Carving

[Shawnee Mike]

Osayo all,
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?

[Kermit]

I think we need more info about this hypothetical "common" man. Big difference between Georgia and Massachusetts, 1745 and 1790, farmer/tradesman/frontier settler.

[pathfinder]

I'm of the opinion that the fancy guns were better cared for than the "common" gun. Do ya suppose in two hundred years everyone re-enacting the common 21st century hunter will carry Weatherby's instead of 870's because the Weatherby's were better cared for? Just my totally un-scientific point of view.

[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.

[Captchee]

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 .

[Capt. Jas.]

I think there were grades of carving and decoration as Capthee mentions above but our 21 century mindset of a completely plain gun for the common man was not a common thing. There was a style of building and  for the most part I believe it included some sort of decoration. A little carving and some scratching on the metal was not something to take much time and I think it completed the gun as for what was common in the day. Even the cheapest guns like the Carolinas had rough engraving on the strap metal parts.
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.

[pathfinder]

Beaver tails behind the lock panels and tang mouldings were very common,fine engraving and LOTS of carving every where is whats on the less common side. I suppose then as now it depended on how busy a guy was too. Right now there isn't a lot going on in my shop,so the current customers "simple" gun may get a few extra details thrown in,a Volute behind the cheek and maybe something on the forestock moulding too. Also seems there is a "show off" in all of us and that may play into it too. Fun to speculate when workin'.

[Shawnee Mike]

Osayo All,
Thank you for all your thoughts.  Makes alot of sense.

[Gordon H.Kemp]

As was mentioned by Captchee and others, no doubt if a " common " man were to obtain the funds and or matreial to barter for a gun/blacksmith to build him a weapon  , it might have some form of decoorative carving or metal engraving . :roll eyes
        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    This situation is just one of the many that makes the study of the old weapons so interesting and challangeing . Have fun .

[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 .

[Capt. Jas.]

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.

[Capt. Jas.]

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?

[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.

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 .

[Uncle Russ]

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...

[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.