Post by: Kermit on April 02, 2014, 08:01:24 PM
As my geezerhood advances, I've spent some effort seeking out my pedigree. No horse thieves just yet, but one accused witch at Salem who managed to avoid the infamous ending that many suffered.
The first of my family in the new world left Billericay, England about 1640 for Massachusetts. Two brothers apparently traveled together. The Pilgrim Fathers (and a mother or two?) are said to have held a meeting in that town before departure, and others from that vicinity came later. Since he was born in 1619, he would have been a bit young for that first voyage. The two of them settled in the Middlesex, MA area, one of them in Billerica, named after Billericay.
The family were farmers in that area for a couple of centuries until one of them moved to NY state, west of Syracuse, where he got involved with a fellow named Joseph Smith and eventually made his way west to some place called Utah. Lots of details, but none relevant to my question.
If my family were in the area of Middlesex, MA in, say 1740-1790, there were a few political dustups that might have encouraged arming the farm. I needn't enumerate them for you readers. I can also imagine that doing some hunting could have been seen as worthwhile to augment a farm family's dietary needs.
So what might they have owned to meet these imagined needs? You have a time period, a location, a vocation. If they were militia arms, what might they have been? If the intention was hunting, what could they have owned? I'm not interested in additional fantasy of travel to PA, VA, SC where they might have purchased something. Given my family's penchant for staying put--with but about 3 exceptions in 4 centuries--that doesn't fit the scenario.
Care to shed some light?
Post by: Detached on April 02, 2014, 09:01:16 PM
(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/pilgrim-turkey-1445405.jpg)
Post by: Kermit on April 02, 2014, 09:26:17 PM
Post by: Detached on April 03, 2014, 07:16:46 AM
Quote from: "Kermit"
Ah, yes. The ol' elementary school misinformational mythology. If this guy can't get a turkey right, why should I build a gun like that?
Hey, at least it has a snood!
Besides, I like the recoil pad on the gun....
Post by: Captchee on April 03, 2014, 07:45:47 AM
Good question Kermit real hard to say , 1740-1790 is a rather large span of time considering all the changes that were happening during those 50 year .
But I would make a guess at something with Dutch influence. But then again depending on the wealth of your family it wouldn’t have been a stretch IMO for them to be carrying a Lancaster style of rifle or I higher end fowling piece .
Then there is the possibility they owned no gun at all .Later in that time . Maybe a rifle but by then there were literally thousands of gun makers and you have the whole board of ordinance possibility . Which frankly wasn’t that uncommon prior to the revolution.
So maybe something like these exsamples from the NRA
Quote
(http://www.jaegerkorps.org/NRA/American%20Made%20Muskets%20in%20the%20Revolutionary%20War_files/American61_01.jpg)
This American long arm, which predates the War for Independence, illustrates the Colonists’ early reliance upon reused mixed parts. Jacob Man of Wrentham, Mass., would later carry it as a Minuteman at Lexington/Concord and while a soldier in the 13th Massachusetts Continental Regiment through the New York-Trenton-Princeton campaigns (1775-1777), as well as at the Battle of Rhode Island (1778). The American stock mounts a bulbous Dutch lock, a convex French S-shaped iron sideplate, a cut-down British brass buttplate, an English trade pattern escutcheon and a crude locally cast brass trigger guard secured by four nails. A French pinned fowler barrel is stocked to the muzzle, indicating the early lack of socket bayonets. Its iron ramrod is held by three thimbles, of which the bottom one is an old Queen Anne ribbed pattern, and the others simple rolled sheet brass.
Length:67 1/4”
Barrel: 51 1/8”, .71 cal. Lock: 6 3/4”x1 3/8”
Trigger Guard: 8 5/8” Butt Tang: 2 7/8”
Sideplate: 4 1/8”
Furniture: Brass/Iron
Weight: 7.8 lbs.
I would think though if I had to be pinned down I would chose a smooth bore , more then likely a fowler of club butt design .
