Hunting guns use

[ACo.]

Re: Hunting guns use

Not really. The most common rifles available back then were the fairly crude looking rifles and shotguns. The commoner families had 1 or more guns in the cabin or farm house. They could not afford fancy brass inlays or German silver trigger guards, etc. These "niceties" were useless items to these folks who need a reliable gun and no frills. In today's museum collections, we see far more of the pretty rifles with silver & brass pieces than there were in comparisson to the cruder versions. This is a simple matter to figure out. Pretty guns are used less harshly than uglier guns, and are cared for better by owners that see them as special items. The old "hog gun" or "corner gun" was not pretty and when Pa died, the sons passed it down and these tended to eventually be thrown away. Patch boxes, or sliding wood lidded compartments were common, but as common were simple depressions carved to hold a smear of grease for lube, or nothing at all.

From my study on the 18th-19th century American arms, it seems that the Eastern seaboard and especially New Englanders had more ornate muskets survive through today than the deep South and old western States have had. Those are pretty guns for sure, but the "Southern Iron Rifle" was more common than what private collections or museums portray today. Pretty ornate longrifles bring more visitors and command higher values than thick ugly iron-fitted utility guns. Around TN, I have seen many more ugly originals in private hands than the pretty ones. Most of these are missing locks, have smashed stocks, are rusted beyond repair, and generally not thought much of except as a conversation piece. This shows that there were a lot of them and they were working arms, not mantle pieces. Were I a poor man headed off to fight a war, I think I'd be better served with the ugly gun that works and that I was familiar with than the pretty gun. Not to say there weren't any fancy-grade Lancasters out there, but it doesn't make sense to me to see those and not scores more ugly guns.

Todd, I honestly don't know where to begin. Let's start here quoting your statement:

"The most common rifles available back then were the fairly crude looking rifles and shotguns."

That’s a pretty broad, sweeping statement. Well, shotguns were not rifles but we'll ignore that, I know what you mean. I don't know where you are looking at rifles, but if I am not mistaken, you live in Tennessee (?) and it's true, the iron mounted longrifle was beginning to show up in the areas of Southwest Virginia, Western North Carolina, and East Tennessee and to a certain extent, Kentucky by the time of the ACW, maybe 20 or 30 years before 1861. But to call these guns crude shows a lack of understanding of the rifle and especially of the men who made them. These gun makers were craftsmen of the highest order, capable of working in wood, iron, steel and brass. They developed a style of rifle that is second to none. Light, graceful and very well made - not crude and clunky like the ones you describe. Look at the work of the Bean family of gunsmiths, you surely have heard of them since you are from Tennessee? There are few more graceful, yet plain, examples of the gun maker’s art known and they are fairly common. You may well be looking at post Civil War, re-stocked examples made by individuals who were not trained as gun makers, often simple farmers that were filing a need when the earlier parts donor gun broke or was damaged in a fire. True, the family "history" of the gun may have said "Grampa carried 'at 'un in 'na War o' Northern Aggression" but that is often highly doubtful when it is examined closely. Many small town museums and/or antique dealers will continue the fantasy. Maybe the barrel was old enough to have been from a gun made pre 1861 but the lock is a back action percussion lock that can be dated to the 1880s (no earlier) by the merchant's or maker's name on it (usually a hardware store) and the buttplate (if it has one) and trigger guard came from a shotgun that is of indeterminable origin or date - could be anytime from 1850 to 1890, even later. It may even have a crude, "hand-forged" (read “cold bent”) trigger guard of simple piece of scrap iron with some re-used screws holding it to the stock which is a piece of poplar that is shaped more like a fence post than a gun stock. The inletting of the parts is abysmal, obviously not done by anyone who had a clue about how to use a chisel or gauge and probably didn’t even own one. The rifles you describe were rarely made by gunsmiths; they were the product of the simple farmer and did not claim to be quality firearms. They are fairly common now but were not “in the day”.

“They could not afford fancy brass inlays or German silver trigger guards, etc. These "niceties" were useless items to these folks who need a reliable gun and no frills.”

