Owner Profile Colonial Rifles

[northmn]

I picked this sight as I feel I can tap into the knowledge of those who might best know.  After reading accounts of the F&I and Revolutionary wars I am getting the gut level feeling that rifles were not all that common.  I made a list of gunsmiths from my book on longrifles and came up with about 16 makers working during and before the Revolution and almost none known for the F&I War.  I did come across 2 English made longrifles 1770 that must have been imported.  Considering their other responsibilities as smiths such as repair they could not have built a very large amount of rifles comparatively speaking. The issue came up discussing military tactics of the Revolution which I definitely do not want to get into here.  But I would like to see just for discussion a possible profile of a rifle owner if there is one, and how many may have been made.   A 45 year old man at those times may not have been frisky enough to be a colonial rifleman yet wealthy enough to buy a rifle.  I have seen price sheets on rifles and they were about 3X that of a musket.

MY list:
Allentown: Young, Antes, Dubb
Lancaster Newcomer, Fondersmith, Dickert, Gonter and J.Beck
Littleston Sell
Reading Schnieder, Schrittt, Haga
York Schroyer
Virginia Sheets
These were makers listed before 1770 and a few in the 1760's.  The proliferation of makers seemed to occur after 1800 or the "Golden Age"  Some schools such as the Bedford school did not exist before the Revolution. I listed Beck under Lancaster as there is a debate that Lebanon Cty did not exist when he was active.

DP

[rich pierce]

For me this is a "no open book test" as I don't have the documentation here. What pops into my head:

Abraham Berlin, Easton
Albrecht, Christians Spring
Matthias Roesser (Resor), Lancaster or York
The first Henry, Allentown
Martin Meylin, Lancaster
Maybe Niehardt was working pre-1770.
George Leyendecker (patchbox 1771)


We need EK to chime in here as I am sure there are 10-15 more
We need Flintriflesmith too as he has the South in his head.

[flintriflesmith]

DP,
The book you have seems to be way behind--several decades of research-- in listing gunsmiths who were working in the colonies before the Revolution. There are literally hundreds of gunsmiths, scattered from New England to the Carolinas, that are documented before the Rev War."

Of course the question of how many of them were building guns vs. repairing guns is a difficult (impossible) one to answer. Certainly in the early 17th century the population of most of the colonies was low and imported guns brought over by immigrants were common.

Even if we know a smith was making guns, say from the list of tools and meterials in his inventory, we will still have a hard time determining what sort of guns most of his customers were ordering. We can say with some certainty that, in the colonies where trade with England was well established, imported fowlers were readily available in many grades and the prices were lower than those for colonial made guns--even of the same type. Pages and pages have been written attempting to to understand why rifles were preferred by some and fowlers by others. It goes way beyond just price!

Although a rifle was not cheap in the period, it was not beyond the purchase power of many individuals who decided it was best suited for their needs. At a time when a tradesman was earning 20-25 pounds a year a rifle was selling for 4 to 4 1/2 pounds.

Gary

[northmn]

The book is Johnson's which I bought to have a reference of photographs of various rifles.  It was not dedicated to Colonial Rifles.  Just as a thought, who made the muskets that supplied the militia units?  Also if a tradesman were making the equivalent of say $40,000 per year, that would put the price of a rifle above $8,000 equivalent.  Of course they did not have microwaves, VCRs, TV's and other junk to spend their money on as neccessities, but that still puts the price up there.  Also I realize that surviving rifles decrease as the years went by. 

DP

[flintriflesmith]

Every colony had its own set of militia laws. I know the Virginia laws fairly well and the Virginia militia was not "supplied with muskets." Every militiaman was required to muster with his own gun and a specific supply of powder and ball. The law required that he have an additional stock of ammunition at home.

A muster in a tidewater Virginia county would have found the vast majority of the unmounted militia armed with various types of smoothbores ranging from the cheapest trade guns (they were not just for the Indian trade) to nice fowlers. A few might of had surplus muskets that their family had liberated from the government during an earlier war.

The Virginia colonial government did own a stockpile of muskets but they were in reserve for outfitting special expeditions such as Lord Dunmore's 1774 march against the Shawnee. Even then the milita units from the western counties were not issued muskets -- they went to war with their own personal guns and most of Andrew Lewis's force, made up of militia from Botetourt and Augusta areas, had rifles in the battle of Point Pleasant.  Dunmore's part of the army who had the muskets were not involved in much, if any, actual fighting.

The supply system did change in the 19th century and by the War of 1812 the State of Virginia was providing both muskets and rifles to county militia units.

The relative cost of items within the same period is a much more accurate way to study what people could and could not afford than trying to jump across the centuries. When a rifle was selling for 4-4.5 pounds, a family bible, a plow, or 1000 40 penny nails, was about 1 pound, a hunting saddle just over 2 pounds, and a desk and bookcase (furniture fairly common in the finest homes) was 23 pounds!