Quote
(http://www.jaegerkorps.org/NRA/American%20Made%20Muskets%20in%20the%20Revolutionary%20War_files/American61_03.jpg)
Although technically a hunting gun with the fore-end of its maple stock reaching to the muzzle of a European barrel, this family fowler, which omits all but the basic components, is typical of many of the existing arms carried into the field by the American forces early in the Revolution and by the militia throughout the war. Its stock is the popular civilian club butt form, but the non-essential buttplate, escutcheon, sideplate, raised carving and bottom ramrod pipe are not included. The Queen Anne period, three-screw flat lock design with its reinforced cock has an unbalanced profile which suggests possible Colonist manufacture. An uneven, hand-forged iron trigger guard, however, is obviously American-made. The wooden rammer is secured in two upper, sheet-brass thimbles.
Length: 60”
Barrel: 45”, .70 cal. Lock: 7”x1 1/8”
Trigger Guard: 7 1/8” Furniture: Brass/Iron
Weight: 7.5 lbs
Mario may have others for you to consider also .
Post by: Kermit on April 04, 2014, 03:26:05 PM
Both of those interest me. The club butts appeal to me, and I know they weren't uncommon in MA. It's a pretty big time window I've presented. I've reduced it a bunch, considering my family farmed in MA and a bit in CT for about two and a half centuries! Some of these ancestors were men of means and community respect. Some of my thoughts have gone so far as to imagine that there might have been some imported English guns too. There's one of Mike Brooks' guns that kind of speaks to me:
englishfowler4 (http://www.fowlingguns.com/englishfowler4.html)
On the other hand, these folks came from early Puritan immigrants, so there may have been some residual frugality and plain-ness to what they bought. It is a lot of fun to try to put together how one's ancestors might have equipped themselves. I know too that some of my families were huge, and needing to equip several sons with militia arms could have resulted in some very basic guns. One man in my line went through three wives--childbirth deaths--and had 18 surviving adult children when he died. I could only manage the two we have!
Post by: russ t frizzen on April 05, 2014, 10:52:10 PM
Club butt fowlers and even old dog catch muskets were common. Not likely that rifles were abundant in Massachusetts in this time frame.
Dan
Post by: RobD on April 06, 2014, 08:52:00 AM
Post by: mario on April 06, 2014, 07:19:04 PM
And you don't have "carte blanche", but you do have options.
Quote from: "Kermit"
If my family were in the area of Middlesex, MA in, say 1740-1790, there were a few political dustups that might have encouraged arming the farm. I needn't enumerate them for you readers. I can also imagine that doing some hunting could have been seen as worthwhile to augment a farm family's dietary needs.
So what might they have owned to meet these imagined needs? You have a time period, a location, a vocation. If they were militia arms, what might they have been? If the intention was hunting, what could they have owned? I'm not interested in additional fantasy of travel to PA, VA, SC where they might have purchased something. Given my family's penchant for staying put--with but about 3 exceptions in 4 centuries--that doesn't fit the scenario.
Care to shed some light?
The main thing that would encourage arming the farm was quit simple. The law.
“a good fire lock, bayonett, cartouch box, one pound of powder, twenty-four balls to fitt their guns, twelve flints and a knapsack.” (Town of Braintree Resolves, January 23, 1775.)
"a good firearm with steel or iron ramrod, and spring to retain the same, a worm, priming wire and brush, and a bayonet fitted to his gun, a tomahawk or hatchet, a pouch containing a cartridge box that will hold fifteen rounds of cartridges at least, a hundred of buckshot, a jack knife, and tow for wadding, six flints, one pound of powder, forty leaden balls fitted to his gun, a knapsack and blanket, a canteen or wooden bottle sufficient to hold one quart.” (Continental Journal and weekly adviser, January 22, 1778)
“a powderhorn, a bullet pouch to contain 40 leaden balls, a knapsack, a canteen, a firearm of good worth, a haversack,a belt, a good pair of overalls.” (Boston Gazette May 26, 1777)
"Each soldier to provide himself with a good fire arm, a steel or iron ram rod and a spring for same, a worm, a priming wire and brush, a bayonet fitted to his gun, a scabbard and belt thereof, a cutting sword or tomahawk or hatchet, a . . .cartridge box holding fifteen rounds . . . at least, a hundred buckshot, six flints, one pound of powder, forty leaden balls fitted to the gun, a knapsack and blanket, [and] a canteen or wooden bottle to hold one quart [of water]" (Journal of Arthur Harris of the Bridgewater Coy of Militia.)