But they existed. Well maybe not german silver triggerguards, that is a metal that didn’t come into use until about the mid-19th Century and was never popular on American longrifles, the primary civilian rifle of the time. Copper inlays were popular in West Virginia but not common, and the same is true of brass and coin silver. You have grasped the idea that so called “fancy” rifles were the property of the better heeled members of society, the landed gentry, the more successful merchant and some members of the upper middle class but you seem to lack the understanding that the successful small farmer, the small town store owner and craftsmen of the day also owned well made, well balanced and graceful firearms that were plainer but still good quality guns that were well above tomato stake quality. And this was true in small towns and even in the deep backwoods areas North and South. Why sell the people of the South short? You may as well say that the Confederate Army was armed chiefly with shotguns and squirrel rifles, never saw a pair of shoes and wore turkey feathers in their hats. The South was not as backward and poor as you imply and the gunsmith just like the other master craftsmen of the time was capable of producing a fine firearm with no frills if that was what was wanted and regularly did; they were his bread and butter. The beaters that you describe were not the norm. I have been studying early firearms for nearly 50 years and have handled more than enough examples to know what they used in civil and military life, even in the deep recesses of Appalachia where I grew up and I can tell you that with the “new” poverty post Civil War and the loss of continuity with the death and dislocation of so many, the well made, even fancy guns of the pre-War era were used up just as you seem to feel only the hog guns were subjected to. The muzzleloading firearm stayed in use in rural regions far longer than elsewhere and never did completely retire so they just didn’t last. Many ended up in scrap drives during the two World Wars as well. Don’t sell our ancestors short, they demanded and got quality tools to use, whether saws and churns or guns and plows.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Hunting guns use

"Crude" compared to the elegant graceful brass furnitured "Pensylvania" rifles is what I mean. Not all of the "gunsmiths" making these iron guns were up to the Beans or Wallaces etc. I believe most of these guns were made by the local blacksmith that built a few guns on the side. The vast majority of gunsmiths that built guns are long lost to history, never having signed their work or had their one or two pieces survive through today. I have seen some of the guns that esentially were little more than a log with a barrel with an off-center bore strapped or pinned to it and a lock that was made by someone with no tastes. One of my own ancestors was himself listed on a census as a "farrier/gunsmith" in the 1830 census in Middle TN. I am not intending to claim that the elegant artistic works of gunsmithing prowess have no place in out hobby. I just mean to say that while those sell more easily in Cabelas today, they really do not adequately represent the muzzlelaoders of the antebellum period. It is akin to the over-abundance of 1861 US and P-53 Enfields in our lines today being representative of the guns prevallent in the Civil War. Those guys showed up with all manner of, well, crap.:D Some were elegant, most however likely were "working guns" with iron furniture, odd calibers or gauges, strapped wrists, flintlocks or recently converted percussions, and thick musket-sized butts.

[mobluegraysoldier]

Re: Hunting guns use

While I haven't taken the opportunity to read all of the commentary on the subject, I have to contend that many non-military weapons were pressed into service early during the conflict. This is especially true in the west and the trans-mississippi.

If you read many of the accounts you will notice that in many instances, especially here in the trans-mississippi, where camps of recruitment and instruction had men showing up with whatever weapons they had, and that in some areas there were foragers sent out to procure whatever weapons they could find. Many of the early war accounts claim that as many as half of the men in the ranks of the Confederate forces were unarmed or were armed with clubs, knives, or pikes. Personally I have often thought of making up about a dozen pikes and D-guard bowie knives for issuance to "new" recruits for camp of instruction, parades and early war re-enactments. (Of course these troops would be done like the ones in the original battles; held in reserve with instructions to abandon the "make do" weapons and gather a firearm and accoutrements from either the battlefield or from troops taken to the aide station.)