To look at from the other end, a hunter could buy a rifle for by what he made selling 50 to 100 pounds (weight) of dried and de-haired deer hides. A single hide averaged about 1.5 pounds.

Gary

[mr. no gold]

Don't forget John Shriver, and John Noll in this exercise. Also, check Whisker's books on Colonial gunmakers; he found enough to publish several books on the early makers. He has page after page of names throughout the eastern seaboard from the time of the Revolution backwards to the 1600s.
Dick 

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Don't forget Peter Berry, born 1730 worked mostly in Montgomery County til 1786, then moved to Dauphin county. Was a Captain during the Revolution.

[Don Getz]

Lets not forget that early Christian Oerter rifle that turned up about two years ago.  If I remember correctly, it was even
dated (year) and numbered (42?).  I believe there are a few others of his in collections, but not many.  If this is any indicator of how many survived, it makes you shudder.   I just wonder how many might still be out there, hidden in some
attic.............Don

[northmn]

The going rate for a Northwest gun was 20 Beaver hides, but it definitely was not rifle.  Most of my references to that weapon date to about 1790 but the HBC or the Northwest Co. must have been trading right after the F&I war.  Just as a guess based on economics a common rifle owner would likely have been some one in a position of being established in life when he makes the purchase.  As stated it gets hard to say, as what we buy today as "necessities" is so different.  Also they seemed to buy more durable goods.  Another question almost arises as who were in the militias?  In some ways they remind me of todays volunteer fire departments.  I knew that my list was incomplete but it gave a good start to understanding.

DP

[jwh1947]

Admittedly, beating a dead horse, but I would be real reserved and hesitant to incluce Martin Meylin as a gunsmith, period.  When you research this issue, you end up with scant material and stretches, to say the least.  But Meylin wasn't far from the real action, and blacksmith's tools were listed in his inventory, so he could have been a gunsmith.  But look below for what is likely our region's first gunsmiths.  

 If you want to move beyond conjecture, then consider James Baker and his brother Robert.  Pequea, Lancaster County, established by Penn Land Grant, dated 1717, 300 acres.  Gunshop operated on this site.  On August 15, 1719, the boys petitioned Jacob Taylor, Provincial Secretary, for approval to dam the Pequea Creek and erect a shop for making and "boaring" gun barrels. Two years later, permission was granted to mine and refine ore on this site and a Catalan forge was used here to work the metal.  

Now, there's some primary documentation from Commonweath records to establish an early gunsmith.  No fairy tales and no imagination applied, just the facts. Now, show us some earlier ones...primary records only, no fish stories and wishful thinking.  Sam and Mary Dyke were the first to bring this material to the gun enthusiast-reading public.  It's always been there in official documents.  Nothing new, but often overlooked by students of Kentuckies.  To my knowledge, no Baker specimens exist.

Also, look up James Chambers, (1738-1762), Paxton, Lancaster Co., PA.  Killed at Fort Hunter by Indians, August, 1762.  Inventory establishes gunsmithing.  You can see the inventory in the book that Don and I did in 1992.  Again, no Chambers guns that I know of.   JWH

[flintriflesmith]

...  Another question almost arises as who were in the militias?  In some ways they remind me of today's volunteer fire departments.  I knew that my list was incomplete but it gave a good start to understanding.
DP

Militia were not, in the colonial period, volunteers. They were required to serve and their service was regulated by laws passed by the colonial legislature. Their "commander in chief" was the governor. Higher officers were appointed by the governor. Lower ranking officers were approved at the county court level.

It was an obligation. Although the laws varied from colony to colony (PA had no milita at all until the Rev War due to the Quaker government) the general rule was universal service.

While there were exceptions for some professions like clergy, sheriff, elected officials, etc and for certain critical occupations, like a slave overseer, the colonail militia was a lot like the draft. I have posted a summary of Virginia's militia laws for the 17th and 18th centuries on my web site under research but a very general summary is "every free male from 16 to 60 years of age was required to be in the militia unless specifically exempted for some reason." When the danger of needing an armed force was lower the age range was changed--sometimes it was 21-45.

Men who were required to serve were, as I posted earlier, required to provide their arms and ammunition.

Gary

[Dphariss]

The funny part about rifles in F&I period or before is the rifles reported in Indian hands from 1740s on. Where did they get them? How did they figure out they wanted them? Likely by seeing Colonists use them.
Then we have the 50 riflemen (about 10% of the Colonists) reported as part of a military force in 1687 New York.

I was having a talk with a long time student of longrifles a couple of weeks ago and he thinks as I do that people today are dating rifles too late when in the 1930s-40s they often dated them much too early. People like to use descriptions like "3rd or 4th quarters of the 18th century" when they could just as easily have been made in the 2nd to the 4th quarter.

Considering the level of conflict there had to be gunsmiths in the 1600s. The German migration began about 1680 and I am sure the rifle arrived with them along with some trained gunsmiths if not initially then in succeeding years. By 1720 there were surely *American born* gunsmiths making rifles at least in PA.

