Crescent buttplate traditions

[JHeath]

I know why both flat ( "shotgun") and crescent ("rifle") buttplates exist. Flat plates can be fired from the shoulder pocket with the body near-square to the target. Crescent plates are mounted to the upper arm, the body near-right-angle to the target, the rifle cross-body and not cantilevered from the chest. To give a clearer example, crescent plates are for a more "scheutzen" position. Nobody would attempt to mount a scheutzen hooked buttplate to the shoulder pocket. Mounting a crescent plate to the shoulder pocket is a painful mistake.

Is there any historical evidence relating to these very different shooting styles in connection to builder traditions?

Were shooters conscious that rifles from X region were intended to be fired from a "shotgun" position, and rifles from Y region built to be fired from a more scheutzen-style position?

[Clark Badgett]

American rifles seem to have mostly gone with curved butts. European rifles seemed to have stayed with flatter butts.

[AZshot]

Wait, didn't you just start another thread a couple days ago with the same topic?  https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=69557.msg696019#new

[Shreckmeister]

The deep crescent butt plates on the rifles made by Wm. Shreckengost were intended to be placed below the bicep.  When held across the body, they move the center of gravity toward the shooters chest thereby giving better balance and therefore increased accuracy.  His rifles were primarily small caliber for small game.  If you hold them this way you can definitely feel the steadiness it provides.  Also the crescent butt are of various sizes, so I'm thinking they were based on the build of the buyers.  Along with the crescent butt, the drop was increased to raise the plain of the barrel to eye level.  I am not aware of this style previous to 1840, but he used it from 1840 until 1890 when he ceased to make guns.

[JHeath]

Wait, didn't you just start another thread a couple days ago with the same topic?  https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=69557.msg696019#new

On the "Black Powder Shooting" forum, not here. And I left a heads-up there for the moderator, before starting this thread with the question rephrased.

I am not so interested in how people view crescent buttplates today. I am interested in how the buttplates relate to the construction and use of period longrifles in different communities.

Experts study tiny details of trigger shapes, decorative motifs, etc. and study how the buttplates look.

Crescent buttplates virtually dictate shooting technique. They are not just decorative.

They are as different as if Wasco county longrifles were made with open sights, and Deschutes county longrifles rifles were made with aperture sights. It begs the question of how conscious period users were, that there are two ways to position rifles, and that their own was a local choice.

Is there evidence? Some letter-writer scoffing at a crescent plate rifle, or vise versa?

[Clark Badgett]

In this country, the flatter butts gave way to the crescent plates as they moved into the 19th century. They then seemed to get progressively more curvy, and by the mid 1850s even our military muskets incorporated some curvature. This trend continued into the early cartridge era. By the late 1870s some firearms manufacturers started offering flatter plates on the heavier recoiling rifles. As black powder started yielding to smokeless powders, the curvy plates started to be replaced by flatter plates.

Fowling types tended to stay with the more logical flatter types.

So, to answer your question, there doesn't seem to be any particular region or schools, etc, that did one or the other, instead a more universal stylistic trend.

[JHeath]

In this country, the flatter butts gave way to the crescent plates as they moved into the 19th century. They then seemed to get progressively more curvy, and by the mid 1850s even our military muskets incorporated some curvature. This trend continued into the early cartridge era. By the late 1970s some firearms manufacturers started offering flatter plates on the heavier recoiling rifles. As black powder started yielding to smokeless powders, the curvy plates started to be replaced by flatter plates.

Fowling types tended to stay with the more logical flatter types.

So, to answer your question, there doesn't seem to be any particular region or schools, etc, that did one or the other, instead a more universal stylistic trend.

Thanks. The shooting style must have evolved over time, then transitioned back.

[JHeath]

In this country, the flatter butts gave way to the crescent plates as they moved into the 19th century. They then seemed to get progressively more curvy, and by the mid 1850s even our military muskets incorporated some curvature. This trend continued into the early cartridge era. By the late 1970s some firearms manufacturers started offering flatter plates on the heavier recoiling rifles. As black powder started yielding to smokeless powders, the curvy plates started to be replaced by flatter plates.

Fowling types tended to stay with the more logical flatter types.

So, to answer your question, there doesn't seem to be any particular region or schools, etc, that did one or the other, instead a more universal stylistic trend.