As to the matter of a lack of representation of flintlocks and other weapons in the ranks at re-enactments most of that is more due to the concerns of safety in the ranks. Rightly or wrongly, most of the organizations and agencies who have organized and developed the re-enacting hobby have decided that flinters and other weapons are more inherently dangerous than the standard three band musket. (Take notice that many agencies go so far as to restrict ramrods from the re-enactment area during a battle/skirmish presentation. Frankly, in my opinion if you are so brain dead as to pull your ramrod out during a battle/skirmish presentation your unit safety officer should take it away from you and flog you with it!!!)

As to the comment about confusion between the "barn" gun and a "hog" gun, I can only comment back that most farmers and others kept a gun, powder, caps/flints, ball/shot in out buildings. These guns might not have been the family or owner's best guns, but they saw regular yeoman's service in dispatching vermin, collecting game and if need arised protection of the farm or home. My neighbor still keeps a barn gun in his shop for dispatching vermin, and while it isn't one of his best guns it is capable of doing what he wants it to. As far as a "hog" gun goes, any gun of a caliber to sufficently stun an animal is all that is necessary. The animal is truly killed by the "bleeding" out after it is "stuck". (I've done more than my fair share of farm butchering using nothing more than a twenty two rifle or pistol, and a number of knives. Some people I known for go the firearm and just use a sledge hammer to stun the animal.) I hope this information does not offend the sensibilities of anyone, but these are the facts; the same today as it was over one hundred years ago.

Kevin Baker aka; mobluegraysoldier

[Todd Watts]

Re: Hunting guns use

The "hog" or "barn" gun is cousin to the "truck" gun as well.;) I do wish we could get some early war events to allow the use of more uncommon gunnery and flinters. Even through Stones River there were flintlocks and guns of such disrepair as to be nearly useless to CS troops. A MS reg't had to carry clubs picked up on the ground into battle at one point because their guns had been sent out for repair or trade just before the battle. Some others carried the hammers in their pockets until time to fire the guns because the hammers would fall off the tumblers. "Safety" is really just a modest concern if the shooter knows how to handle the weapon. I don't think there are really any other issues to worry about with flintlocks, 2-banders, civilian arms, or cut-downs as long as the shooters know their weapon. Put those shooters in the front ranks if there is fear due to barrel length, or let them fight skirmish-style. Many of us were at Mill Springs last fall and saw, once again, thousands of 1861, 1863 and 1842 US models and thousands more P-53 Enfields. Even though that particular battle's claim to fame was the large numbers of flintlocks that failed to work in the rain, we saw not one.

At least for living history purposes, we ought to be getting more odd-ball guns into the public's attention. The public needs to be educated about the variety of all items we can show them.

[ACo.]

Re: Hunting guns use

Todd, I am afraid that we are talking at cross purposes here. First, let me say that I respect your knowledge, you list yourself as a "gunsmith" and I assume that title comes all of the training and experience that the title implies. I rate only as a "gun stocker" since I do not cast, forge, machine, etc. My work is all done by hand, no machines - well, okay, a drill press but that is as far as the machine age has allowed me to go. I have the ability to breech barrels, file and finish as well as harden and temper metal lock parts, fabricate rod pipes, nose caps as well as making a stock from a blank piece of wood and all of the normal things a modern (or 19th Century) gun maker is/was required to do when building a decent reproduction of a firearm of the pre-1865 era. As such, I have also studied the early gunsmiths and their products and work methods and I just do not see them as hacks - they had pride in their work, it was a requirement to make a living. Your "farrier/gunsmith" grandfather had those abilities, I am sure. If he was listed as working at both of those professions, it is a certainty that he was good enough to have an income from them or he would not have been able to have an income and pay taxes. It may have been that he did not actually make any guns, he may have been working on repair only as most gunsmith do today - it has always been that way really, things wear out. He may have been able to bore out and re-rifle a barrel or simply freshen the rifling, re-harden and temper lock parts, make a new spring, etc. and that is all - more than enough to keep a part time 'smith working. But he did these things well. If he built guns, he may not have been a master of design and carving, he didn't need to be, but you can bet that he made a good quality product, he did not make tomato stakes. The guns you seem to feel are "the norm" were not. Most of what you describe I can say with confidence were the product of non-professionals working in a shed AFTER our time period when there simply were fewer working gun makers due to the fact that the demand for their work was no longer there. Now, back to our period. Some entry level gun stockers/makers did indeed make guns that had too much wood on their stocks but not for long. They improved with experience. True, they may never have achieved the artistic levels that the Gillespies or the Beans (both families and dozens of other gun makers of the period made plain, unadorned rifles with excellent lines and fine quality parts purchased from the best barrel and lock makers of the day) but they had to be good or they would have been out of business. Enough said.