Hunting does not seem to have played a big part in the life of the typical New Englander. They were farmers and in Middlesex, they were far from the frontier.
That being said, the fowling piece is the most common arm of the time.
There are also records of French arms being taken in war and sold at auction in Boston. A French trade gun (not the Type C/D you see quite often) or a fusil de chasse in the hands of a farmer wouldn't be out of the realm.
Rifles were very much unheard of in NE until 1775, when riflemen from PA/KY came to join the siege of Boston.
That area of MA spawned both club-butt fowling guns and the ones we know as New England fowling pieces. Either of those would be quite suitable. If you were a man of means, then perhaps a British import fowling gun with a little engraving, etc.
Get yourself a copy of "Flintlock Fowlers: The First Guns Made in America" by Tom Grinslade. Dozens of surviving NE guns in there to look through.
Also, "Of Sorts For Provincials" by Jim Mullins shows dozens of guns from the F&I period used by NE folks. Being an older guy, you may still be using something that was 20-30 yrs old.
Mario
Post by: RobD on April 06, 2014, 07:31:40 PM
carte blanche, mon amis!
Post by: mario on April 07, 2014, 12:24:33 AM
Quote from: "rfd"
i disagree, mario. ALL that will matter is the historic year in question, as ANY firearm built that year or prior that existed in america could wind up most anywhere. don't think so? prove otherwise. 8)
He COULD have carried a silver mounted 14th century Persian dagger in a Narwhal tusk sheath, but if you can't prove that it DID happen, than it's just a "shoulda, coulda, woulda".
Mario
Post by: RobD on April 07, 2014, 06:43:57 AM
this is all way too easy to suss out.
without at least referential evidence, who can say for sure what firearm(s) - if any - one's ancestors employed. can you? nope, no way jose. suggestions and theoretical guesses are meaningless conjecture without some form of tactile support. it's ALL guess work. what IS fact pertains to the time frame in question. the ak47 is 20th century, so let's be smart and rule that out. the op thinks mid-17th century for his ancestor's arrival in the new world, so that's a good guess at a start date, would they have brought firearms with them? as the years progress, would they still have any of those theoretical first firearms? by mid-18th century, would they have acquired other firearms? what, no proof? that's called "hypothetical guessing". so, YES, NO choice but to guess away.
a very good example of "referential evidence" would be a surviving bible. a friend is now caretaker of her ancestor's pilgrim bible that dates back to the 17th century when her fore bearers arrived in what is now massachusetts. bibles were used to record family matters - births, deaths, marriages, land titles, etc. indications of firearms and other important items could more than likely be inscribed in such a family book. i did get to look at that bible before she moved to florida, and there were lots of specific family references in it. now I'M curious - i've got to check that bible out, again. happy fantasy theorizing y'all!
Post by: Detached on April 07, 2014, 08:09:48 AM
At any rate, I asked this same question in my post a bit further down in this same forum, "Tell me about my rifle". And, I got pretty much the same response. The short answer is really that which you get if you combine Mario and rfd's answers. You have carte blanche, but within limits. In my case I was looking for a different period and different localle, and trying to narrow it down to be more specific yet to a certain person. Without empirical evidence, I'm shooting in the dark and need to make some assumptions.
So for my own purposes, I've started setting some parameters in order to make my assumptions. My ancestor was in his late 20's, maybe early 30's at the time he went to war. He was born in the area he lived. His father was still alive and well. With this information I have decided that my ancestor would not have taken his father's gun to war, dad would've needed it on the home front. I am also going to assume that he bought a new rifle, because there might not have been much selection of used guns on the Kentucky frontier. With these parameters my assumption is a newer gun to the period that he purchased himself.
