Post by: wadedog on February 20, 2008, 01:26:11 PM
looking for a early type ,something the average guy would have toted around my area.
Post by: FG1 on February 20, 2008, 01:49:58 PM
Post by: mark davidson on February 20, 2008, 02:00:53 PM
Post by: hawkeye on February 20, 2008, 03:53:03 PM
http://www.jbrownmuzzleloaders.com/ (http://www.jbrownmuzzleloaders.com/)
Post by: mario on February 20, 2008, 04:53:22 PM
Have heard good things about his guns and have one on order for myself.
Mario
Post by: Voyageur on February 20, 2008, 05:10:46 PM
Post by: wadedog on February 20, 2008, 09:27:04 PM
I would love to assemble one in a kit form but i'm really not sure I can do a good job on it.
The kit price isn't too bad I guess, I sure don't want to spend close to a grand on a rifle thats going to see some abuse.
Post by: mark davidson on February 21, 2008, 10:11:01 AM
Post by: Kirrmeister on February 21, 2008, 01:16:11 PM
Keeping the tradition alive I plan to buy such a poor boy fowler kit or rifle and use it for going out and make meat in german forests and use it fot target shooting.
What I would like much more is to find a builder who could build a german ML gun from the 18th century for me.
Regards
Kirrmeister
Post by: Kirrmeister on February 21, 2008, 01:36:03 PM
I mean a builder in the USA. Don't know one in Germany who do it for a adequate price.
Contact you!
Regards
Kirrmeister
Post by: Groundhog on February 21, 2008, 08:22:19 PM
TVM works ....
Post by: wadedog on February 21, 2008, 09:07:33 PM
Wyosmith I no doubht belive your guns are well worth your price and I belive you should deserve to make worthwhile money for them.
But I guess times haven't changed a whole lot because It would be hard for this poor boy to pay the cost of a fine custom rifle, but my mind is sure thinking of how i can come up with the money for one believe me you sure make it sound nice.
At the same time there's a very nice sense of accomplishment of building and using a gun made by myself.
Thanks goes out to you for helping us guys who want to build one for ourself, alot of people would want to keep the secrets to theirselves.
youre right we need to keep the spirit of blackpowder alive.
thank you.
Post by: FG1 on February 21, 2008, 09:21:47 PM
Post by: sse on February 21, 2008, 10:00:16 PM
Quote
Many men might (and do) keep the secrets to themselves, but it's not the right way to look at things in my opinion.Please tell me this doesn't apply to making chili or homebrewing...
Post by: sse on February 21, 2008, 10:16:35 PM
Quote
I will give you my favorite recipes for chili too.Well, that's it, you're an extra-terrestial alien.
Post by: Craig Tx on February 21, 2008, 10:27:58 PM
Quote from: "Wyosmith"
there's an old saying I love;
"If I light your candle with my candle, it doesn't diminish the light of my candle"
Absolutely!
It's no shame for the student to out do the teacher. I've taught fencing for a number of years. Nothing thrills me more than to have one of my students whup me. Especially if they use a technique that they've had to really work on.
It shows me I'm doin' my job right, and gives me incentive to make sure my skills are where they need to be.
Craig
Post by: FG1 on February 21, 2008, 10:29:12 PM
Post by: wadedog on February 22, 2008, 08:05:31 AM
A true testimony to the fellowship that makes this site so good.
Post by: Captchee on February 22, 2008, 09:26:23 AM
Its sad really that parts have become such a cost . But when you really look at it I guess , the cost is still pretty reasonable .
Take casting a trigger guard for instance .
When I cast a new guard I have at least 2 hours in it . Ranging from laying up the mold , pounding the sand . Melting the metals . Not to mention I have the cost of the gas for my foundry , the brass as well as maintaining my crucibles which don’t last to long .
Then you still have to clean things up to make it suitable for use . I simply cant do that process for the cost charge to simply buy that part through a supplier.
BUT on the bright side those suppliers most times don’t offer the parts I want .
There simply is no replacement for quality work .
Now unlike steve , I do rework production guns of a lot of different qualities but I also let folks know that those rifles will never be the quality of a good quality rifle made from good quality parts . Sure it may shoot and shoot well and serve their intended purpose BUT ???
