|
John
Armstrong of Emmitsburg and his Rifles
Albert Manley Sullivan
The town of Emmitsburg, in the state of
Maryland, is cozily nestled at the foot of the
Catoctin Mountain, just a few miles north of the
beautiful Cunningham Falls. It presents to the
world, in its scenic setting, a calm and
peaceful image. Its quiet serenity seems an
integral part of the towns’ make-up, and
suggests that to change this mood would be
difficult. Yet this tranquil dignity was a
abruptly shattered one Sunday last summer, as
35,000 visitors descended upon the startled
little city. They had come to see the
Shrine of Mother Seton, who had that
very day, been canonized in far away Flume, and
had, become America’s first and only native-born
saint.
Elizabeth Ann Seton had wrought her
magic mostly in Emmitsburg, and these visitors
pilgrims if you wish, probably felt they were
achieving a sort of celestial first-day cover by
visiting her work bench on the same day on which
she was canonized. Elizabeth Ann Seton had
focused the whole worlds attention on Emmitsburg
but it is probable that only a small percentage
of all visitors who had jammed the highways
leading into Emmitsburg on that Sunday, realized
that the little mountain town they were visiting
was the home of another famous citizen one whose
fame has spread not throughout the world, as
Mother Seton’s, but certainly throughout most of
America.
John Armstrong.
Maryland’s finest and perhaps America’s finest
antique gunsmith, also lived and I worked in
Emmitsburg. So in its early days Emmitsburg had
a famous son, as well as a famous daughter. And
at the same time, John was born in 1772
Elizabeth in 1773 and there are other
interesting parallels in the lives of these two
outstanding Emmitsburg residents. As shown, they
were about the same age. Secondly, they began
their Emmitsburg careers at just about the same
time John in 1808, at least as far as
documentation shows, and Elizabeth in 1809.
Then they were
practically neighbors in that they each lived in
a relatively small social community. Also, they
were each beginning new enterprises at almost
the same time. Again, they were each outstanding
personalities each tops in their fields, they
almost had to know each other, and knowing each
other, they were probably friends. Speculation,
the friendship part, but at least with a solid
foundation for support. Then there was the fact
that of the three daughters of the Armstrong’s,
one was named Elizabeth and one was named Ann.
Was this pure coincidence? Or was it because of
respect and admiration for Mother Seton by Mr.
and Mrs. Armstrong? One more thing, earlier in
her career, Elizabeth Ann Seton opened a school
for girls in the then frontier like community,
where such schools must have been rare. The
writer sometimes wonders where the Armstrong
girls went to school. Speculation or not, it is
an interesting thought for an Armstrong admirer
to feel that his pet gunsmith had a saint for a
friend. This certainly has to be unique.
Researchers have spent many hours delving for
information about John Armstrong. In general,
the results have been disappointing, although
more has been learned about him in the last five
to six years, than ever before. One basic thing
that never had been documented was his birth
date until last year. A document, now a happy
part of the author’s Armstrong collection, was
recently discovered among some old papers at a
farm sale that establishes his exact birth date.
This is a legal paper, part of a court record,
in which John Armstrong made a deposition before
a magistrate. To verify the age of one Samuel
Louden, and in the process. He tells the
magistrate his birth date.
Opened the document states:
Md. Fred County Town
“On the 22nd
day of August 1828 personally appeared John
Armstrong before me the subscriber a Justice
of the Peace in and for the county aforesaid
and made the following oath and declaration
deposeth and saveth that he is personally’
well and acquainted with a certain Samuel
Louden a citizen of Liberty Township, Adams
County Pennsylvania that he does think to the
best of his opinion that the said Samuel
Louden was born in the year 1776 or before
that year and that he has good reason for
forming that opinion respecting the age of the
said Samuel Louden they being boys together
but the said deponent being somewhat the
oldest being born in the year 1772 the 5th day
of September therefore does make oath and
declare that the said Samuel Louden is at
least fifty-two years of age and further
sayeth not.
