Post by: Shawnee Mike on April 04, 2010, 01:02:40 PM
In a recient conversation with a friend we were talking about the "commonness" of carving on mid to late 18th century rifles. Alot of the rifles we see as reenactors or living historians are relitivly well carved and somewhat Fancy.
It is his opinion that the common rifle of the time would be rather plain and not carved much if at all.
I have seen many examples of original rifles and many are well carved, would these be more the exception as the rule?
What would the common man of the time have ? What are your thoughts?
Post by: Kermit on April 04, 2010, 06:55:01 PM
Post by: pathfinder on April 04, 2010, 07:05:27 PM
Post by: FG1 on April 04, 2010, 07:16:07 PM
The ones that he was probablly share cropping for most likely had higher end ornate weapons to show thier status in the community and took great care of them as they were mainly used for sport rather than a means to support the families food supply.
Post by: Captchee on April 04, 2010, 08:10:38 PM
Quote from: "FG1"
I think the working mans gun of the time saw a lot more use and abuse due to the nature of his occupation. And his being what he could afford with meager means would have been solid and reliable but ornate wouldnt make it function any better .
The ones that he was probablly share cropping for most likely had higher end ornate weapons to show thier status in the community and took great care of them as they were mainly used for sport rather than a means to support the families food supply.
yep and thats why we have so many of those as exsamples .
as stated carving and such is not needed to make a gun functional . it just adds to the cost .
i would think there would have been vering degrees of decoration , from none at all to the simple . probably like today , even the do it yourself .
Post by: Capt. Jas. on April 05, 2010, 06:57:45 AM
I see plain guns being built quick and without craftsman pride in situations such as war time and maybe the occasional non-gunsmith of another trade re-stocking a broken piece.
Post by: pathfinder on April 05, 2010, 08:47:59 AM
Post by: Shawnee Mike on April 05, 2010, 11:36:50 AM
Thank you for all your thoughts. Makes alot of sense.
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on April 05, 2010, 11:46:07 AM
It's just my opinion , but due to the constant change in politics in the Americas and the world durring the above mentioned time slot, the term " common " was in a state of fluid change . :GB :Doh! This situation is just one of the many that makes the study of the old weapons so interesting and challangeing . Have fun .
Post by: FG1 on April 05, 2010, 12:15:10 PM
That is why in my opinion is what a comman man of the time would be , one struggling to keep what he had most of the time .
Post by: Capt. Jas. on April 05, 2010, 12:28:16 PM
Quote from: "FG1"
In addition to my first post what I term as "comman man" which I feel for the most part as a man and his family either share cropping several hundred acres or doing so on their own land . Lots of hard work getting by struggling for any small advancement they were lucky enough to achieve. Be it weather ,insect or animal caused damages to the crops they were working not to mention sickness that could take them at every turn .
That is why in my opinion is what a comman man of the time would be , one struggling to keep what he had most of the time .
If in the south and closer to the earlier part of Shawnee Mike's given time frame, I would see him with a Carolina gun (not a Jackie Brown style) or some form of cheap imported fowling piece as opposed to a more expensive rifle unless he was a hunter.
Post by: Capt. Jas. on April 05, 2010, 12:34:56 PM
Quote from: "Gordon H.Kemp"
As was mentioned by Captchee and others, no doubt if a " comI think for the most part the " common " man of the period 1740 to 1800 would have a gun that was issued as a military weapon , most being of smoothbore configuration .
I am not all that familiar with military arms.
I do know that even what was kept in militia and state owned armories was most frequently outdated and antiquated compared to current manufacture at the time.
Are there really that many documentable references to military arms getting into civilian private ownership during that time?
Post by: FG1 on April 05, 2010, 12:39:17 PM
Quote from: "Capt. Jas."
I agree , probably a smoothbore of fairly plain appearance . A utility piece for both putting meat on the table and protection of his family . A common sence choice that would do all he needed it to .Quote from: "FG1"In addition to my first post what I term as "comman man" which I feel for the most part as a man and his family either share cropping several hundred acres or doing so on their own land . Lots of hard work getting by struggling for any small advancement they were lucky enough to achieve. Be it weather ,insect or animal caused damages to the crops they were working not to mention sickness that could take them at every turn .
That is why in my opinion is what a comman man of the time would be , one struggling to keep what he had most of the time .
If in the south and closer to the earlier part of Shawnee Mike's given time frame, I would see him with a Carolina gun (not a Jackie Brown style) or some form of cheap imported fowling piece as opposed to a more expensive rifle unless he was a hunter.
Post by: Uncle Russ on April 05, 2010, 12:49:31 PM
Quote from: "FG1"
In addition to my first post what I term as "comman man" which I feel for the most part as a man and his family either share cropping several hundred acres or doing so on their own land . Lots of hard work getting by struggling for any small advancement they were lucky enough to achieve. Be it weather ,insect or animal caused damages to the crops they were working not to mention sickness that could take them at every turn .
That is why in my opinion is what a comman man of the time would be , one struggling to keep what he had most of the time .
I am of the opinion that this would pretty much describe a common man.
I am also of the opinion that because of this, the stories of the "common man's" extraordinaire marksmanship of the time has become a bit exaggerated with the telling.
I feel his gun would pretty much reflect his life style. His practice with that gun would have been limited by economics....he had what he had....what he could afford, and we can not make anything more out of it.
Did he make the best of this situation? You betcha he did, his accomplishments with so little is exactly what made history.
