Plain guns

[northmn]

Browsing the antique site I am seeing more plain Pennsylvania type rifles.  Patch boxes and full brass mounting but no carving or engraving or very little.  When I started building a Pennsylvania rifle just wasn't complete until it was carved and engraved.  I was even told they were done that way.  We see a lot of Tennessee rifles made by people that do not want to carve and engrave.  Some are very elaborate in their own way.  I think it is just great that these plainer brass mounted rilfes are showing up.  Not every gun built is a show piece.  I have not finished my poor boy 25 yet but think if I were to start again it would be a plain brass rifle.  I have a lot of respect for the people that do all the extra work, both the pros and amateurs and am in no way knocking what they do.  But new builders and old tired builders like myself do have another medium besides Tennesse rifles that allow for a little creativity as in simple carving or just leaving them plain.  I see them lacking a lot in new builds, although a few are showing up.  Tennessee rifles are great, but ther are other plainer rifles of about any longrifle school.

DP

[Stophel]

I THINK about 1800 is the point where you start seeing lots of plain rifles.  All the normal hardware, but just plain.  Before that time, I'm not so sure about.

When I go to gunshows where there are old guns, I also see plenty of post-1800 plain guns.

[northmn]

Don't you think some of it has to do with "collector value" and survival rates?  In the earlier days of collection, it was the more elaborate guns that were purchased and valued.  Today I think the plainer ones are valued because of increased demand to acquire anything original.  Most of the "Golden age" guns were built after 1800 also as were a lot of Tennessee's.  Pre 1800 guns had wooden patchboxes and tended to be plainer than after 1800.  Also my point is that builders should not be ashamed to build a plain brass mounted rifle. 

DP

[Dphariss]

You need to look at the standard of the times.
In the mid-18th century everything was more ornate, tables, chairs, clothing. The English Indian Trade rifles were carved in the 1780s. The Brown Bess had carving. Its how things were done. It was expected.
But fashion changed. EVERYTHING got plain in the late 18th early 19th.
The relief carved rifle hung on till the 1830s-40s to some extent.

You cannot look at the relief carved American rifle without taking fashion into consideration.

Dan

[wbgv]

....and not all could afford a 'fancy' gun......like BMW's and Yugo's...

[rich pierce]

I do like plain rifles where the architecture shines through without distraction.  There are just darn few of them represented among the earliest colonial rifles (pre-Revolutionary War).  And there are plenty of fancy ones represented in that cohort.  If we choose to argue it's about survival and collectability, perhaps we should apply those same standards to later time periods.

I think sometimes we over-rate how much extra "fancy" would cost in the early period.  There's a lot of work breeching and rifling a barrel, sawing a blank with a hand saw, inletting barrels by hand, roughing in a stock with hatchet, drawknife, plane and spokeshave, making many of the parts, and getting it all assembled together in a nice, shapely, finished package.  Adding some moldings, some carving and a little engraving is no big deal for someone trained in those arts.  Probably an afternoon's worth of work.  I am not talking "A Verner-Gunsmith" style decoration here.  More like RCA 52.  That incised carving on the buttstock, a molding line here and there, and a little something around the tang, took maybe 45 minutes.

I do think I see quite a few plain guns made during the Revolutionary War period.

[Stophel]

Wondering out loud:  I wonder if economics were a factor?  With increasing industrialization, and the ready availability of gun barrels, locks, etc. post 1800, guns began to be cheaper.  In earlier periods, guns might have been more expensive (just due to parts/material costs), and doing carving or even engraving was a smaller percentage of total cost, so why not go all the way and do it up nice?  Whereas, with later guns, that were cheaper to begin with, carving/engraving became a much larger percentage of the cost of a gun, so the customer might be less inclined to go the extra bit for a nicer gun.

Meaning, if you're spending a thousand dollars on a 1760 gun, why not add another hundred for carving?  But if you're spending 500 dollars on an 1820 gun, the extra hundred seems like a lot more.
Does that make sense?