Isn't is possible the crescent plate evolved in America as a consequence of the lengthening of the rifle?

Jaegers and English sporting rifles had short barrels and flat plates.

Scheutzen rifles, because they are muzzle-heavy, have "hooked" plates that are effectively deep crescent plates. The plate makes it possible to support the forend aft of the balance point, keeping your arm near the body.

As muzzle weight moves forward, at some point you *must* have a crescent or hooked plate, you don't have a choice. If you had a 48" x 1" straight barrel you couldn't keep it on your shoulder with a flat plate. You wouldn't have enough friction on the buttplate. Or to get enough friction you'd be pulling back extremely hard.

I think people agree that long barrels are the technical response to ballistic needs. And that swamped barrels are a technical response to the balance of a heavy barrel. Crescent buttplates, as technology, offset the effect of a long or heavy barrel. If the fulcrum is your left hand, and you add weight on a long cantilever past that, you have to hold down the other end of the "teeter-totter." Seems to me.

[Ky-Flinter]

Wait, didn't you just start another thread a couple days ago with the same topic?  https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=69557.msg696019#new

Yes, he did.  But the discussion turned ugly and I moved the thread to the Moderators File for review and possible penalties.  If this thread doesn't remain civil I will remove it too.

Ron

[Robby]

Wait, didn't you just start another thread a couple days ago with the same topic?  https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=69557.msg696019#new

Yes, he did.  But the discussion turned ugly and I moved the thread to the Moderators File for review and possible penalties.  If this thread doesn't remain civil I will remove it too.

Ron

Must be cabin fever setting in already, how can it get ugly discussing the shape of a buttplate??!?!?!?
Robby

[JHeath]

Yeah, my intention is to find out what’s known about the period choice of buttplate design. To me it is exactly the equivalent of investigating the lengthening of barrels into longrifles. The barrel at one end of the rifle is connected to the buttplate at the other end. It’s like a gun carriage. Cannons get longer or more powerful and the carriage tech evolves to match. The buttplate is a gun carriage. It’s not a decoration. It’s fundamental to how the object is used.

What I’m finding is that people apparently haven’t looked into it as an 18th Cent historical question and   can’t agree on much about it in the here-and-now.

[Clark Badgett]

Isn't is possible the crescent plate evolved in America as a consequence of the lengthening of the rifle?

Jaegers and English sporting rifles had short barrels and flat plates.

Scheutzen rifles, because they are muzzle-heavy, have "hooked" plates that are effectively deep crescent plates. The plate makes it possible to support the forend aft of the balance point, keeping your arm near the body.

As muzzle weight moves forward, at some point you *must* have a crescent or hooked plate, you don't have a choice. If you had a 48" x 1" straight barrel you couldn't keep it on your shoulder with a flat plate. You wouldn't have enough friction on the buttplate. Or to get enough friction you'd be pulling back extremely hard.

I think people agree that long barrels are the technical response to ballistic needs. And that swamped barrels are a technical response to the balance of a heavy barrel. Crescent buttplates, as technology, offset the effect of a long or heavy barrel. If the fulcrum is your left hand, and you add weight on a long cantilever past that, you have to hold down the other end of the "teeter-totter." Seems to me.

While barrel length might have had an effect of the butt plate shape, I'm thinking it was just artistry of the era. Fowling guns of the era were often very long in comparison to early rifled guns, even with barrel lengths of over 50" being quite common. I have never found the flatter early style plates on longrifles to be any problem with shouldering with the over 42" barrels.

[JHeath]

Isn't is possible the crescent plate evolved in America as a consequence of the lengthening of the rifle?

Jaegers and English sporting rifles had short barrels and flat plates.

Scheutzen rifles, because they are muzzle-heavy, have "hooked" plates that are effectively deep crescent plates. The plate makes it possible to support the forend aft of the balance point, keeping your arm near the body.

As muzzle weight moves forward, at some point you *must* have a crescent or hooked plate, you don't have a choice. If you had a 48" x 1" straight barrel you couldn't keep it on your shoulder with a flat plate. You wouldn't have enough friction on the buttplate. Or to get enough friction you'd be pulling back extremely hard.