Please, lets don't talk about what is available at Cabellas! Unless they are selling custom made guns, they have nothing that has a place in our hobby. Not that what they sell is not safe and accurate for shooting targets and hunting, they are simply nothing like anything available before 1965, much less 1865.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Hunting guns use

OK, we aren't getting anywhere and are drifting away from Civil War topics which will soon bring the wrath of a moderator upon us. I think we are seeing eastern coast vs old western states views playing out here. You are seeing lots of the graceful professionally-made pieces made by real old-time gunsmith/craftsmen. In the wealthier regions of New England and down through VA there were more craftsmen, often foreign-born that turned out perfect firearms. I see those, but still do run across a lot of rather bulky clunky "uglies" out here in TN. West of the mts., during the pre Civil War years this was still wild frontier in places up until 1840-50. Heck, the Chrokees had not been removed but a generation by 1860. Farmers were still mostly pretty poor and the "do for yourself" ways ruled these people. In other words, a Lancaster or Jager rifle would have been admired but not many hunters could have hoped for one. When a gun was desired, they made it themselves form available parts, or, went to the next town where the blacksmith/farrier/gunsmith/barber had a shop and could make one or offer parts. I mean to say, for every sleek original I see in my shop I see several more "ugly" originals come in. Ugly only compared to the artistic ones. Again, it stands to reason that the pretty ones will have survived much better than their ugly counterparts in the same way classic cars survive where utility vehicles do not. To the car historian in 100 years, the only cars that existed in the 1950s will have been T-birds and Bel Airs. Long forgotten will have been the scores of other "lesser" cars no longer in private collections or museums, and with less pages in books devoted to them. It is the same with gunnery. Any modern gunsmith or arms collector can attest that thousands upon thousands of ugly utility guns such as the many "off-brand" break action shotguns were made and still show up that were made in the early 1900s. In that same manner, an awful lot of utility guns were made by many less-professional gunsmiths in the antebellum times in America. These guns did not have the fame nor elegance to permit them to be lovingly cared for by later owners and now they are gone where their prettier cousins made by the fewer real craftsmen/artisans/gunsmiths survive better to this day. I have made an observation before that there really is an awful lot of romantic emotion attached to this subject which is perpetuated by books, movies and museums that zero in on the pretty guns and sacred names like Hawken, Tryon, Shuyler, etc. I wish somebody would do a study on the many "no-name" guns of the era to remember that for every "Beane" smith there were a dozen "Arzas and Ezekials" in blacksmith shops turning out economical utility guns. Maybe that can be a project for Mr. Barry and me to collaborate on. In many ways I am as fascinated by the "ugly guns" as by the sleek balanced works of art.

As a side note, I actually have seen a hammer to a shotgun made by my Gr-Grandfather who was a typical turn-of-the century TN farmer. He was a "jack-of-all-trades" as these people needed to be and when his hammer broke, he made another in his shop forge. It works, but is square, blocky and strictly utilitarian in comparrison to the other surving hammer on the other barrel. I've collected a few odds and ends of these "home smith repairs" over the years that are sometimes quite commical and often down right ingenious. Anywho, with that, I am out of this one.;)

[ACo.]

