Butt Plate Question 2

[Loyalist Dave]

I was wondering if anyone can shed light on whether the least expensive of guns in the 18th century had butt plates or not?   Any differences between rifles and trade guns on that account?  I have a rifle that is sans butt plate, and another that has a comb and toe plate, as well as others "fully dressed".  Just wondering.  

LD

[pathfinder]

I'd say 99% of the guns had butt plates. "Poor 'boy's" were usually made without,but they should have at least a toe plate of some sort,that a pretty weak spot. Finishing the end grain and getting a smooth contour and proper "look" is almost more difficult than inletting a butt plate. At least it is for me,I like inletting butt plates though.

[Capt. Jas.]

Foe the 18th century, maybe some cobbled guns to hurry the war effort for independence.

[mario]

The "poor-boy" gun is a phenomena of a later time.

Even trade fuzees that were the least expensive and most cheaply made still had buttplates.

As Capt. Jas. stated, you may find a few cobbled together guns, but the product of a professional gunsmith had a full complement of furniture appropriate to the period.

Mario

[Captchee]

I would agree with Mario and Capt Jas .
  IMO the poor boy thing is also fairly modern idea , though I have seen a couple originals that did not have butt plates . But I would have to say that  at least one looked to have had the butt cut down .
 But as was also said , there  may surly been some  that were made under given reasoning or conditions that  had the butt plates forgone .
About the only real difference  I have noted  between  higher end and low end is the  bright work , carving , inlays  and engraving .
Thus the high end guns are very much  nothing but a basic gun with added  decoration . Especially concerning  European guns of the time . If one looks today , you see basically the same differences between field grade and presentation grade

 I would also disagree with the need of a butt plate or toe plate . My main  rifle has neither and she is near 50 years old and seen a lot of use . the butt ,  heal and toe are all done in contrasting wood  and its held up very well

[huntinguy]

My main  rifle has neither and she is near 50 years old and seen a lot of use . the butt ,  heal and toe are all done in contrasting wood  and its held up very well

Captchee: you got a picture of that? Sounds like you are saying that it has different wood inlaid.... That sounds like it would be a lot of work. Pretty, but a lot of work.

[Captchee]

no . its not hard to do .
 here is the rifle i spoke of


 some years ago i had a customer who wanted   something like that done on her rifle . here is a photo fo that rifle

[RiverCat]

I like the looks of that alot, but I like unuasual stuff anyway

[sse]

I've seen a few pics of contemporary built southern rifles without the butt plate, they really look cool....

[Ironhand]

I have heard it said that Native Americans would remove the butt plate from a gun in order to use the metal for scrapers or knives. Any truth to this or is it just a tall tale?

[RiverCat]

Can`t say for sure if it`s true or not, but I`ve heard the same thing. I`ve heard that they would often use the butt plate from guns as a scraper when fleshing hides.

[mario]

I have heard it said that Native Americans would remove the butt plate from a gun in order to use the metal for scrapers or knives. Any truth to this or is it just a tall tale?

Yes and no. Some did. Some didn't. It boils down to time, place and people. There are 500 or so tribal groups in North America.

What holds true for a Cheyenne in 1874 doesn't necessarily hold true for a Seminole in 1813 or a MicMac in 1702.


Mario

[Captchee]

I have heard it said that Native Americans would remove the butt plate from a gun in order to use the metal for scrapers or knives. Any truth to this or is it just a tall tale?

Yes and no. Some did. Some didn't. It boils down to time, place and people. There are 500 or so tribal groups in North America.

What holds true for a Cheyenne in 1874 doesn't necessarily hold true for a Seminole in 1813 or a MicMac in 1702.


Mario

 actualy 500+ when you take into account the sub  peoples of larger nations .
 it drives me absolutely crazy when i hear someone say ; the Cheyenne did X or the Sioux did Y.
Just because a  the Oglala people did something , it did not and does not mean the  Miniconjou
Or Hu?kpapa  did .
Same goes for Cheyenne. The Tsitsistas and Suhtai  while of the same people , are not the same .
Also just because someone may have used  a given tool in the late 19th century , doesn’t mean they used that same item as a tool even a decade before . Basically the item had to have become useless as its intended purpose or better suited for another purpose .
 But we are talking about a weapon here .  So while we may be able to say we have read or saw  such an item being used as a scraper . Chance are probably very high that the weapon it came off of , had been reduced  to  non functioning and worthless  before it would have ever been aloud to be  reduced to the hands of a woman  scraping hides ..
Even if we went  so far as to say that a warrior might have believed that the butt plate  had become  contaminated or a detriment  in a spiritual way . The item would have been  cast aside and buried as was often the case with side plates .
 The case could also be made that at the time of the butt plates use , it was not part of a rifle  but simply a piece of metal  to be utilized  as seen fit .
A good example of that  would be sections of damaged barrels which were often used as scrapers by the late 19the century among many different peoples .
 But I seriously doubt that any warrior would have let his wife cut  the end of his barrel off  or remove a butt plate  from a working piece ,for a scraper  just because she needed one .