibly other parts were imported into North America to be stocked up here.

S. James Gooding in Trade Guns of the Hudson's Bay Company 1670-1970 has a section starting on page 34 on "Company Armourers, Company Gunsmiths" that discusses in some detail gunsmiths that signed on for duty at the Canadian trading posts to repair used guns and build new ones.  In Fig. 21 on that page is a tabulation of gun parts and gunsmith tools that were shipped to Fort Nelson in 1739.  Included on the list are "Barrels for Hunting guns."  The quality work that some of these gunsmiths performed evidently varied.  On page 36 Gooding quotes a report from 1723 that "provides what may be the answer as to why there are a number of trade guns which do not conform to what we think of as standard."

Quote
I have sent home fifty guns of the late armourer's [John Upton who returned to England in 1722] fitting up, to be at home refitted, Mr Myat informing not [?fit] to trade neither here nor East Main by reason the Indians will not look upon them.

Grice was not a gunmaker to the Hudson's Bay Co., so I doubt that barrel went to one of their trading posts, but the Northwest Co., the American Fur Co. and other smaller companies often copied HBC's products, markings, and methods.  There are a number of avenues a new, unused barrel could have traveled to North America and arrived in the hands of a frontier gunsmith or a native gunsmith.

George Shumway updated the information that was published in the Buckskin Report and presented it at the 1984 Trade Gun Conference.  His paper has been published in the Proceedings of the 1984 Trade Gun Conference by the RESEARCH DIVISION of the Rochester Museum & Science Center.  Shumway has a section on "Additional Types of English Rifles".

Quote
In addition to the four main types of English-made rifles, there apparently were other types made with characteristics that differ from Types A, B, C, and D.  If the survival rate for these rifles was approximately 1 out of 300 or 1 out of 400, a contract filled for a few hundred rifles easily could pass our notice today because no surviving specimens exist, or because they may exist but we know nothing about them.  And if we are aware of one surviving specimen with different characteristics it could be a presumptions to classify it as a distinct type on the assumption that a lot more once existed just like it.  Accordingly, two pieces are treated here that are different, and it is suggested that we wait until at least one other specimen of the same kind, and preferably two other specimens of the same kind, are documented before assuming that they are representative of a class of similar pieces.

Shumway goes on to describe a rifle with a "Ketland & Co." marked lock very similar to the locks on the Type B rifles, but this rifle has a wooden patch box cover instead of brass.  It also lacks carving behind the cheekpiece and appears to utilize a slightly different trigger guard.  The barrel does have British proof marks.

The second non-typical rifle that Shumway describes is a bit more like yours.
Quote
This rifle (Figures 44, 45, 46) is difficult to interpret.  The well rusted but not heavily pitted barrel apparently has no marks upon it, including English proof marks.  The stock is equipped with cast brass furniture typical of the English-made rifles considered in this study.  The patch box is the two-piece type used on Type C rifles, but the lid is not latched in the usual way, with a release projecting through the lid near the butt plate.  Instead, it is fastened with a latch that is released by a button on the top of the butt plate, as with the Type B rifles.  The brass trigger guard has its grip rail lying close along the lower edge of the stock like the guards on Type D rifles.  The stock, which appears to be professionally done, has a cheek piece with a straight lower edge.  The barrel, presently 35-5/16 inches long, once was a number of inches longer, judging from the uneven loop spacing.  The bore is .58 caliber, without rifling.  The stock is without relief moldings or carved decoration of any sort.

The inconsistencies between the parts, and the straight-edged cheek piece, suggest that this gun may have been assembled and stocked in America.  It does not seem suitable to consider this a Type D rifle.  Paint of a brick-red color is present under the side plate.




We have a very incomplete view of the types of English-made rifles imported into North America.  The surviving rifles represent just the tip of the iceberg of the large number of rifles documented to have been shipped from England.  Unfortunately, the surviving documents rarely provide any detail description of the rifles and make it exceedingly difficult to match the surviving rifles with any of the period documents.

De Witt Bailey in British Military Flintlock Rifles recorded these numbers
  • 1775 - 100 rifles shipped to West Florida
  • 1775 - 12 rifles to East Florida
  • 1778 - 65 rifles to West Florida
  • 1779 - 30 rifles to West Florida
  • 1778 - 12 rifles to Quebec
  • 1779 - 320 rifles to Quebec
  • 1780 - 400 rifles to Quebec
  • 1781 - 300 rifles to Quebec
  • 1782 - 250 rifles to Quebec
  • 1780 - 32 rifles purchased in Detroit from merchant
  • 1781 - 200 rifles Detroit requirements
  • 1782 - 120 rifles Detroit requirements
  • 1783 - 200 rifles Detroit requirements
  • 1782 - 100 rifles Six Nations, Guy Johnson, Northern Superintendent
  • 1783 - 600 rifles Six Nations, Guy Johnson, Northern Superintendent

George Shumway in his 1984 Trade Gun Conference paper listed guns and rifles presented as treaty presents to Canadian Indians by the British government for five different treaties between the Rev War and the War of 1812.  This is a summary:
  • 1790 - 20 rifles
  • 1796 - 11 rifles
  • 1796 -  7 rifles
  • 1798 - 10 rifles
  • 1806 - 16 rifles

During the War of 1812, the Ordnance Board ordered 1,536 rifles from 16 English gunmakers.

In Rifles of the American Indians by Gale, Ness, and Mikelson, the following rifles are listed as presents for Upper and Lower Canada, but no source is given.
  • 1820 - 500 rifles
  • 1822 - 354 rifles
  • 1823 - 116 rifles
  • 1825 - 125 rifles
  • 1828 - 200 rifles
  • 1831 - 149 rifles
  • 1834 - 128 rifles
  • 1839 - 40 rifles

The quantity of rifles listed above is a partial listing of British government purchases of rifles for North American Indians.  These are mostly from the Board of Ordnance records.  In most cases, these numbers do not include rifles sent over by the Board of Trade as those records do not always break out the guns shipped by type.  Also not included in the above numbers are rifles imported by private trading companies such as Hudson's Bay Co. and the Northwest Co.

S. James Gooding mentions that the HBC began ordering rifles in the late 1810s and into the 1820s.  He provides some descriptions, but he doesn't always give the quantities.  Most of the Northwest Co's records are lost or destroyed.

It's safe to say that there is a lot more that we don't know about English-made trade rifles than what we know.
Phil Meek

Offline lexington1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
Re: Information on English made longrifles
« Reply #49 on: September 08, 2021, 03:29:24 AM »
Thank you very much Phil. That is great information!