Now I have and im sure others here to include steve have been know to say here , try this I think you will like it better . Try it , this is why I recommend what I do .
Some time back a member of our organization wanted a new lock for a rifle they were building ..
They contacted me to see if I had an old factory flintlock laying around .
I did but IMO it wasn’t satisfactory and never was , even when new .
The person felt he simply couldn’t afford a quality lock . So we did some trading and I agreed to send him the old production lock .
Well once I got the items we had agreed upon , IMO they were worth more to me then what that old production lock was . So I simply boxed up one of my good locks and sent it off .
When that fella got the lock , his remarks were something to the effect of , I have never seen a flintlock that sparked so well , its like its on steroids or something .
Well that lock wasn’t what I would have considered a top of the line lock . It was just a simple L&R medium quality lock . But comparing that part alone to the production lock , ????? Well enough said .
Now that’s just one part , taken as a whole the end reliability alone is IMO much greater with good quality parts found in custom rifles .
So I would say this . Buy you a parts kit from one of the manufactures . Get a couple building books , read them . Your not going to be into things more then a couple hundred more then a descent production gun and in some cases less the what you would pay for a Pedersoli at cabalas.
Build your own rifle , we will help you through the steps and answer any questions you have . don’t rush , take your time . The end result will be that you have a rifle that you built with your own two hands . A rifle that you can pass down . A rifle that will in the end be worth all the knowledge you put into learning to build it ..
Not to mention when you use it for hunting the pride in taking that first deer or what have you with a rifle you built will be worth way more then the price of the parts .
Post by: mark davidson on February 22, 2008, 11:55:37 AM
Post by: WhiteBlanket on February 22, 2008, 01:50:29 PM
Quote from: "sse"
QuoteI will give you my favorite recipes for chili too.Well, that's it, you're an extra-terrestial alien.
Naah, Wyosmith just walks in the Kingdom of the Light who is coming into the world..
Post by: sse on February 22, 2008, 02:50:36 PM
Quote
Naah, Wyosmith just walks in the Kingdom of the Light who is coming into the world..That's true, too.
And I have to just say, Steve is so full of good words and randomn acts of kindness, quite a character, or as we used to say back in the 70's, he's a good head...(remember that one?)
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on February 22, 2008, 02:58:47 PM
Post by: Kirrmeister on February 22, 2008, 03:30:02 PM
Regards
Kirrmeister
Post by: Steve S on February 22, 2008, 04:42:59 PM
Steve
Post by: FG1 on February 22, 2008, 05:27:48 PM
Post by: mario on February 22, 2008, 05:31:05 PM
Quote from: "Steve S"
Ok...Satisfy my curiosity...What's a "poor Boy"?......Or more accurately,what makes a gun fall into that category?....It's not a term I'd heard until I started frequenting US circles.........
Steve
Like FG1 said.
Most often heard of when you're speaking about things like a "Southern Mountain rifle".
A bare bones firearm usually made for folks at the bottom end of the financial scale.
Mario
Post by: Steve S on February 22, 2008, 05:37:34 PM
Steve
Post by: vermontfreedom on February 23, 2008, 06:13:02 AM
There are those of us that do certain things (like build muzzleloaders) for a living (I'm not one - I wish I had that talent/expertise!!!).
Folks like WyoSmith and others that do quality work deserve to make a living at it.
Then there are those of us that do these things as hobbies or the enjoyment of teaching others. Some of us sell our crafts - never expecting to make a living or even break even.
I believe there is great value in the non-monetary rewards of these hobbies. For the great majority of us, making our own bullets, possibles bags, longguns, powderhorns, even hunting is done for the love of it - sometimes that is worth far more than money.
Even if I shot the cheapest possible firearms and was able to put 2 or 3 deer a year and a turkey a few grouse or pheasant, some squirrels, etc. etc. in the freezer, hunting might not actually pay for itself (compared to buying, say, the cheapest meat in the grocery store) when you add in gas, vehicle maintenance, hunting clothes, ammo, and time that could be spent in gainful employment.
But...I'll get more out of my experience (often even if I don't put meat in the freezer!) than thinking I'd like that firearm to "pay for itself". Plus there's the added benefit of knowing I'm harvesting a sustainable resource that mostly fed off this good green earth - sometimes you never know what's been put into the meat you get at the store....