I've invested a lot of time investigating rifles that were built in Kentucky. I've learned there were thousands of gunmakers from about 1775 on in Kentucky proper. I've learned there were gunmakers in my ancestors area. Because my ancestor was a farmer, I don't think his gun would've been really fancy, but it wouldn't have been dead plain either because that wasn't the norm for the period. With this information, I've decided that his gun was purchased from a local gunmaker adn would've likely been on the 'plainer side of typical'.
Since this was the frontier, and since he was in his late 20's or so, and since most young'uns had to learn to shoot to survive, I'm going to assume he got is gun about 10-15 years before he used it at the battle. So, I've set my parameters for year the gun was built to be somewhere from the late 1790's to about 1805 or so.
Now, any of this could be right or wrong and I'll probably never know. But as long as I'm comfortable with my parameters and assumptions, then I'm good to go. And I guess that's the entire point of my post. If you do some research, decide on your parameters and are comfortable in your assumptions, then you are as correct as anyone else will be.
Mine might be easier than yours. I think you have a lot more variables in gun choices based on period and localle.
Edited to add:
I am still very undecided and have continued to research my family history in the hope that one of my "cousin's" direct decendants can shed some light.
Post by: Captchee on April 07, 2014, 11:03:36 AM
Quote
(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.
Post by: RobD on April 07, 2014, 11:48:43 AM
Post by: Detached on April 07, 2014, 11:55:26 AM
Quote from: "Captchee"
Quote(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
Yeah, I thought so too!
Quote from: "Captchee"
QuoteWhich 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
All good points. It's entirely possible he had a very used gun, and as previously stated, lacking real evidence or empirical information, I am setting my own parameters in order to make assumptions. Here's my (possibly flawed) logic:
I am assuming he was young farmer because that's what everyone else in the family was. I do not know if he had his own farm by this time, or if he still worked the family farm with his father, or even a father-in-law. I do not know they were poor. His grandfather had hundreds and hundreds of acres. They could've been farming tobacco at the time and been fairly well off.
Passed down is an option, but as I said he was going off to war and his family would've needed to keep a gun on the farm. Did the family have a spare gun he could take with him, or is it more likely that at some point during his life, arrangements were made to purchase one, possibly through trade or barter? I don't think he bought it new for this endeavor, I think he would've owned this rifle for some time, and was likely well versed in its use prior to heading off to war.
Bought used is a good option. The one thing we know for certain is that he carried a rifle and not a smoothbore, otherwise he couldn't have been a rifleman. But again, how many used guns were available, and how many of those were rifles?
Post by: Captchee on April 07, 2014, 12:27:24 PM
Quote from: "rfd"
captchee, with all due respect, "likelihood" is no more than an educated guess, based on theoretical circumstances. it is not proof positive. the only sole facts the op has to go by at this juncture would be historical records that reference his ancestry. it's all amusing guess work.. agreed but the simple fact is that we have non of that to go on . what we do have is predominance of a give type and commonality of firearms during that time frame.
We also know that while some folks are said to have shown up for militia duty snap hence type guns . I don’t recall but maybe 1 account of a fuse lock or wheel lock showing up .. But as you say , that doesn’t preclude the possibility of them owning one .
And yes its all guess work .
Quote
many many many things could have occurred 300 or so years ago. firearms are important personal and family assets that could be from most any logical creator/location. they could be had from anywhere, most any time prior or at the year/decade in question, and be or have been many decades old or "brandy new". without at least anecdotal support records, it is all pure "i think" rather than "i know". therefore, the op just needs to make a best guess, move on, and be happy. as expected, ymmv, sir.
There is no given way to say “I know “ in this case .. I think I said that many times already . All we could do is go by the greatest probability . Which in no way completely removes the lesser probability .
Yes guns are were and often still are passed down . My uncle still owns rifles that my great ,great grandfather used to fight the US Calvary . Hell,, as far as that goes in the same old trunk were a couple scalps from his father . My other uncle owns weapons used by our family during the removals. I remember my grandfather showing me all of it as a boy .