I think people agree that long barrels are the technical response to ballistic needs. And that swamped barrels are a technical response to the balance of a heavy barrel. Crescent buttplates, as technology, offset the effect of a long or heavy barrel. If the fulcrum is your left hand, and you add weight on a long cantilever past that, you have to hold down the other end of the "teeter-totter." Seems to me.

While barrel length might have had an effect of the butt plate shape, I'm thinking it was just artistry of the era. Fowling guns of the era were often very long in comparison to early rifled guns, even with barrel lengths of over 50" being quite common. I have never found the flatter early style plates on longrifles to be any problem with shouldering with the over 42" barrels.

If you throw a crescent plated rifle to your shoulder and shoot it like a fowler, it will hurt. I just can't believe an artistic gunsmith turned that into a national fad, and people trying to look cool tortured themselves for generations.

I think crescent buttplates on longrifles must serve the exact same function as on schuetzen rifles, hooks on biathalon rifles, etc. Nobody would mount a scheutzen rifle like a shotgun, and everybody agrees the hooked plate exists because the rifles are barrel heavy. The plate goes with an off-the-arm shooting technique, which requires standing almost at a right angle to the target and bringing the rifle close to the chest.

Unless our forefathers were total masochists who enjoyed stabbing their shoulders, the crescent plate must signify a shift in shooting technique away from shotgun/fowler style, to something like the schuetzen style.

Maybe the question should be, "Were people shooting flat-plate longrifles from the arm? And did crescent plates evolve to acommodate that?" Look at how modern national match service-rifle competitors use flat plates in standing position. It explains everything.

I think fowlers aren't swamped, are they? That was a response to barrel weight in rifles if I understand correctly.

[T*O*F]

I think crescent buttplates on longrifles must serve the exact same function as on schuetzen rifles, hooks on biathalon rifles, etc. Nobody would mount a scheutzen rifle like a shotgun, and everybody agrees the hooked plate exists because the rifles are barrel heavy. The plate goes with an off-the-arm shooting technique, which requires standing almost at a right angle to the target and bringing the rifle close to the chest.

I have a book published in 1921 that describes the guns used by wilderness scouts that says exactly the same thing.  It also stated that holding the rifle cross-chest enabled one to shoot from behind a tree with only an eye and an elbow exposed.  A valuable trait when shooting game or enemies.

[rich pierce]

We tend to think that the American experiences are unique and therefore the way things were done here are a result of special circumstances or needs. Meanwhile across the world in all sorts of dangerous places different styles emerged, but crescent buttplates are not seen. Of course we can compare schuetzen rifles with crescent-buttplate rifles here, with crude open sights and think they served the same needs. Perhaps. Sometimes styles just emerge and catch on. If you look at Kindig’s Golden Age book the gun weights are listed. Plenty of 9, 10 pound guns with long barrels and flat buttplates. Somehow they made do with flat buttplates, as did hunters in Africa and India, and as did American soldiers during the late flint and percussion eras when the crescent buttplates became popular here. I’m not dis-favoring crescent buttplates. I don’t think they are necessary or that there are compelling reasons, other than historical ones,  to have them. Historical reasons are good enough for me.

[Mike Brooks]

Wait, didn't you just start another thread a couple days ago with the same topic?  https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=69557.msg696019#new

Yes, he did.  But the discussion turned ugly and I moved the thread to the Moderators File for review and possible penalties.  If this thread doesn't remain civil I will remove it too.

Ron

Maybe I need to get involved in this discussion....

[Clark Badgett]

If you throw a crescent plated rifle to your shoulder and shoot it like a fowler, it will hurt. I just can't believe an artistic gunsmith turned that into a national fad, and people trying to look cool tortured themselves for generations.

I think crescent buttplates on longrifles must serve the exact same function as on schuetzen rifles, hooks on biathalon rifles, etc. Nobody would mount a scheutzen rifle like a shotgun, and everybody agrees the hooked plate exists because the rifles are barrel heavy. The plate goes with an off-the-arm shooting technique, which requires standing almost at a right angle to the target and bringing the rifle close to the chest.

Unless our forefathers were total masochists who enjoyed stabbing their shoulders, the crescent plate must signify a shift in shooting technique away from shotgun/fowler style, to something like the schuetzen style.

Maybe the question should be, "Were people shooting flat-plate longrifles from the arm? And did crescent plates evolve to acommodate that?" Look at how modern national match service-rifle competitors use flat plates in standing position. It explains everything.

