Family flintlock fantasy

[Detached]

I do not want to sidetrack Kermit's post, so this will be my last response to anything concerning 'my' rifle. I'd love to continue the discussion in my own thread. If  mod would like to split this off and put it in my rifle post, that'd be great.

(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!  

 

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    

 

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?

[Captchee]

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 .  

 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

[Kermit]

I'm having fun! Thanks for indulging me. Cap, Mario--thanks for the focus. Until just recently my knowledge of my Father's geneology ended with my gg-grandfather. Now I've been able to push the line back to the 4th century! Amazing. But my interest in the early New World experience is still the biggest focus.

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.

[mario]

.  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.

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."

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

[RobD]

it's all fun stuff, for sure - else there is no reason for such a thread.  

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!

[RobD]

.  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.

[Captchee]

I  understand what your saying perfectly  and as you say , different or earlier piece cannot be ruled out .

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 .

[RobD]

"the gunsmith of grenville county" by peter alexander, chapter 1, historical background, is my source for the purported decimation of medium sized game in the new england area, circa the early (18th century - no!) - oops, 19th century!

[Kermit]

...but we digress...

[Captchee]

yes it has kermit , in more ways then one LOL .
 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

[Kermit]

"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.

[RobD]

yes, there is a lotta great info in peter's tome.  worth the price of admission alone.

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.

[Captchee]

dont get to caught up in it Kermit .  what peter wrote was a generalization and allot of times , his opinion .  that’s not to say their isn’t some good thought provoking  words . Or for that mater a couple half decent references. Especially concerning the manufacture of guns and  apparently poor quality,   of more then a few  Pennsylvania  gun makers .
 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

[RobD]

indeed and absolutely true, captchee!  it's all just conjectured prose until supported by empirical evidence.   there are more than a few instances that peter alerts his readers of his opinions and rationalizations, none of which are gospel nor based or supported in hard fact.

[Tommy Bruce]

Wow it's been a while since I've been on the board.  This looks like a good place to start.  I have to come down on the side of a fowling piece.  I will not say that there were no rifles in Massachusetts during this time period but documentation is scant.  John Adams even referred to them as a "peculiar musket" when describing the rifle companies coming into the Boston area during the Revolutionary War.  Rifle use was very regionalized, largely in Pennsylvania and the Southern Colonies. There is also a big difference between what would have been available in 1750 and 1790.   Buying a good firelock is an expensive purchase so I understand wanting to cover a large time period.  

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.