(BTW cap, that's not a front sight, it's a slit in the front of his coat topped by a button.)
LOL ,,,, I stand corrected . I see that now Detached. Sure looked like a front sight at first glance
Im going to have to disagree , respectfully with a few points of each of you .
Which supports the end conclusion that there is no way to specifically prove an exact choice that an ancestor chose to carry . All one can do without actual documentation of a specific family member would IMO be to narrow down to a likelihood at best.
As such we then have to draw educated conclusions. Since we have started to justify why each of our conclusion, let me try and justify mine .
First lets start with the law being a justification .
The problem as I see it with the principle is that we have a 50 year time frame which covers both the F&I war an American revolution as such we have the political climates and the effects of both to consider as an influence .
Because of this one could probably write a book on the subject and still draw nothing but an opinion .
We know that despite laws people back then were as like not to follow them as they were today . Hence we have people not having or showing up to militia training without the required equipment or with very out dated equipment . We see that happen throughout history . Look at the reports even at the Alamo with people showing up with nothing but pitchforks and sickles .
Then you have do to the early date the possibility of arms being in a community armory
Again we are not talking frontier settlements here.
So I don’t think given the family reference that we can claim “law “ as a reason for having any firearm . Thus I state the possibility that one may not have had one at all .
As to a rifle . I discount that do to IMO it being the lesser likelihood. Not because of it not being a possibility . Right in the middle of this time frame you have the colonies passing laws against selling rifles to Native peoples . Why ,,, well because there was a market for it and thus it was happening . So can we not conclude from such that rifles were available and being transported north and south .
We also know that years later gunsmiths like John Armstrong made their living mainly from well-to-do farmers . So from that I conclude that even though a farmer in a rural area may not have had a great need for a rifle , they were still buying them . So apparently 20 years after our given time frame , there was a market .
At the same time however if we go back to our given time frame , rifles would have been expensive. Remember we are talking farmers here . Not much has changed, even today ,concerning their revenue flow. IE they live most of the year on credit , then pay off that marker when the harvest comes in. with the cost of an average rifle still being around 1 months pay , I add that to my list . Which now equals
Rural farmer , Family status /wealth un known , cost , need ….
All reduce IMO the lily hood of a rifle. So it goes low on the list of possibilities
Which is something that smacks right into your conclusion of a young farmer and his rifle ,Detached . Simply put young farmer back then = very poor farmer unless they came from money . As such to buy a new rifle meant he would have to have taken on a lot of extra work in order to buy that rifle . Thus there IMO would have been a greater likelihood that in your case the gun would have been passed down or bought used. But again as with this case , we are talking degree’s of likelihood as we cannot say based on definitive fact
Next we look at smoothbore , as what else is left . So what type of smooth bore ?
Well considering the family , its background , settled area , I lean to the club butt .
The surrounding area would have still had a large Dutch influence , hence what were the Dutch building during that time ?
Even if we move later in that 50 years span when there began to be more English moving in, those English were still building club butts , but with English influences. Hence you see the different English parts being on those guns . But the important thing for me is that those English and German smiths were still putting out club butt type fowlers . Thus I draw a conclusion that the plausible reason for that is that style of gun was what was popular in that region. IE they built what people were looking for .
This then leads me to the BoO ’ Board of ordinance type guns . So what were these guns ? Well they are what RFD suggested in that they are made from a conglomeration of parts from different guns . during the revolution “again in our time frame “ congress built the Board of ordnance for the purpose of producing a supply of arms from available parts . IE they were building guns from what ever they had available . Hence you get the American Fowler I posted . While working at the MoI I saw more then a few of these and we gave them their own classification.
The reason for that is that while it wasn’t uncommon to see guns made from parts prior to the forming of the BoO . However prior , a lot of times what one would see is a different lock , maybe a different but plate or TG . But not really the mass of different parts that was seen after the BoO development . The concluded reasoning was , from what I was told at the MoI was that gunsmiths while refurbishing older arms , were still applying what they new and were comfortable with . Hence they were still producing a style they were comfortable with . IE you still had the Dutch , German , France , English influences being predominantly prevalent on the piece even though the piece may have been from different guns . After the BoO you see guns that are a mix of what ever was available , a lot of times placed on what ever stock was available or restocked to a rather strait stocked fowler type gun . Basically a smiths individual influences for the most part went out the door as they were producing what ever they could , as fast as they could . The only real thing that mattered was that they got as many functioning “though cheep “ guns , out as fast as they could , before they were found out . Thus most have no makers markings .
Why the need ?
Well because not only did the colonies not have the supply of arms that one would think they had , but they also were finding that they were losing large numbers of arms do to attrition . Not to also mention that despite the laws , they had people showing up without arms . So they needed as many fireable weapons as they could.
One would think that do to the number of smiths , there would have been more then enough . But the simple fact is that there wasn’t . don’t forget that many of the “Laws” of the time made manufacturing in the colonies very hard to near non existent. Everything , just like today , was taxed , records had to be kept , parts and supplies had to be imported even though we were capable of producing our own . Kinda reminds you of today really .
So you then have a chance of such a gun being on the list IMO is very probable.
As such I believe if we narrow down the possibilities , given the Family , its back ground , its location , we then come to a very good likely hood that a smoothbore sets atop of the list and a rifle lower down . That doesn’t mean its definite. Only the greatest probability
From there one would have to Imo dive deep into family history and be very specific as to a person to narrow the list more .
IE what was the person like , were they young and rebellious. Did they seem to stretch the bounds of the family or conform to older family values . Did they seem to travel a lot or did they not travel far . What was their financials like . Were they very poor , middle of the road or more on the wealthy side in that they owned a lot of land or just small plots . What were their political alliance during this time ?
Thus in the end I would agree with Mario that one could , given a lot of research , come up with a very possible conclusion. But remember its only a conclusion and can never be definitive without direct family reference.
Topic: Family flintlock fantasy (Read 1218 times)