Post by: tg on February 23, 2008, 03:24:51 PM
Post by: wadedog on February 23, 2008, 04:58:25 PM
no wood stain or blueing but assembled and ready to shoot ?
Post by: tg on February 23, 2008, 05:35:19 PM
Post by: wadedog on February 23, 2008, 09:27:08 PM
thinning down the stock is something i hadn't thought of that was needed done in a kit.
How many more things is there secretly hidden in a kit to foil my gun building experience if i choose to buy a kit.
makes me wonder if a kit is over my head.
Post by: Captchee on February 23, 2008, 10:02:09 PM
with a in the white gun , most all thats done for you but for the fineries .
if a in the white rifle has you concerned dont go with a kit
Post by: tg on February 24, 2008, 02:05:30 PM
Post by: wadedog on February 24, 2008, 06:34:40 PM
Is there any pics on this site or maybe someone could post a few pics of their projects in stages of their build.
Post by: Captchee on February 24, 2008, 06:54:39 PM
its all there for information
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on February 24, 2008, 07:19:28 PM
Post by: wadedog on February 26, 2008, 08:33:45 AM
Post by: Captchee on February 26, 2008, 09:45:15 AM
It used to be that an in the white gun was just that .
Everything would be inlet and screwed on . The stocks would be taken down to proper shape and sanded to just before the point of where one could start carving or staining . Some even to the point all that was left was for the person to start the stock finish . Normally the locks barrels and hardware also needed cleaned up ..
Recently though I have began to see more and more that are being left with a lot of stock shaping needing done and in some cases a whole lot of work being needed on the metal parts being left for the customer to do . While they are still shoot able , IMO theses were very much just completely inlet and drilled guns . Something like what you would get with a production kit rifle .
I recently saw a trade gun that a fella showed me he had purchased IN THE WHITE.
It was from a better known company so I expected to see this rifle in the final stages of completion . I was very surprised to see it was not .
So do your research . Ask at what stage of completing the rifle is at .
I would also agree with steve here that a true poor boy is just that . The guns were made as cheep as they could possibly be made . Often times with no Trigger guards or buttplate Or these were made of wood . Often times also there would be no side plates.
There would also be no entry thimble fro the RR , no nose cap and most times only 1 or 2 very simple RR pipes / thimbles . No inlay work at all , no carving
Today however it has came to be a rifle that is normally mounted with iron hardware but with no entry thimble or nose cap .
The Trigger guards are also normally on top of the stocks and not recessed .
Now there is some debate historically as to IF a poorer rifle would have iron or brass hardware as most certainly there are different levels of the so called poor boy rifles .
My take is that IF iron was used , it would be very simple plate iron work that could be bent to make parts .
There is a lot more work in forging nice components then there was in casting say brass .
For forging it takes a some what knowledgeable person . Where with casing , it only take one to over see the work .
Ever heard the saying ;” go pound sand”
Well this stems from the process of founding . The sand is packed / pounded around the moulds using a packer to produce a cavity for duplicating the casting .
This was very much a novice job inside the foundry . A person would be sent to pound sand .
The end result is an item that takes much less time , experience and man power to produce .
The other side of the coin though is that we have an item that is shinny and gold . Thus it has a richer appearance.
While the item isn’t true gold , we have a mentality that gold is worth more then silver and this plays a part often times in what we feel is worth more when comparing a simple rifle mounted with polished brass or a simple rifle mounted with polished forged iron . But in reality which took more time to build ? The components in brass or the ones of iron ?
We see this still today . If you look at the cost of castings . Brass is most times more then the same part in cast steel , even though to cast steel you need a higher temperature taking more time to reach , thus a higher foundry cost . So you can see the BLING , BLING factor playing a part
.
So when you say POOR BOY what level of poor are you looking for .
Very low and basic and the bear minimums or simple , basic and whats considered cheaper
Thus you can have a poor boy that’s as steve has said OR you can have a poor boy that still has a trgger guard made of iron yet no side plate , a butt plate of wood , no nose cap and no entry thimble . No carving and no inlay work, just a simple basic cost cutting rifle that’s on the cheeper side concerning gunsmith time
Post by: TomG on March 02, 2008, 09:56:40 AM
Im getting ready to order a poor boy kit from TVM.