Re: Hunting guns use

Yep, me too. Don't see how we were drifting away from CW topics since we were discussing what would and would not be proper for an impression of that period but it would not be my decision. Please understand that, like my ancestors for the last 200 years, I grew up in the Alleghany Highlands on the Virginia/West Virginia border and my research, including talking to the children of the actual veterans and civilians alive during the War tells a very different story. In no way were my ancestors "east coasters" and few if any of the surviving items of everyday living that I grew up with came from anywhere east of the Shenandoah Valley. That includes what we called "mountain rifles" - the locally produced firearms in everyday use. It was not a rich area and every one of the guns that I have seen that matches what you consider common and everyday in your area dates to the late 19th Century around here - little did I know that the people of Tennessee were so much more advanced than us. Live and learn, I return to my backward ways.
:mouth_clo

[GarrettG1993]

Re: Hunting guns use

Yes, I have seen several Confederate used civilian target rifles and Kentucky rifles. There was a Kentucky on gunbroker a couple of years back, they said it was found after the battle of Pea Ridge. It had a broken buttstock that had been repaired by wrapping a peice of copper around it. It definately had the look of an indian gun, but there were several Native American units engaged there. Also EOG describes the military reboreing and barrel shortining of Kentucky rifles.Also theres the Confederate target rifle found at Gettysburg.


Garrett Glover
1st Texas Light Artillery
Battery K

[Chad Wrinn]

Re: Hunting guns use

Here is a link to a interesting description of a battle at Ivy Mountain in Eastern Kentucky that mentions hunting rifles and shot guns.

http://breckinridgegreys.org/history.html

PS You will have to scroll down to Battle Descriptions on the Page.

[ACo.]

Re: Hunting guns use

Well, I said I was not going to say any more, but.... :embaresse

Guys, let's not go off the deep end here. True, civilian rifles and shotguns were used but only in very specific circumstances, few are documented in any reliable way. Do the research and if, only if, it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt then try to use something that would be correct - not easy to do. This is very thorny territory and there are many pitfalls. Suffice it to say that ALL of the commonly available modern production civilian guns "resemble" originals but are full of flaws (even worse than the worst of the military reproductions!) that take them out of this side of the hobby. Sorry, I had to say it.

[EVOC]

Re: Hunting guns use

Okay, when I decided to buy a double barreled shotgun, I found an antique gun manufactured by Wm. Ketland & Co., made in London. "London" is stamped on the Damascus barrel and the lockplate and trigger guard are ornate. It is an early period percussion, possbily converted from a flintlock.

Without doing any research, I could surmise that an immigrant might have brought the shotgun with him. It has been inspected and is safe, at least, for firing gunpowder.

In the context of this thread and for re-enacting, does that sound impractical?

[Todd Watts]

Re: Hunting guns use

I'd think it would be reasonable. There were foreign-made civilian guns here that may have found their way afield. The "ornate" part might be hard to swallow for militia use, but then again some such guns out of the hundreds of thousands of men rushing into service surely wandered out there with the owners. Or, for that matter, were confiscated during raids. Could make for an interesting 1st person living history tale, how you took it from some mansion or brought it over from England, etc.

[ACo.]

Re: Hunting guns use

No reason to make up a story about bringing it from England. Imported shotguns were common in North America. Ketland, Manton, Webley and others were imported by sellers all over the east coast, North and South. Check the proof marks, many Belgian guns were spuriously marked with "London" and "Birmingham".

[EVOC]

Re: Hunting guns use

Thanks Thomas. The lockplate is engraved, "Wm. Ketland & Co." and I cannot find a proof mark on the butt stock. If I was horn swaggled, it may take awhile for me to figure it out.

[ACo.]

Re: Hunting guns use

Probably not hornswagled, the proof marks will be stamped on the bottom of the barrels at the breech, probably the barrel maker's name as well. They are hidden from sight when the barrel is in place. As you probably know, remove the ramrod, then take the wedge out and lift the barrels out of their hooked breech.

One interesting thing that I forgot to mention above, there were more English shotguns in America than in England, the firearms export business was big in England with sales all over the Empire and the rest of the world. They ranged from relatively plain but well made guns to fancy grades with hunting scenes inlaid in silver in the top rib between the barrels. My wife's family has one with Webley made barrels marked "Van Lew and Smith, Richmond" with the silver inlayed rib.