Sworn before
William Coony”
So
here is John himself giving his birth date as
September 5, 1772, to a Justice of the Peace in
Frederick County, in August of 1828, This piece
fits the puzzle precisely, and gives us a firm
starting date. It also places him in Frederick
County in 1828. But most of the pieces of the
puzzle are still missing. He does not, for
instance, say where he was born. But he does
give us a hint. He says he was a ‘boy together’’
with Samuel Louden and he names Sam as a citizen
of Liberty Township. The writer has not yet
researched the exact location of Liberty
Township, but feels it will be in the lower also
eastern part of Adams County, Pennsylvania. This
suggests that he was born there and that, in
turn, fits another slot in the puzzle, at least
in the writers mind.
If
Armstrong was born in Liberty Township, it would
mean he would have been nearer to Hanover,
Pennsylvania, than if, for instance, he had been
born in Emmitsburg, Maryland. And it is
important to the writer’s mental equanimity that
he should be close to Hanover during his
boyhood. The writer and especially the writer’s
son (I dare not withhold this credit) have long
felt that John Armstrong was apprenticed to and
learned his gunsmithing from George Schroyer of
Hanover, There are at least five valid reasons
for this belief. Schroyer, one of America’s
oldest documented gunsmiths, and one of the
truly great ones, used five different features
in his guns, some of them frequently, some
infrequently, which appear in Armstrong’s
rifles. And significantly of two of them used
frequently by Schroyer, Armstrong used one all
the time and the second most of the time. Since
this is being prepared not entirely for antique
gun buffs, the nature of the features will not
be elaborated upon.
So
we do not believe that Armstrong was born in
Emmitsburg. We think he moved there about 1793.
This would be after becoming an apprentice to
Schroyer in 1786, at age 14, and completing his
training seven years later in 1793. He would
then have become a “journeyman” and the name
itself suggests that he moved away from his
master and set up shop on his own almost
certainly in Emmitsburg. Full apprenticeships in
those days were normally for seven years, but
not all. Some were for five years and some for
only three. If John’s tenure was shorter than
seven years, then he probably moved to
Emmitsburg that much earlier.
One thing is certain some of his rifles are 18th
century. The writer is often asked “If Armstrong
was born when you think he was (1770-I had
thought), then where are his 18th century
rifles?” The answer (clearer now that his birth
date is pinpointed) is that any of his flintlock
rifles could be 18th century. We have no way of
telling which were made first. We only know of
four that were made as original percussions. The
point is that John developed a style early in
his career, in the late 18th century that
pleased him and pleased his customers; he did
not change that basic design with the passage of
time. Neither did Rolls Royce! This is
sometimes charged as detraction against
Armstrong, but the writer (admittedly biased)
feels this to be an attraction, rather than
detraction. If one spends all the money
necessary to buy a Rolls Royce or an Armstrong,
one wants it, at first glance, to look like a
Rolls Royce or an Armstrong. Incidentally, that
style pleases today’s collectors too! If you
don’t think so try to buy one of his rifles!
But let’s get back
to origins. John’s father, originally from
England, was also named John and apparently
settled at first in the Cumberland Valley
section of Pennsylvania, moving his family later
to somewhere in Liberty Township. We speculate
that John, Jr. could have been born there. This
could fit in with John “being boys together with
his friend Sam Louden, and would place him in
close proximity to George Schroyer in Hanover.
Schroyer was a generation older than Armstrong.
He appears in the court records, listed as a
gunsmith, as early as 1767 (but not at that time
in Hanover). Schroyer age, Armstrong’s nearness
to him at the age boys normally began
apprenticeship (John was 14 in 1786 and
Schroyer was settled in Hanover at that time)
and Armstrong’s consistent use later of five of
Schroyer’s details, one of which is very
conclusive, all suggest that John learned his
trade from Schroyer. John (Junior) married a
Miss James. They had seven children four sons,
William, Robert, Samuel and James and three
daughters, Elizabeth, Ann and Jane. The court
records show that John bought lots 1 and 2 in
the Emmitsburg plat in 1808. These are the first
of a relatively long series of real estate
transactions that are recorded to John.
The presumption of
the writer is that Armstrong came to Emmitsburg
about 1793; set himself up in the gunsmith
business and by 1808 was able to buy some
property, probably for a house, as well as a
business and permanently established his roots.
It is known that he was still in Emmitsburg as
late as 1841.