Probably in about a month.
This will be my third semi custom build.
I am no gunmaker, I never have been and I never will be.
These kits can be very intimidating.
But with the help from this forum, I can get through it.
Ill just take my time, and do one piece at a time.
With men on here like Captchee and Wyosmith and others( these guys are master gunmakers and are always willing to help).
When in doubt ask for help.
I ordered a catalog from TVM.
In kit form they install the ventliner,cut dovetails, fit the cap to the butt,etc.
The two kits I got from another company had none of this done.
Post by: Groundhog on March 02, 2008, 10:21:57 AM
That is after all what really counts.
Keep the Tradition alive !
Post by: TomG on March 02, 2008, 10:46:55 AM
When I start my poor boy kit Ill take pics of everything I do.
That way everyone can see and make comments, ideas and critique me on what needs to be done and how to do it.
Post by: Kirrmeister on March 02, 2008, 10:57:54 AM
so you make a internet guided riflebuilding course, great!
I'll be your first coursemember!
Regards
Kirrmeister
Post by: TomG on March 02, 2008, 11:11:05 AM
Ill need lots of help from the forum.
I dont think I could do this or even attempt this build without help from the forum.
Ill need a guiding hand.
Post by: mario on March 02, 2008, 02:28:44 PM
http://www.sittingfoxmuzzleloaders.com/ ... y%2032.htm (http://www.sittingfoxmuzzleloaders.com/Finished%20Tenn%20Cherry%2032.htm)
Might be worth a look.
Mario
Post by: wadedog on March 02, 2008, 06:01:16 PM
Post by: TomG on March 02, 2008, 06:17:31 PM
We can all learn together.
Like I said earlier, Im no gun builder, but with the talented members on this forum we can all do this together.
Ill post pics every day and will do as the gunmakers instruct me.
Ill log my time spent on the project, tools I used and will take pics from every angle.
Post by: wadedog on March 05, 2008, 03:01:09 AM
But like whats been posted here about brass and iron got me to thinking ,how common would a rifle then have iron if it would have been more expensive than brass ?
Post by: Captchee on March 05, 2008, 12:11:24 PM
Some of the worlds largest iron deposits were here in the colonies and it was as I understand it was mined extensively. However the Crown place a requirement and tariff on the iron so that the pig iron had to be shipped to England , it would ten be shipped back at a higher cost .
I read one time that crown put stipulations on products made from iron here in the colonies as well as the sale of that iron to other countries other then England .
And that no manufacturing or equipment that could be used in the manufacturing of to include gun parts would be aloud
Maybe Rich or one of the others could chime in on this with more specifics on this but I think it was part of the navigation and Corn laws of the early to mid 1700’s.
if one does a google search for " iron laws in the colonies"
you will find some reall good information concerning this . i wish i knew how to cut and past from an online book but i cant seem to figure it out .
but if you do the search above you will come up with alot of information .
the first Five book links have some very good discriptions of the laws but i cant seem to past them here ,
specificly read the first one titled
The History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations page 698
but here are a couple refrances that i could
Quote
The successful voyages of these vessels from Massachusetts were regarded with joy, as the harbingers of a flourishing American commerce; and the New England people, especially, looked forward with expectations of much wealth to be derived from the ocean, for they were then quite extensively engaged in fishing. But a navigation act passed by the republican parliament in 1651 gave them warning of English jealousy and its restoration, with more stringent clauses, by the royal parliament in 1660, satisfied the colonists that their commerce was doomed, because it seemed to be regarded as a promising rival of that of Great Britain. After that the attention of parliament was called from time to time to the industries of the American colonies, and laws were made to regulate them. In 1719, the House of Commons declared that erecting any manufactories in the colonies tended to lessen their dependence on Great Britain, and they were discouraged. A little earlier a British author had written "There be fine iron works which cast no guns no house in New England has above twenty rooms; not twenty in Boston have ten rooms each; a dancing-school was set up here but put down; a fencing-school is allowed. There be no musicians by trade. All cordage, sail-cloth and mats, come from England; no cloth made there worth four shillings per yard; no alum, no salt made by their sun."