Dan

[northmn]

The importance of the fur trade in America is often overlooked.  We had the rival companies of the Northwest CO, and the Hudson Bay Co. that were said to give literal meaning to the word "cut throat" competition.  Also the French were heavy in that trading.  Due to the result of that, Indians that wanted rifles and were willing to pay the price would get them.  The point about selling deer hides hit me that the "longhunters" likely bought rifles as an economic tool.  They could get more deer and other valuable hides and furs cheaper and more efficiently with a rifle just in the cost of powder and shot and thus make more money, other advantages be darned.  As to militia providing their own arms, it rminds me of the British soldier that had to buy his own uniform (officers made money that way and some uniforms were more elaborate because of that)  Likely militias or someone would be a supplier of firearms.  Considering the availability of imported fowlers, etc that was likely an entry weapon.  But as one got wealthier they would use what they liked, and might start a "keep up with the Joneses type of competition, in which rifles could enter in.  We also do have some documentation of get togethers and competition shooting such as turkey shoots and beef shoots.

DP

[northmn]

Another thing I have noticed since viewing this site is the number of plainer rifles I ahve been seeing.  Most of the "collectibles" were the more decorated rifles.  Always wondered if there were not more plainer rifles, but that they had a poor survival rate.  Also what the difference in purchase price may have been?  They are not Shimmels, just plainer more unadorned rifles.  They could have also increased the common ownership.

DP

[scooter]

May I suggest my Arms Makers of Colonial America? and Brown's Smithsonian book on same subject? And I have a huge list of NY gunsmiths that early and in fact going back to King William's War. My Philadelphia list has at least 7 before 1770. Point in part is: where can one research this? few if any tax lists go back before 1770.

[G-Man]

Dan's point about the native use of rifles is important and I feel a significantly overlooked area related to the development/ popularity of longrifles on the frontier.  There are records of a rifle being stocked for a "Shawanoe Chief" at Christians Spring in the 1750s - which indicates that at least some of the guns being made for natives were being made in the same shops here in America right alongside the rifles being used by white hunters and frontiersmen, and that a rifle could be had by the 1750s.

Period references from just a bit later, i.e. the 1770s, to firearms on the Appalachian and trans-Appalachian frontier seem to often make deliberate distinction between terms like "gun" vs.  "rifle gun" or "rifle".  The rifle culture seems to have been well established in these people by the time they pushed into and over the mountains prior to the Revolution.

I also agree with Dan's point about the possibility that some rifles might be attributed too late.  Getting to see some of the great southern rifles that have been studied more in depth in recent years has taught me some surprising things - namely that some of the styles  were actually well established much earlier than you would think if you were to just base the estimates on things like butt width, etc.

[Willy]

 Hello,
   I need some very useful comments posted here.The subject is fascinating but actually quite complex.An excellent book on the subject is:
  "Arming America-The origins of a National Gun Culture" - Michael A. Bellesiles ISBN 0-375-40210-1
A very well done book on the subject mentioned here,exhaustive research and documentation.You will be surprised at what really happened,an excellent read.
                      Willy

[James Rogers]

I do not have any knowledge on American made rifles vs import but am very curious as to the amount of gunsmiths in America actually building guns (both rifles and guns) prior to the 1760's.

In some of my family research I found an ancestor to have owned a rifle in the year 1749. This intrigued me so I went thru a five year period of all surviving wills and inventories for Albemarle Co. Va. Most all locations of individuals mentioned were in the present Appomattox, Buckingham Co. area. For the years 1748 to 1751 the amount of rifled guns was half of those listed as just "guns" or "smoothbored guns".  This was not a frontier fringe area. The amount of rifles is very significant in my opinion to show that they were already well established in that time frame and owned by men old enough to have families of adult children.

[Dale Halterman]

The book proposed by Willie has been thoroughly discredited and the author was forced to resign from his position at Emory University as a result.

I read pretty much everything I could find posted on the internet about it and concluded it is a pile of anti-gun horse manure.

No, I do not believe everything I read on the internet, but in all that I did read, I found only two sites that defended Bellesiles. (not sure that is the correct spelling, I copied it from Willie's post). One was Bellesilies own website, where he attacked his critics, but did not attempt to refute their charges, and the other was by some one who thought that the investigation performed by Emory should have covered more than just his handling of probate records.

I would suggest that no one waste their time reading it.

Dale H

[Artificer]

Couldn't agree more with Dale.

Here is a link to what Emory University found during an investigation into his research and Bellisiles's resignation and statement. 

http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases/bellesiles1035563546.html

Reading between the lines of the Formal Scholarly review, they were shall we say "very kind" to Bellisiles even though they found much to criticize. 

Clearly a case of re-writing history and coming to conclusions based on Bellesiles' political bent rather than scholarly investigation.