But, again, this is just one man's thoughts.
Uncle Russ...
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on April 05, 2010, 01:27:56 PM
By the year 1640 the Dutch out of New Amsterdam (New York city area ) and Fort Orange Albany area , had been trading guns to the Native Americans in the area of New York state for several years ! There are letters and reports from the " pilgrims " of Plymouth colony to the Privy consul in England of their concern of how proficeint the Natives became with the weapons traded and given to them . There has come to light in recent years many documets from the archives in England not easily obtainable prior to the computer age .
And one thing I consider as beeing paramount in getting weapons into the hands of civilians were the many weapons gleaned from the battlefiels and scrimages along the frontiers .
If you engauge in some minor research , the nos. of weapons that coukd have and did , wind up in the hands of the "common " man were considerble.
Post by: Capt. Jas. on April 05, 2010, 01:28:02 PM
Quote from: "FG1"
Quote from: "Capt. Jas."I agree , probably a smoothbore of fairly plain appearance . A utility piece for both putting meat on the table and protection of his family . A common sence choice that would do all he needed it to .Quote from: "FG1"In addition to my first post what I term as "comman man" which I feel for the most part as a man and his family either share cropping several hundred acres or doing so on their own land . Lots of hard work getting by struggling for any small advancement they were lucky enough to achieve. Be it weather ,insect or animal caused damages to the crops they were working not to mention sickness that could take them at every turn .
That is why in my opinion is what a comman man of the time would be , one struggling to keep what he had most of the time .
If in the south and closer to the earlier part of Shawnee Mike's given time frame, I would see him with a Carolina gun (not a Jackie Brown style) or some form of cheap imported fowling piece as opposed to a more expensive rifle unless he was a hunter.
But "plain appearance" in the period might not meet with some guys' modern thinking of plain.
This is a link to an original "Carolina" type gun. It has export engraving on the lock and the hardware although crude, also has engraving. These were imported by the thousands and were available to the "common" man.
Today, most do not consider a lock engraved like that to be a plain gun but is was run of the mill then.
http://www.flintriflesmith.com/Antiques ... adegun.htm (http://www.flintriflesmith.com/Antiques/bumford_tradegun.htm)
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on April 05, 2010, 02:04:11 PM
All the reading and research in the world can't convey to someone who has never experienced it , what it;s like to be REALLY hungry or cold with nowhere to turn to get relief ! So what is considered "plain " from their point of view , might well be elaborate to some one raised in a different enviorment .
Post by: Capt. Jas. on April 05, 2010, 03:27:23 PM
Quote from: "Gordon H.Kemp"
There are many " documents " from history that mention or allude to military weapons falling into the hands either legally or by "chance ' into the hands of both white "ccommoners "and/ or" Native Americans '
By the year 1640 the Dutch out of New Amsterdam (New York city area ) and Fort Orange Albany area , had been trading guns to the Native Americans in the area of New York state for several years ! There are letters and reports from the " pilgrims " of Plymouth colony to the Privy consul in England of their concern of how proficeint the Natives became with the weapons traded and given to them . There has come to light in recent years many documets from the archives in England not easily obtainable prior to the computer age .
And one thing I consider as beeing paramount in getting weapons into the hands of civilians were the many weapons gleaned from the battlefiels and scrimages along the frontiers .
If you engauge in some minor research , the nos. of weapons that coukd have and did , wind up in the hands of the "common " man were considerble.
Gordon, I am in firm agreement with you that to really discuss this thread topic correctly, along with defining the common man, we must narrow time frame and narrow location by a vast degree to get real answers.
I have never been one who bought into the battlefield pickup idea to any vast degree.
There are records of military arms being issued to the poor among the militia but those arms were not the property of the individual if I am not mistaken. Like I said, I am not as versed in military arms. i am sure some military arms came into civilian ownership but I believe from an overall standpoint, commercial arms made the bulk of the "common man's" firearm ownership. They were available in all grades down to dirt cheap at the nearest store.
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on April 05, 2010, 06:27:59 PM
What i feel is that many folks , myself included forget that untill the 1780s we were British subjects and were bound by British laws and customs. One of them being that the majority of weapons and munitions were stored in an armory . and only put into the hands of the "average" subjects when deemed nessacarry by the British officials in charge
In part , this was what lit the fuse for the Rev. ie. Concord/Lexington.
Although tor the most part I think we agree, I have to take issue as to the nos. of arms gleaned from the various battles by the commoners. One prime example would be the numbers of weapons left on the field of battle when Gen. Braddock was severly defeated in his attempt to beat the French. at the forks of the Ohio. If I'm not totally incorrect there were some 2000 casualtys and Geoge Washing had to hustle his butt back to Va. The weapons were not recovered by the English but by the Indian allies of the French and many wound up in the hands of French commoners that stayed in the area and settled there .
This sitiuation was repeated many times on a lessor scale for the next half century.
Post by: Captchee on April 05, 2010, 07:04:46 PM
1) what would we consider carvings ?
Myself finals on a lock mortise don’t really come to mind when people say carvings .
that’s just something that seems to be part of the mortise architecture..
I think also we can get a relive idea buy looking at basically common guns of later periods that do survive.
I think SXS would make a very good example as many lower end , low cost examples do survive.
While most do carry checkering , the checkering isn’t of quality . Many also carry no engravings at all . Those examples that do , the engraving is very basic.
In some cases the whole gun is very basic and plain