Later, woolen-goods, paper and hemp were manufactured in New England, and almost every family made coarse cloth for domestic use. A heavy duty had been laid on pig-iron sent from the colonies to England, and the Americans made successful attempts to manufacture it into bars for native blacksmiths, and to make steel. Hats, also, were manufactured and sold in different colonies and small brigantines (square-rigged, two-masted vessels) were built in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, and exchanged with West India merchants for rum, sugar, wines, and silks. Again the jealousy of the British government was awakened, and greater restrictions upon colonial manufactures were imposed, they being foolishly considered as detrimental to the interests of the English at home. It was ordained by a law that all manufacturers of iron and steel in the colonies should be considered a nuisance to be abated within thirty days after notice being given, under a penalty of one thousand dollars. A law was enacted in 1750 which "prohibited the erection or continuance of any mill or other engine for slitting or rolling-iron, or any plating-forge to work with a tilt-hammer, or any furnace for making steel in the colonies." The exportations of hats from one colony to another was prohibited; and no hatter was allowed to have more than two apprentices at one time. The importation of sugar, molasses and rum was burdened with exorbitant duties; and the Carolinians were actually forbidden to cut down a tree in their vast pine forests for the purpose of converting its wood into staves, or its juices into turpentine. The raising of sheep in the colonies was restrained, because wool was then the great staple of England. The interests of the landed aristocracy were consulted more than justice. In the preamble to a restraining act, it was avowed that the motive for its enactment was a conviction that "colonial industry would inevitably sink the value of lands in England." And so, for about a hundred years, the British government had attempted, by restrictive laws, to confine the commerce of the colonies to the interchange of their agricultural products for English manufactures only. The trade of the colonies was certainly worth preserving, for the exports from Great Britain to them averaged, in value, at that period, about three-and-a-quarter million dollars annually. But the unrighteous measures adopted to secure that trade produced (as unrighteousness generally does in the end) a great loss. These acts of oppression constituted the chief item in the bill of particulars presented by the Americans in the account with Great Britain when, on the fourth of July, 1776, they gave to the world their reasons for declaring themselves "free and independent" of the British crown.
Quote
1750 - The Iron Act is passed by the English Parliament, limiting the growth of the iron industry in the American colonies to protect the English Iron industry.
.
Post by: Captchee on March 05, 2008, 12:47:26 PM
Quote
In American Colonial history, the Iron Act, strictly Importation, etc. Act 1750 (Statute 23 Geo. II c. 23) was one of the legislative measures introduced by the British Parliament, seeking to restrict manufacturing activities in British colonies, particularly in north America, and encourage manufacture to take place in Great Britain
The Act contained several provisions, applying from 24 June 1750:
Duty on the import of pig iron from America should cease.
Duty on bar iron imported to London should cease.
Such bar iron might be carried coastwise or by land from there to Naval dockyards, but otherwise not beyond 10 miles from London.
The iron must be marked with its place of origin.
No mill or engine for slitting or rolling iron or any plating forge to work with a tilt hammer or any furnace for making steel should be erected in America.
Colonial governors were required to certify what mills of these types already existed
Pig iron had been exported from Virginia and Maryland since the 1720s, but little came from other colonies, nor did bar iron. The continuance of this was encouraged, as was the production and export of bar iron (which required a finery forge using a helve hammer not a trip hammer. At this time America was probably the third largest iron-exporting country in the world (after Sweden and Russia), and this was intended to continue and even increase.
Conversely, the Act was designed to restrict the colonial manufacture of finished iron products. Existing works could continue in operation, but no expansion would be possible in the output of:
knives, scythes, sickles and other edged tools as a tilt hammer would be needed to produce thin iron, and a steel furnace to make steel.
nails were made from rod iron, from a slitting mill.
Tinplate, which required a rolling mill. This was the raw material from which tinsmiths made a wide variety of goods from tinned sheet iron.
This was a continuation of a long term British policy, beginning with the British Navigation Acts, which were designed to direct most American trade to England (from 1707, Great Britain), and to encourage the manufacture of goods for export to the colonies in Britain.