But that doesn’t mean that any of that was still used . Factually it wasn’t past being family heirlooms and history . Were the weapons still usable , well minus the bow , maybe .
But then a quick turn to my grandfathers gun cabinet, showed more modern guns a couple Winchesters and Remington rolling blocks . Later he owned a bolt action.
Today if I look at my own cabinet and compare what my father owned there isn’t 1 American made rifle or shotgun . No muzzleloaders and no BP cartridge, even though I have both and own both European and US made . Do I use his guns , well one of them now and then .
While this would seem to prove your point , im not sure it factually does as if I were to have to chose one of the guns in the context of what the folks in this subject mater would have used them for one might be very surprised at what I chose . But be assured it wouldn’t be one of the family heirlooms .
So yes the possibility is there that they could have owned most anything . But Imo there is a greater probability that there would have been only a few that would fit .
Still makes it a guess . No doubt about it . but i think i said that more then once as well
Post by: Kermit on April 07, 2014, 12:38:08 PM
My first flinter is still with me, and as fate would have it, it fits this fantasy pretty well. It's an American/English style fowling piece, curly maple stained quite dark, 44" Getz OTR 20ga, Davis Germanic lock, iron and brass furniture. Made to fit me physically, and, it seems, sort of fits the period and place.
It's interesting, Mario, to hear you point out that this was hardly the frontier, and that hunting may not have been seen as necessary or important. Also good to have the reminder about the law. And I think we sometimes have this idealized image of all colonists being frontiersmen and longhunters. Just flat wrong, of course.
Post by: mario on April 07, 2014, 02:08:40 PM
Quote from: "rfd"
. the ak47 is 20th century, so let's be smart and rule that out.
An AK47 is made from steel and wood. The ammo is made from copper, brass, lead, powder and fulminate of mercury.
All of these items were common in 18th century America. Therefore, a farmer in 1770s Massachusetts could have carried an AK47. Prove he didn't.
Sounds silly, I know. Because you can't prove a negative. You can only prove a positive, i.e. it was invented in 1946 and there is a dated prototype in a Moscow museum with solid provenance.
Quote from: "rfd"
captchee, with all due respect, "likelihood" is no more than an educated guess, based on theoretical circumstances. it is not proof positive.
And we aren't saying that it is proof positive. We are saying it is far removed from "ANY firearm built that year or prior that existed in america could wind up most anywhere."
Quote from: "Captchee"
Yes guns are were and often still are passed down . My uncle still owns rifles that my great ,great grandfather used to fight the US Calvary . Hell,, as far as that goes in the same old trunk were a couple scalps from his father . My other uncle owns weapons used by our family during the removals.
Although there is some sad history in these words, that is still very cool... :)
Mario
Post by: RobD on April 07, 2014, 02:28:41 PM
some of the things i've read about the early to mid-18th century might be of some relevance ...
- the decimation of game foods such as deer and bear in the new england area during the early 18th century (supposedly due to the indian need to over harvest game as barter skins/fur for firearms and other goods) made the need for a rifled long gun less desirable than a smoothbore long gun
- at least during the rev war, muskets were strongly favored over rifles, due to their easer/faster loading and rate of fire
enjoy the historic ride y'all!
Post by: RobD on April 07, 2014, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: "mario"
Quote from: "rfd". the ak47 is 20th century, so let's be smart and rule that out.
An AK47 is made from steel and wood. The ammo is made from copper, brass, lead, powder and fulminate of mercury.
All of these items were common in 18th century America. Therefore, a farmer in 1770s Massachusetts could have carried an AK47. Prove he didn't.
Sounds silly, I know. Because you can't prove a negative. You can only prove a positive, i.e. it was invented in 1946 and there is a dated prototype in a Moscow museum with solid provenance.
..........