Armstrong must have made a success of his
business, because he enjoyed a long period of
production. We are not sure just when he started
but, as stated earlier, it must have been around
1793. We do know statements made by his last
apprentice, Nathaniel Rowe, which he was still
in the gunsmith business in Emmitsburg in 1840.
Since he drops from sight in 1841, it seems safe
to assume that his production span was from 1793
to 1840. Forty-seven years is time enough to
make a great many rifles.
The question
naturally arises and is often asked “How many
rifles did he make?” A good question! One that
cannot be answered with any degree of certainty.
We can only guess. But as more is learned about
the man, and about some of the factors that
affect production, the guessing becomes a little
easier or rather, a little less difficult. For
instance, research by Mr. Daniel Hartzler of New
Windsor, Maryland, has revealed that Armstrong
had a long string of apprentices. A master
worker who might also be a good administrator
and teacher, working with two apprentices, could
naturally produce considerably more than the
master working by himself. It is reasonable to
suppose that Armstrong normally employed two
apprentices. This is, of course, a factor which
would speed up production. But with Armstrong,
there were three important factors which
definitely slowed it down substantially. One of
these factors we are positive was always
present. We are less certain of the other two,
but one or both of them could also have always
been present.
We
are sure, for instance, that Armstrong always
made his own locks. This is a slow and tedious
process and would add to a rifle’s completion
time. Most gunsmiths of that period bought their
locks from lock manufacturers. They were cheaper
and increased production. This saved the
gunsmith money in two ways. Then, these locks
were probably better than the average gunsmith
could make himself. But none of these suited
Armstrong. Not John Armstrong, the
perfectionist. The store bought locks were not
good enough to go on his excellent products, so
he made his own locks. Locks of a quality
compatible with the high quality of everything
else on his truly excellent rifles. Love that
man! The locks he made are slender graceful and
beautifully proportioned. They blend perfectly
into the architectural balance of the gun. It is
easy to see why he would not be satisfied with
anything less. Everything he did had to come up
to the standards he carried in his head and in
his heart, and these standards were at summit
level. In addition to their beauty, the locks
functioned efficiently. The springs of the
Armstrong locks in the Sullivan collection, are
as crisp and sharp today as they were when they
were made 150 years ago. We should begin here to
understand some of the reasons why Armstrong is
so highly regarded by collectors, and why his
rifles are so eagerly sought after.
Incidentally,
there is a feeling, a very sensible one, in the
Kentucky rifle fraternity that the absence of
the original lock in a Kentucky rifle is not too
important. This is because the lock was almost
never made by the gunsmith and so did not
represent his handiwork. Also, locks were
expendable they wore out and they were replaced,
so they seldom related to the gunsmith who made
the rifle. But this does not hold with
Armstrong. Because he made and signed his own
locks, and because they were so special and were
so appropriate to his guns, this absence in an
Armstrong rifle is a very serious flaw.
The other two
factors that would seriously affect the
gunsmith’s output are the barrel, if self-made,
and the brass castings. There were a number of
barrel-smiths who did nothing but make barrels
for use for various gunsmiths. Most craftsmen of
that period purchased and used such barrels. But
not Armstrong the writer believes he made his
own barrels. This would, of course, have limited
his production. But Armstrong was more
interested in perfection than he was in
production. This is attested by the fact that he
never made a poor rifle. Some of the other rifle
makers who could rival him for the top spot, did
make rifles of lesser quality adjusted, no doubt
to suit what the customer could afford to pay.
But not our hero. He never removed the suit of
shining armor never got down off the white
horse. Of the twenty eight surviving Armstrong
rifles known to the writer, the least of them is
an excellent example of design and execution. It
is a truly fine rifle, one that any discerning
collector would be proud to own. The barrel
played such an important role in accuracy, that
Armstrong would never have been satisfied to
leave control of this vital function to 5omeone
else. The writer has examined a number of these
barrels with this particular question in mind,
and has concluded, at least to his own
satisfaction, that Armstrong made his own
barrels.
As to casting his
own brass fittings, we are not quite so sure.
The brass furniture affected the efficiency of
the gun only in that it had to be comfortable to
the marksman. This was much less important to
the guns ultimate purpose accuracy than the
barrel. Its principal contribution besides
comfort was to please the eye, so you may
conclude he did leave the castings to someone
else. But our boy was an artist, a true artist,
His devotion to beauty is proven by what he has
left behind. It is doubtful that he regarded
appearance as being of secondary importance. So
the writer thinks he made his castings himself.