The Iron Act, if enforced, would have severely limited the emerging iron manufacturing industry in the colonies. However, as with other trade legislation, enforcement was poor because no one had any significant incentive to ensure compliance. Nevertheless, this was one of a number of measures restrictive on the trade of British Colonies in North America that were one of the causes of the American Revolution.
Post by: Captchee on March 05, 2008, 12:53:51 PM
Quote
Cornwall Iron Furnace was one of many ironworks constructed in Pennsylvania during a sixty-year period, form 1716-1776. At least twenty-one blast furnaces, forty-five forges, four bloomeries, six steel furnaces, three slitting mills, two plate mills, and one wire mill operated in the colony. The production of these mills and steel furnaces, irked English iron- and steelmakers because the colonial American iron industry accounted for about one-seventh of the world's output of pig iron, wrought iron, and castings. By the early eighteenth century, England's metal industry depended largely on bar and pig iron from Sweden, mostly because English forests had been depleted by decades of charcoal production. When dependence of the Swedish became burdensome, Parliament passed the Iron Act of 1750 to encourage importation into England of colonial pig iron and unfinished bar iron. The act also forbade the establishment any new colonial sitting mills, plate mills, or steel producing furnaces. Shipment of pig and bar iron across the Atlantic increased and, in fact, restrictions on the advanced iron products made in America were largely ignored, so that the Iron Act was only a minor factor among discontented colonists by the time of the American Revolution.
A sizeable labor force was required to keep the iron plantation running smoothly. Thirty to sixty people worked twelve-hour shifts at the furnace. In addition, the iron works employed a company clerk, teamsters, woodcutters, colliers (charcoal-makers), farmers, and household servants. "From most account, the workers were well-treated," says Strattan. "However, there was a huge gap between the workers and the owners." At the opposite end of the social and economic spectrum from the laborers was the owner, or ironmaster, ruler of a self-contained head of a community not unlike an Old World feudal barony. He and his family inhabited a mansion of vast acreage, and styled their way of life much like that of English gentry.
Because this first stage of iron-both pig and cast-is brittle, it was best suited for products that would not be subject to continuous stress or repeated impact. Carbon-rich cast iron was, however, suitable for heavy containers and objects made to withstand fire. Reliable cannon barrels were also made of cast iron. For items that required tougher iron, bars of pig iron were transported to a forge where they were further refined by heating and pounding. This stronger iron, known as "wrought iron," could be forged into shapes, such as horseshoes, or sent through a rolling or slitting mill to make plates, bars, or nail rods.
What an impressive-though not necessarily pretty-sight the furnace was when "in blast," which was twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, unless repairs were needed. From the huge barn, buggies full of charcoal rumbled beneath the protective roof of the connecting shed to the furnace building, then back for another load. At the same time, creaking ore wagons drawn by teams of horses or mules lugged iron ore up the road ascending to the furnace. Loads of the components were carried across a horizontal walkway to the open top of the towering furnace stack, where they were dumped.
A large wooden waterwheel drove a twenty-foot-long bellows, furnishing the air blast necessary to intensify the heat to smelting temperatures. Eighteenth-century furnaces came to be termed cold-blast to distinguish them from a nineteenth-century improvement in which escaping inflammable gases were turned around to pre-heat the air blast before it passed through the tuyeres. During the nineteenth-century, some furnaces were hot-blast while some were the older cold-blast type.
Eighteen to twenty charges a day resulted in output of twenty-four tons of iron each week. At the base of the furnace, guttermen raked the sand and dug channels for the molten pig iron, then stacked the bars outside. Working conditions were brutal; temperatures inside the casting house could reach as high as 160 degrees Fahrenheit.
Three classifications of workers were employed at the Cornwall Iron Furnace: free labor, indentured servants, and slaves. While slaves were employed, there was opposition to their importation. Throughout the eighteenth century acts were passed restricting slave traffic, culminating in the 1780 act for the gradual abolition of slavery, in which Pennsylvania prohibited the importation of slaves. The hiring of indentured servants proved problematic. Most of the redemptioners were unskilled workers from Germany, England, and Ireland. Despite their indenture, these servants ran away with alarming frequency; perhaps for that reason they were hired in small numbers.