Mario
why are you ragging on about the ak47??? i doubt you both read and comprehended what i typed.
there are NO ancestral facts that can help the op, or 'detached', to know if and what firearms their kin had/used. yer fulla speculations and assumptions. fun to do, but ain't worth crap.
SO, all one can reasonably do is guess or fantasize ... and then select the firearm of their dreams that COULD have been built at the time their ancestors lived, or before that time. dang.
Post by: Captchee on April 08, 2014, 08:04:25 AM
Mario is playing with you RFD . I think his point is that because all the components and materials needed to make the AK were also available during that time frame. Hence proving one wasn’t made without supporting documentation is hard to do .
Some good cases for that would be saying ; colt is the father of the revolver . Factually he was not . He only came up with a different mechanism for working the cylinder . The revolver pre dates colt by well over 100 years .
Same could be said for the Inline muzzleloader. most tell the last 10 years would have said it was a 10th century invention when factually its not as the design was being used in the very early 18th century .
Your point of natives decimating the wildlife population . Ask yourself how that could be the case when its accepted that the native population prior to the European introduction on the east coast alone , exceeded the European population tell well after the revolution.
The eastern Elk, bison moose and pigeon all are gone do to market hunting , the plains bison and plains elk were also decimated under the same pretences . Even the eastern whitetail deer had seen massive reductions well into the 1970’s .
This isn’t to say native people did not take part . Surly they did but I submit that without a market being provided by the new inhabitants , that also wouldn’t have been the case .
Its also rather ironic that folks who make the statement also do not take the time to read the speeches from the different treaties . In those you will read our leaders laying blame on the Europeans who do not move around . Who built populations in hunting areas , who pillage the land tell there is nothing left for it to give . Then move on to repeat the same thing over and over . Thus the base for more then a few wars . But that’s forgotten for a favoring side or point of view of history .
Post by: RobD on April 08, 2014, 08:13:05 AM
Post by: Kermit on April 08, 2014, 10:36:41 AM
Post by: Captchee on April 08, 2014, 03:06:07 PM
ill leave it at that as i fear i am about to give numerous accounts of actual historic writings vs. repeating such a well learned and documental source as Peter Alexander .
But that would digress not only this forum but what we here stand as to in our rules .
As such I will say I disagree and will leave it at that
Post by: Kermit on April 09, 2014, 11:50:05 PM
Quote from: "rfd"
"the gunsmith of grenville county" by peter alexander, chapter 1, historical background...
Thanks. Wow, I'd forgotten that introduction. I re-read it this afternoon. For folks who haven't seen it, buy or borrow and read it. REALLY well done piece.
Post by: RobD on April 10, 2014, 06:09:21 AM
i mention the demise of game and the continental army's penchant for muskets only to suggest to the op that a smoothbore might very well have been his ancestor's weapon of choice, within those time frame parameters.
Post by: Captchee on April 10, 2014, 07:22:51 AM
If however your looking for actual documentation , its best not to use what someone else wrote and quote it as gospel .
If you trust the writer , then use what they wrote as a base for your own studies . Research their quotes, study their footnotes . Compare those notes to other period sources such as journals , , government records, company legers …….
More times then not what you end up with is seeing that what was initially thought to be definitive information , was cherry picked to support an authors opinion or view
Post by: RobD on April 10, 2014, 07:38:44 AM
Post by: Tommy Bruce on April 12, 2014, 05:17:55 PM
I would suggest two books, Of Sorts for Provincials and Flintlock Fowlers. By the 1770's many militias were equipped with older first model Brown Bess muskets likely the 1742 pattern. In 1750 they would've been state of the art military musket. If you did not have a personal firelock, you likely would've been armed with a musket from the public stores such as this. Commercial Muskets were also in these stores, made my private makers often mimicking the Brown Bess or other type musket.
Being a family of means, ordering a fine fowling piece from an English gun maker would've certainly been in the realm of possibility as well as having one built in the colonies. I think it has been said before, many New England guns mimicked the French style guns. Fowling pieces also had Dutch & English influence depending upon where the builders came from or what style school they apprenticed under.
Hope this has been of some help.