Another indication that he made his own castings
is the fact that a number of his trigger guards
have the initials “J.A.” cast into the metal on
the inside of the bow. This does not prove he
made them. But it certainly proves they were
made exclusively for him and to his strict
specifications.
But we have begged
the question long enough. How many rifles did
John Armstrong make? Considering all the above,
plus the engraving, carving, finishing, and
assuming he used two apprentices most of the
time, we believe he could not produce his type
of gun in anything less than three weeks. This
is only seventeen rifles per year. It seems low;
consider this only twenty eight Armstrong rifles
are to know to exist. Perhaps there are another
six to eight around that have not surfaced, so
let’s say there are thirty-six remaining.
If
full production was seventeen per year, then
forty-seven years of production would result in
about eight hundred rifles. But no manufacture
that ever liver, then or now, has ever achieved
full production over a forty—seven year span.
Assuming that his chief occupation during that
span was making rifles (which we really don’t
know), it would appear reasonable to reduce the
production rate by at least 25%, This would then
give a total of six hundred rifles in his
lifetime.
But we do not believe he made that many. If he
had, more of them would have survived.
Thirty—six represents a survival rate of only
6%. It may be argued that the Kentucky rifle is
a very fragile object and that a survival rate
of 6% over a one hundred fifty year span is
reasonable. And normally we would agree. But
Armstrong rifles are not normal. They are at the
top of the heap and fine objects usually receive
better care than the ordinary. Consequently the
survival rate is higher, perhaps 30% higher. If
so, the thirty-six survivors would then
represent 9% of the total production. This would
make Armstrong’s lifetime production about four
hundred rifles. This is a big answer to the
question, and we are not at all sure we have
answered it. The only thing really sure is that
any answer will be contested. At any rate, this
is our thinking four hundred rifles!
We mentioned the
fact that Armstrong took in apprentices. It was
known for a long time that Nathaniel Rowe, also
of Emmitsburg, was an apprentice to Armstrong.
But it has only recently come to light that he
was Armstrong’s last apprentice. Ed and Helen
Flanagan of nearby Thurmont, profound scholars
and indefatigable researchers, have discovered
Rowe’s tombstone. Fortunately, the stone gives
his birth date, and this fact alone solves a
number of puzzles. Before this discovery,
collectors felt there were two Nathaniel Rowes
possibly senior and junior. This was because of
the marked difference in two styles of Rowe
rifles. The first was of 18th century styling
and followed almost exactly the make up of
Armstrong’s guns. This was considered natural,
since he was apprenticed to the master and would
make guns that resembled those of his teacher.
These were thought to be the work of the senior
Rowe. The second style, also signed by Nathaniel
Rowe, was of a much later vintage around the
middle 1800’s. This, then, would be the work of
junior. But the Flanagans have discovered that
this is not the case. Their research has turned
up only one Nathaniel Rowe, despite the large
size of the Rowe clan in that area.
The important thing learned was that Rowe was
born late and lived a long time. He was
born in 1821 and died in 1915. He became an
apprentice in 1836, when he was fifteen years
old. By Rowe’s own words, he began with
Armstrong when he was fifteen, and stated that
his tenure was for five years. This would have
made Armstrong sixty-nine years of age when Rowe
completed his training, and the year would be
1841 very close to the end of Armstrong’s
career.
So the obvious
facts are that Rowe only made a small number of
the early Armstrong type rifles (the writer
knows of only five) and then switched to the
style which was that time fashionable. Perhaps
he made these few Armstrong type rifles during
the short space between his becoming a
journeyman and Armstrong s death.
The Flanagans have
also discovered that one George Piper was
apprentice to Armstrong in 1801. This could very
well have been Armstrong first apprentice. The
writer has seen one rifle made by George Piper.
It bears but little resemblance to John’s style.
Another puzzle concerning the early apprentices
of Armstrong has been cleared up because of the
research of Dr. George Shumway. Four or five
rifles were known that were signed Wickham &
Matthews. The rifles from their styling were
obviously Maryland rifles. One of them, owned by
a friend of the writer is an extremely fine
rifle of great beauty. The rifle has so much
Armstrong in it that it was almost a certainty
that the makers knew or were associated with
Armstrong. But who was Wickham, who was Matthew?