Curttis and Peter Grubb, who had inherited Cornwall Iron Furnace from their father, Peter Grubb Sr., upon his death in 1754, supported the American Revolution. Their furnace cast cannon, shot, and ironware for the Continental cause. Labor was in such short supply that the Grubbs and other ironmasters received permission to use Hessian prisoners of war as workers.
Robert Coleman, who rose from the ranks and took over Cornwall Iron Furnace and much of the mine from the Grubbs by 1798, was the first of four generations of Colemans who would dominate Pennsylvania's ironmaking industry. Coleman arrived in Philadelphia from Ireland in 1764. In two years he rose from a clerkship in a prothonotary's office to a position as bookkeeper for Curttis and Peter Grubb, during which he leaned about the business and technology of ironmaking. He next served as a clerk for ironmaster James Old at Quittapahilla Forge in Lebanon County. He married Old's daughter Ann in 1773, the same year he leased Salford Forge near Norristown, Montgomery County.
Post by: tg on March 05, 2008, 05:04:16 PM
Post by: wadedog on March 06, 2008, 01:34:28 AM
I guess wyosmith, i'm looking at the era of 1790 or slightly earlier for myself.
The area is for around here in southern ohio but the person could have come either from new jersey or virginia exploring the northwest territory that had just passed the congress of the confederation in 1787.
does that help to explain what gun he would have used.
i'm building a persona for myself ( trying anyway )
Post by: wadedog on March 07, 2008, 02:10:14 AM
http://www.traditionsfirearms.com/eshop ... Code=R2100 (http://www.traditionsfirearms.com/eshop/10Expand.asp?ProductCode=R2100)
This is what I already have from a few years ago, it's in percussion though.
I really like the gun alot but i'm not too sure how period it is for my persona, and I hate to scratch it up but since it's not worth nearly as much ( and probably not as good ! )as a custom gun from you or capt ,maybe I shouldn't worry about it.
I wonder how well a built gun fits for a person than a store bought one.
would a custom gun had been available to the average guy back then and be fitted for him?
Maybe I could just replace the lock from them or a L&R lock ,are they any good ?
Or maybe trade someone here for a better gun.
Post by: Kirrmeister on March 07, 2008, 07:07:11 AM
Regards
Kirrmeister
Post by: Captchee on March 07, 2008, 08:18:20 AM
i once had a traditions Pen , flintier.
Not a bad rifle it fired ok after I fixed the issue with the touch hole by deepening the pan . The inletting was good and the finish nice .
My problem with the rifle was that the Roman comb just beat the heck out of my cheek bones every time I would shoot it leaving my face black and blue .
So I hung it on the wall and eventually gave it as a drawing prize for a fun riser we were having .
Not a bad rifle
As to custom guns and the differences.
I don’t think a lot of folks had guns specifically built for them . A vast amount I think would buy a used rifle that fit properly and was in suitable shape . But then most everything would have been some time of hand built rifle . Even the production trade rifles and trade guns would fall into this to some degree , even though they were build also on a standardization
As to fit
Yes you get a lot better fit with a custom style rifle .
See we live in a one size fits all age and that includes fitting of guns .
Most all production rifles are cut for a standard average pull of 14 inches .
For smaller rifles , they drop to 12 ½ or there about and that’s you choice .
They don’t alow for changes in body build , like neck length, and such .
Now some do but they are higher cost products and mostly found in tournament shooting circles .
As such what happens is folks say ; AHHH I want ,,,,,, a Mossberg, or Remington and they go down to the local store and ask to see one on the gun rack . They heft it , look down the barrel , yep the sights are there . but they don’t have any real idea what a proper fit is . So they base their purchase on looks , maybe weight, caliber , . Ill take it they say . Sometimes that rifle is the one they take home , other time the sales person says let me put it in a box for you . Then goes in the back and brings back out a new in the box rifle , never saying the one on the rack is a display piece .
With a custom rifle , you get the correct cast off , pull / draw and drop for your body . All the other niceties are just that , pure cosmetics . A simple rifle shoots just as good as a fancy one . Sometimes better if the rifle its being compared to is overly decorated in the wrong areas .
