Post by brokennock on Sept 8, 2023 1:27:26 GMT -7
I didn't say guns without plates would never have been done, I just don't think it would have been common or thought wise for a tool to see hard use.
As you mentioned, gun stockers would have built guns from used parts, and again labor was the cheaper part of the process then, so, how much savings would there be in leaving the buttplate off and risking breaking the stock? And, if the stocker is reusing parts off of damaged guns,,, even more reason to add a little embellishment to show off his skill and make it his own work.
If we bring imported and trade guns from Britain and the continent into the mix,,, even the cheap trade guns with their nailed on parts had some decoration.
Have to admit I'm having a hard time accepting the reason they didn't put a butt plate on a gun was to show off the end grain of the stock. I'm not dismissing it out of hand, but I've never run across anything that remotely suggests that's why they did it........
Gus
I really doubt it too. But, that's how it would seem in the case of some of those jeager rifles..... Doesn't seem much less likely than leaving off something that protects your investment to save a fraction of cost at the time of purchase.
I know some lists have been posted here on what certain guns cost at the time.
Two questions.
Do any of them list guns with and without buttplates/entry thimbles/sideplates, for comparison?
Do we have any parts lists for trade so we can see what various parts cost?