[northmn]

After about 1800 there was the start of the "industrial revolution"  Eli Whitney introduced the milling machine for instance.  Locks were being imported and barrels made by some makers (I gather Remington started out this way)  There was even some stock shaping machines.  Rifles were less expensive and gunsmiths became more assemblers like we are today.  Even so, it was said Dickert made locks for other gunsmiths.  When I researched the issue of cost of rifles I was told that a pre revolutionary rifle cost between 4 -4.5 pounds with the average craftsman making 20-25 pounds a year.  They were spending far more than $1,000 on a rifle at that time.  Smoothbores and fowlers were about one pound.  The earlier trade rifles were closer to being "mass produced".  It is likely that gunsmiths of this time period made the fancier guns, like custom makers do today.  However, collectors are starting to show off guns that earlier collectors passed over.  There was also a time when guns were being tore down for parts, likely plain ones to fix fancy ones.  I just feel there were enough plain guns to justify building them today.  Looking through the ALR museum, some had a little engraving and carving also, but were relatively plain and on and off one sees a plain rifle shown off in the antique collectors section.  There are also makers that command a higher price, but there were also some makers of less notoriety that made plainer guns.

DP

[Mike R]

We've been through this before--the claim that early rifles were all carved--yet old trade lists [beginning at least 1760s] clearly refer to at least two grades of rifle guns, typically listing one as 'plain' and the other as 'fine' or similar terms.  The price differential is typically almost 1:2 ,plain: fine. 

[rich pierce]

I think costs often reflected quality of locks, etc.  Bridled locks, etc are often mentioned in trade lists.  I have not seen many early trade lists for rifles but am very interested in them.

Also, our conceptions of plain may vary in different periods.

Plain to some here may mean no carving at all, no lock moldings, a bare unadorned gun.  Maybe even no patchbox.  I imagine the typical plain gun of the 1770s and earlierto have basic moldings along the toe, a little carving around the tang, beavertails at the lock moldings, a forestock molding, and not much more.

[Stophel]

  I imagine the typical plain gun of the 1770s and earlierto have basic moldings along the toe, a little carving around the tang, beavertails at the lock moldings, a forestock molding, and not much more.

That is my feeling as well.   

[northmn]

I have seen pictures of enough plain guns posted to feel comfortable building one.  If I were to do so I do not think I would have to buy Chambers locks under an assumed name or worry about being publicly castigated.  There were some made, as to how many?  Carving and engraving reqire no raw materials, yet the concurrent Tennessee rifles were not carved or engraved to any extent.  I would suggest it does add cost, maybe more so than we think   Any self employed working man likes to make wages. 

DP

[rich pierce]

Just because I like to discuss/argue, I'll say that Tennessee rifles with handforged iron mounts involved more labor than building a carved gun with cast brass mounts.  And since they used the latest model imported locks, we can't say "they had to forge the mounts".  The cool forged mounts were a style; individual artisans doing their things and expressing themselves through their special skills.  So as far as being "plain", yes.  Lower labor, I'd disagree.  It would be a heap easier and faster to carve a gun than forge and weld/braze up those buttplates.  Besides, these are nearly all in the post-1800 era when carving was passe in Pennsylvania also.

[Dphariss]

I have seen pictures of enough plain guns posted to feel comfortable building one.  If I were to do so I do not think I would have to buy Chambers locks under an assumed name or worry about being publicly castigated.  There were some made, as to how many?  Carving and engraving reqire no raw materials, yet the concurrent Tennessee rifles were not carved or engraved to any extent.  I would suggest it does add cost, maybe more so than we think   Any self employed working man likes to make wages. 

DP

For the most part they are too late for carving.

Dan

[Dphariss]

  I imagine the typical plain gun of the 1770s and earlierto have basic moldings along the toe, a little carving around the tang, beavertails at the lock moldings, a forestock molding, and not much more.

That is my feeling as well.   

And mine.

Dan

[northmn]

One of the plainer guns I had seen was possibly a N. Hawk.  But just for the sake of discussion, lets say I wanted to build a plain Pennsylvania rifle/patchbox, no engraving and no carving.  What would be appropriate say for Pre 1800 or early 1800??  What should be built and how?  By the way in looking through the library I saw Angstadts work.  One was a classic carved rifle the other a shimmel.  Nothing in between

DP

[JBlk]

Guns and the people who purchased them were probably like the automobiles that were sold in the late forties and Early fifties.You bought them as you could afford them.No heater, no radio,no unnecessary frills.Yet each one was its owners pride and joy.The Cadillac was always pretty flashy but there were allot of model Ts.

[Stophel]

One of the plainer guns I had seen was possibly a N. Hawk.  But just for the sake of discussion, lets say I wanted to build a plain Pennsylvania rifle/patchbox, no engraving and no carving.  What would be appropriate say for Pre 1800 or early 1800??  What should be built and how?  By the way in looking through the library I saw Angstadts work.  One was a classic carved rifle the other a shimmel.  Nothing in between

DP

For the accomplished gunsmith, carving is easy (or the not-so-accomplished.  A LOT of old guns have carving that ain't all that spectacular.  You can tell they didn't spend a huge amount of time on them like we would today).  It is hardly more difficult or time consuming to do the full carving everywhere over doing just moulding lines and teardrops, especially when we are talking about the early 19th century, and gun carving is pretty simplified anyway.   