Basicly the comparision of custom to production rifles is Something very much like a set of gloves that fits you properly Vs the ones grandma would give you ,where the fingers were to long or they were to small . Sure they worked But .
Post by: sse on March 07, 2008, 02:57:24 PM
Post by: sse on March 07, 2008, 03:52:50 PM
Post by: wadedog on March 08, 2008, 02:54:48 AM
Those are in my opinion better than any guns I have ever seen in museums, I looked through the build a gun section and saw capts guns too.
Yes I kinda figured my rifle was a little late period for me, with the styling and roman nose butt.
I bought it way before I even thought of re-creating living history.
I guess I'll try and sell or trade it to what I need.
Also In looking up tvm on the web there are two tvm's, a tennesse valey manufacturing and a T V muzzleloaders, which one is the one you guys have been talking about before.
Also captchee and wyosmith, do you guys build guns from a customers measurements through emails ? I guess you know what youre doing and can get close enough, just curious.
I'll wait a little longer and see how the build comes with TomG, maybe i'll find a buyer for my penn longrifle by then.
Post by: TomG on March 08, 2008, 10:17:44 AM
I will probably get the tennessee poor boy pistol kit to go with the poor boy rifle kit.
Right now Im just trying to make up my mind on which caliber to go with.
I want 58 cal. in both rifle and pistol but I dont know if that is the best way to go.
I want a 42" barrel so Im afraid it might be awkard with 58 cal.
I dont know how the balance will be effected with that much weight.
Im open for suggestions.
Post by: TomG on March 08, 2008, 11:35:14 AM
What would a G/M barrel,42" be like.
Post by: TomG on March 08, 2008, 12:27:27 PM
Ill keep you posted.
I have to think on this a bit.
Post by: No Rod on March 09, 2008, 07:30:48 PM
Quote from: "Wyosmith"
Yes Wadedog, I take measurements from the customer and stock the gun to those dimensions. It's not hard to do if you know how. It's no different then going to a taylor to have a coat made.
That reminds me I need to send you a set of measurements. i have them... just need to find them!
Post by: Captchee on March 09, 2008, 10:50:58 PM
As to swamped barrels . I can only add to what Steve has said by saying that there are different profiles which not only weight differently but the also balance a little differently .
A well balanced rifle even when heavy is comfortable to carry and shoot
Post by: wadedog on December 14, 2008, 01:41:06 AM
Is this their old uneducated idea of what a southern gun was,( I know these books were written a while back)
or are they on to something real?
Also they say they modify and tune the silar locks, anyone do this or know what they do to them ?
Post by: Captchee on December 14, 2008, 09:06:27 AM
replaced the large side plate with a small inverted T plate .
got ride of all the carving and inlay work patch box and such .
that resulting rifle would look very much like my Hershel .
its plain , simple m very little iron work
Post by: IronDawg on January 29, 2009, 07:47:01 PM
I guess I'm truly blessed because an ol hog huntin buddy of mine happens to build custom flintlocks. So when I embark on this gun building journey (Hey I make my living as a carpenter and I've been a traditional bowhunter for ever. it's in my blood to go the DIY way) I have a skilled friend who's been around the block a few times to help me out.
I do know these guys are right when they say get one built the right way and fitted to you.
I was absolutely positively SURE I was NOT going to like shooting mine, and not going to be able to hit a bull in the butt at 10yds with it (and at that range I can poke him with the barrel) But I was dead WRONG on both occasions.
I'm a total raw rookie at flintlocks. But from what I have read and what I have been told....... "A good quality flintlock will hook you forever. a poor quality flintlock will make you cuss."
Post by: wadedog on January 30, 2009, 01:43:43 AM
Post by: tg on January 30, 2009, 08:33:24 PM
Post by: Mike R on February 06, 2009, 04:52:32 PM
Post by: jtwodogs on February 09, 2009, 07:24:21 AM
I also read somewhere that gunsmiths often order locks from England by the barrel, and just fitted a particular lock to all the rifles that that particular smith put out at that time. Mine has the back action lock more commonly seen in shotguns, but was probably all that was available to the particular "Smith" at the time.
I think "She" (My gun) is so ugly, "She's" pretty.
I just wish "She" could talk of game taken, maybe even of defense of hearth and home. Neat.