I think fowlers aren't swamped, are they? That was a response to barrel weight in rifles if I understand correctly.

Yes, there were fowlers built with swamped barrels. The fact remains that a flat buttplate does not hamper shooting in any position, yet the crescent buttplate will. Couple with that the fact that the crescent plate largely came into vogue in the east after the majorioty of "shooting an enemy from behind a tree" had passed and smaller bores were becoming the fashion. The fowling gun was also the far most common type in any group of settlers where danger was likely. They are simply better for fire power and versatility. The crescent was a style, one that carried on into the westward expansion, not something that came from necessity.

[alacran]

I spent some time this morning looking at Grinsdale's Fowler book. The majority of Hudson Bay Fowlers have crescent BPs. Looked at British Fowlers and some Also have crescent BPs. Some of those guns are early guns. The Hudson Bay Fowler are very lo,ng, and rather large bore.

[MuskratMike]

Wasco & Deschutes counties? Are you picking on Oregon?
"Muskrat" Mike
McMinnville, Oregon

[rich pierce]

I spent some time this morning looking at Grinsdale's Fowler book. The majority of Hudson Bay Fowlers have crescent BPs. Looked at British Fowlers and some Also have crescent BPs. Some of those guns are early guns. The Hudson Bay Fowler are very lo,ng, and rather large bore.

I wasn’t thinking about gently curved buttplates but more the deeply curved ones as seen on Hawken, SMR, and other late rifles.

[JHeath]

We tend to think that the American experiences are unique and therefore the way things were done here are a result of special circumstances or needs. Meanwhile across the world in all sorts of dangerous places different styles emerged, but crescent buttplates are not seen. Of course we can compare schuetzen rifles with crescent-buttplate rifles here, with crude open sights and think they served the same needs. Perhaps. Sometimes styles just emerge and catch on. If you look at Kindig’s Golden Age book the gun weights are listed. Plenty of 9, 10 pound guns with long barrels and flat buttplates. Somehow they made do with flat buttplates, as did hunters in Africa and India, and as did American soldiers during the late flint and percussion eras when the crescent buttplates became popular here. I’m not dis-favoring crescent buttplates. I don’t think they are necessary or that there are compelling reasons, other than historical ones,  to have them. Historical reasons are good enough for me.

Historical reasons and connections are what interests me, too. There doesn’t need to be a practical explanation for the features of an object: features can be cause *or* effect.

But some features inescapably define how things are used. If you found pieces of a chunk gun, punt gun, wall gun and no historical record and insufficient evidence to explain the existence of such objects, how would you interpret them? That people carried and shot them offhand? That 5% of men in the past were 9’ tall? You would really have to conclude that they were used from some kind of rest.

The object itself presents limited possibilities. I don’t think generations of people were torturing themselves by shooting crescent plates from their shoulder pockets for the sake of fashion. I think the object itself tells us something about how they were using it.

Which doesn’t explain why they did it. We can’t always infer that. We can look at a Japanese matchlock and infer they didn’t shoulder it. We can’t infer why they made the stock so short. Maybe to shoot from castles, or because it fit in their duffle, or a shortage of wood. Or maybe they just didn’t think things through.

It doesn’t concern me if American shooters used crescent plates because of rifle matches, Natives behind trees, etc. But the shift from flat to crescent plates demonstrates I think an almost undeniable practice of mounting a gun as in the scheutzen standing position. That contrasts with how fowling is usually done and how flat plates are usually used. I think there’s an important story there and as a historian I am surprised nobody seems to have dug into it. The explanation “I guess they thought it looks cool” isn’t enough.

I know it’s possible to shoot a fat barrel with a flat plate. I had a 12lb competition service rifle with a flat plate and held it basically like a scheutzen rifle. There were historical reasons for it. In fact, historical reasons why the buttplate had a hinged hook on *top*.

[rich pierce]

Without period references one can hypothesize, reason, and infer. And if one writes about it, eventually it can be accepted as common knowledge. I’ve seen many such examples that do not satisfy me.
“The longrifle developed because they needed long barrels to shoot poor powder.”
“The longrifle developed because they needed a longer sighting plane.”
“The longrifle developed as a hybrid between English trade guns and short Germanic rifles, driven by what Native Americans wanted.”
I don’t mean to debate such things; just point out that none of these declared reasons have any period proof. Not a single reference. So, still just ideas without any proof. 