[Kentucky Jeff]

I can't remember where I heard this but it made sense at the time.  In the period after the Revolution there were a lot of gunmakers who had been employed by the government for the the purpose of making guns for the Army.  After the war was won the supply of guns was way up and the need for gunsmiths way down.  In order to sell guns on this highly competitive environment gunsmiths would "bid up" guns by offering free engraving and carving.  "So old JP Beck down the road offered to make me a plain rifle for 4 pounds 3 shillings but Jacob Beyer said he would gladly make me a carved and engraved rifle for the same price!"    As markets go makers could eventually sell plain guns without throwing in the "leather seats and power windows."  Around the end of the 18th century the need for guns was increasing as going west of the Appalachians and further (after Lewis and Clark) was increasingly popular as the majority of the indian wars in KY, OH and IN were over and the remaining Indians had been pushed back to Illinois or up to Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and beyond. 
 

[northmn]

Actually what I am seeing like on the N Hawk rifle is no carving no molding but engraving. I think the engraving may have been an "add on" as that is easier done later than carving.  You also have the possibility that there were customers that did not want all the bells and whistles, just a plain gun.  many people are more concerned about how they shoot than looks.  A lot of what we see are "collectibles"  as that market is getting tougher you are seeing more plain guns turning up in that section of this site.  Some of the "non collectibles", in the early days, were robbed of parts for building and upgrading the fancier ones and scraped.  Not all gunsmiths were JP Beck and even N. Hawk turned out some plain ones.  It would be totally proper to build an unadorned Pennsylvania rifle.

DP

[smshea]

 In the case of Hawk , he was a master engraver first and foremost. You run into allot of his guns with every piece of metal engraved to the max and not a lick of carving. If I'm not mistaken he got in trouble for counter fitting at one point so he was very good. I think engraving is just what he liked to do.

 When it comes to super plain guns like that Angstadt, I think guns like that mainly show up from  Berks, Lehigh,Schuylkill,Bucks etc. area... at least that's where most of the ones Ive seen came from. I cant think of one Ive seen that was for sure west of Womeldorf area and most often seem to come from the  foothills of the Blue Mts. Ive handled several but they are pretty rare... I would think mostly due to survival rate. 

 I hope there is no shame in building guns that plain as Ive built several. Actually its allot of fun trying to maintain proper architecture with no buttplate or other hardware to guild you....I think its something everyone should try.

[Dphariss]

Engraving never went out of style. Carving did.
N. Hawk,  by his time carving was on the way out and apparently he  carved very few guns.

Dan

[B Shipman]

I love plain guns. The challenge here is for style to carry the day. And it's more obvious on a plain gun where there is nothing to distract the eye.  I really enjoy building them but rarely get the chance.  How about a John Angstadt, buttplate, T.G. and pipes and nothing else but a Getz 48 in. light .50 swamped.

[Pvt. Lon Grifle]

Is it likely that the plain guns were the most common and were simply "used up" first ? What are the anticipated survival rates for the cheapest schimmels as compared to the plain guns by local mechanics as compared to the showpieces by the masters of the time, men with farther reaching reputations ?  Does a gun with a butt plate survive better in the woods and fields and standing in a corner over time than one without?   

Seems to me that there were many more yeomen  than gentlemen farmers, or tradesmen, and I could guess who lived longer as a general rule. Just as the stone houses survived better over time, so did the better guns, I think.  Lon

[Dphariss]

Is it likely that the plain guns were the most common and were simply "used up" first ? What are the anticipated survival rates for the cheapest schimmels as compared to the plain guns by local mechanics as compared to the showpieces by the masters of the time, men with farther reaching reputations ?  Does a gun with a butt plate survive better in the woods and fields and standing in a corner over time than one without?   

Seems to me that there were many more yeomen  than gentlemen farmers, or tradesmen, and I could guess who lived longer as a general rule. Just as the stone houses survived better over time, so did the better guns, I think.  Lon

I think the severely plain guns were less common, the lack of all hardware, especially the buttplate, makes them less durable. I would think that a rifle like the "Haymaker" is a typical 1760-1775 type. But we have no idea really. But I suspect that rifles were expected to be carved to some extent so most were until the ornamentation fell from popularity.

Dan