No one seemed to know. Nothing appeared in the
records. Then Dr. Shumway in his systematic
research, found evidence that Wickham was Marine
Tyler Wickham, who is well known in antique
militaria and for whom the “Wickham Band” is
named. The document shows that he was one of
Armstrong’s very early apprentices. After
leaving, Armstrong Wickham became U.S. Inspector
of Arms during the War of 1812 and later, under
contract manufactured Model 1821 muskets for the
Army.
Between these
early and last apprentices, Armstrong must have
had a constant stream of young men in training.
It is said that all four of his sons were
apprentices at one time or another. Some
evidence of this shown in a rifle examined by
the writer. Which is signed Samuel Armstrong. It
is a rather mediocre copy of its master style.
Another rifle is said to be signed Robert
Armstrong, and is thought to be made by another
of Armstrong’s sons. Apparently the boy’s did
not follow in the master’s footsteps for any
length of time. The two Armstrong apprentices
who did prove to be great gunsmiths in their own
right were, of course Marine Tyler Wickham and
Nathaniel Rowe.
There has been a
general feeling that Armstrong was a poor
business man and lived hand to mouth existence.
This was probably true of many gunsmiths, and
the tag was likely applied to John because of
the sale of some gunsmithing tools and equipment
in 1822. Most researchers and many collectors
are aware of this recorded sale, and some think
he went out of business at that time. We now
know the latter is not true. For one thing the
writer’s son has an Armstrong that is dated the
only one known November 1836. Nor do we think
the sale was made because he was hard up and
desperately needed cash. It is more likely he
had an oversupply of tools and was selling them
to help someone else get started in business.
Not to Jacob Harner, to whom the sale is
recorded, but possibly for one of his graduated
apprentices. Perhaps Harner himself was an
earlier apprentice.
It is not likely
that a gunsmith that employed a long continuous
string of apprentices would be having a bad time
economically. Taking on an apprentice in those
days was somewhat like adopting another son; and
with four of his own, Armstrong certainly did
not need another son. The master was charged not
only with teaching the lad his trade but also in
supplying his material needs. Very often the
apprentice lived in the master’s house as one of
the family.
Moreover, again
thanks to the research of Dr. Shumway, some of
the real estate deals that are recorded are in
four digit figures. This at a time when most
ordinary transactions were in the low three
digit range. According to Dr. Shumway, several
of these real estate deals were made with Samuel
Louden, John’s boyhood friend. It is reasonably
certain that John Armstrong took adequate care
of his family, and lived comfortably.
Armstrong’s rifles are among the very finest of
the Kentucky’s ‘‘Golden Age. This ran from about
1790 to 1820, a period following the Revolution
when the country was glutted with gunmakers, but
shy of gun buyers. To stay in business, a
gunsmith had to build finer and finer rifles to
attract his share of the dwindled demand
Armstrong learned his trade and then started his
business in this atmosphere of excellence,
motivated by the grim certainty that gunsmiths
either made a superior rifle or their business
perished. It was first-rate training, but it is
doubtful that Armstrong needed such a push. With
his tremendous talent, his innate artistry and
his desire for perfection, he probably would
have made a superb rifle under any
circumstances.
One way or another
his products were among the very best. His
rifles were long, slender and graceful. Their
architectural balance is excellent. His guns
hang together, they please the eye at first
glance, and they start the acquisitive juices
flowing. This quality is difficult to put into
words, but it has a slam-bang effect on the
beholder. A gut reaction. Not many gun-smiths
had this magic, but all students of the Kentucky
rifle will agree that Armstrong had more than
his share.
The late Joe
Kindig, Jr., dean of all Kentucky collectors, in
his remarkable book Thoughts on the Kentucky
Rifle in Its Golden Age, says of Armstrong:
"John Armstrong’s workmanship is magnificent and
his designs are just about perfection. I cannot
emphasize the beauty of his rifles."
Emmitsburg, especially during the Bicentennial
Year, can be proud of her talented son, who
began life just four years before the period
started.
If you have any
information on John Armstrong and his rifles,
please sent it to us
at
history@emmitsburg.net
|