[JHeath]

We tend to think that the American experiences are unique and therefore the way things were done here are a result of special circumstances or needs. Meanwhile across the world in all sorts of dangerous places different styles emerged, but crescent buttplates are not seen. Of course we can compare schuetzen rifles with crescent-buttplate rifles here, with crude open sights and think they served the same needs. Perhaps. Sometimes styles just emerge and catch on. If you look at Kindig’s Golden Age book the gun weights are listed. Plenty of 9, 10 pound guns with long barrels and flat buttplates. Somehow they made do with flat buttplates, as did hunters in Africa and India, and as did American soldiers during the late flint and percussion eras when the crescent buttplates became popular here. I’m not dis-favoring crescent buttplates. I don’t think they are necessary or that there are compelling reasons, other than historical ones,  to have them. Historical reasons are good enough for me.

It’s not “necessary” to have a hooked butt on a scheutzen. You could pull a flat-plate scheutzen into your shoulder tight enough to shoot it.

But why do scheutzens have hooked plates? Because the barrel is heavy.

It’s not “necessary” to have a crescent plate on a longrifle. You can shoot a longrifle using a flat plate. But why do crescent plates become the norm?

 *Maybe* because the barrel is long, *maybe* because people realized shooting cross-the-body from the arm has advantages, and *maybe* they gradually realized that flat plates are necessary on fowlers but not rifles.

Has anybody checked? That was my question. And what I’m finding is that nobody has seen this addressed, the way barrels are endlessly discussed. Which to me is really striking, because the crescent butt is as distinctively American as the long barrel. It’s not a feature of Jaegers and English sporting rifles. And the crescent out-lives the long barrels; plains rifles had crescents. The crescent plate becomes an important technical feature of longrifles, dictates a shooting technique, and yet it’s treated like a peripheral, throwaway embellishment. Amazing.

[RAT]

1. Look at the Erhard Wolf book on Jaeger rifles. A few of the later rifles show more pronounced heals. Yes... they're still pretty flat... but it shows a beginning of the evolution to curved butt plates. These correspond to similar styles used in America at the same time (roughly 1770's).

2. The American rifle tradition evolved with German immigrants.

3. Because American gunsmiths were less restrained by more formal styles, I believe they were more free to change and evolve... for better or for worse... and there doesn't need to be a logical, or scientific, or engineering, reason for it.

4. "Calibers got smaller because all the big game was gone". I don't believe that myth. I think it was partly due to economics. Small gun... less powder and lead to buy... less expensive. What I've read leads me to believe the smaller calibers were starting to be used it poorer areas first and moved out from there.

5. You're speaking too much in absolutes... "clearly"... not really... "you have to agree"... no I don't.

6. "More art than science"... you're looking too hard at cause and effect. Not everything is done for logical reasons. It reminds me of a line from a TV show... "it doesn't always have to make sense... like plus size bikinis". Barrel length and weight may have nothing to do with the shape of the butt plate.

7. I've read far more period journal references to shooting from a rest than I have about standing square or angled in relation to the target.

8. Some competitive shooting matches may have established positions that you were expected to use. I believe these evolved from formal matches in Germany. Back county matches probably didn't. They could shoot however they wanted.

9. There are period paintings of shooting matches. A good one is "Shooting for the Beef" by George Caleb Bingham (ca. 1850). It shows a back country shooting match.

10. Crescent buttplates may be bad for some shooting positions... but some shooting positions are just plain bad in themselves. Remember all those drawings of match shooters from the 19th century in contorted positions? In hindsight they don't make much sense either... but they did it.

What does this tell you about the shape of a buttplate?


Sometimes we just have to accept what "is"... or in this case "was". There doesn't need to be an explanation. The same holds true for ourselves. Lets accept ourselves for who we are and accept the longrifle for what it is.

[Clark Badgett]

Shuetzen rifles were heavy for bore size, shot standing with a palm rest. The hooks were purpose built around that sport. And the hooks were made to balance the weight of the very heavy barrel.

You keep arguing barrel length as being the factor of the crescent showing up, but barrels began to shorten during the height of that particular fashion.

The facts still stand that there is no pragmatic reason for the curvy plates, but they do look good.