NWTG in the Colonies?

mikesto44 said:

We can all debate this to death. But the fact is their has been parts recovered all over the place.

Click to expand...

Yep ..... And not just Nebraska !! LOL !!

I think there's confusion about what is a trade gun commonly found in the colonies and what specifically is a NWTG. I know I'm confused...

There are books full of real information for those interested.

Lots of different trade guns

Tumbledown said:

I think there's confusion about what is a trade gun commonly found in the colonies and what specifically is a NWTG. I know I'm confused...

Click to expand...

Lots of different styles of trade guns during the 18th century from many different countries . I'm certainly not going to go through them all , but a very interesting topic in itself . One of those styles is the Northwest Trade gun . It was made and developed by the Hudsons Bay Company , English fur trade company . The HBCo started referring to their trade gun by name , as the Northwest trade gun in the 1750 s ....probably even earlier but 1750s for sure in documents . Later , esp .after the F&I war , the N.W trade gun started becoming more common for trade in Southern Canada and Northern colonies , it was specifically made for the Indian fur trade ! YES ! We know that Folks !! , down in southern Canada and in the eastern frontier sections of present day eastern U.S. The English traders had taken over the Frenchs' forts , town and trading posts etc. after winning the F&I war . Now ...the N.W. trade gun was a popular trade item and makers made them for other companies too when it was requested , but there were a few different styles of other trade guns non the less . A popular style in the S. colonies was the Carolina gun . All brass mounted , made specifically for the southern fur trade market ... The N.W. trade gun had a steel trigger guard , a rather large bowed trigger guard after 1780 , T.M. Hamilton input , European walnut full stock or beech stock , thin brass ribbed ramrod pipes , a cast Dragon or serpent side plate , flat simple brass buttplate , 36", 42", 48" Oct. to round smooth bore barrel with short flats at the breech , very light , usually 24 or 20 ga. but its ve seen 16 ga. , round faced flintlocks with fox stamps and English proof marks and LONDON stamp ....18th century and early 19 th century stocks were pretty slim but the stocks started getting a bit " thick " later on it its later life , the later guns .... Pic , an early and a late style

Tumbledown said:

I think there's confusion about what is a trade gun commonly found in the colonies and what specifically is a NWTG. I know I'm confused...

Click to expand...

A perfect example of a good looking trade gun but .... What the he!! is it ?! I'm not sure ....one could call it a Carolina gun , seems a bit refined for a Carolina Gun but .....its darn close to one so I guess thats ok but its a BIT different from the guns I know are Carolina a guns so ...not sure . The trigger guard is cast not cheap thin brass strip of sheet metal ...Has an entry ramrod pipe too ... Who knows ! . Good looking gun .....

It’s labeled as a chief’s gun in the photo. So likely a higher grade trade gun made around 1800-1815, for trade or gaining favor with the Native Americans.

As the OP to this excellent yet contentious thread, I’d like to step in and say thanks to everyone who’s contributed thus far. As always, education and entertainment abound. Thank you!

Clark Badgett said:

I don’t think anyone has argued the use in organized militia, as in colony approved militias which had set standards of bore size and equipment, or tried to have. There is a distinct possibility a few were found floating around the western fringes of PA, VA and the Carolinas. In fact a good many years ago I did read an article that had a NW gun that supposedly had provenance to AWI usage, but I am still looking for it.

Click to expand...

Exactly ... My grandfather was a Capt. in the Virginia Militia and they were not issued weapons . What's er they had is what they used . He carried a rifle not an issued musket ! LOL ... I'm sure being on the fringes of the frontier they either used , had access to or picked up a trade gun or three from time to time . Anyone that thinks this isn't true is re+@rded . He operated in what is now western PA mostly .He was at two of the three sieges at Fort Henry . I'm sure that after each repulsed attack at the Fort my Grandfather ordered all the trade guns left at the battle scene to be thrown in the Ohio River since they were illegal guns to own in the colonies ! . Dont want to get in trouble now !! LOL !

Rob M. said:

Exactly ... My grandfather was a Capt. in the Virginia Militia and they were not issued weapons . What's er they had is what they used . He carried a rifle not an issued musket ! LOL ... I'm sure being on the fringes of the frontier they either used , had access to or picked up a trade gun or three from time to time . Anyone that thinks this isn't true is re+@rded . He operated in what is now western PA mostly .He was at two of the three sieges at Fort Henry . I'm sure that after each repulsed attack at the Fort my Grandfather ordered all the trade guns left at the battle scene to be thrown in the Ohio River since they were illegal guns to own in the colonies ! . Dont want to get in trouble now !! LOL !

Click to expand...

So people are now stupid or retarded for disagreeing with you, because your statements of your family lineage is direct evidence that a NWTG was used in the colonies?

Who is your relative and where is his gun(s) ?

FlinterNick said:

So people are now stupid or retarded for disagreeing with you, because your statements of your family lineage is direct evidence that a NWTG was used in the colonies?

Who is your relative and where is his gun(s) ?

Click to expand...

Wow ! Are you drinking the river water ! It is just common sense . If anyone threw away perfectly good guns then they weren't too bright . I dont believe that N.W. trade guns were never in abundance in white man's hands but to say " Nope , they were never used ...." is really stupid , esp. in the western colony boundaries . Believe what you want , I dont give a ship ....

FlinterNick said:

So people are now stupid or retarded for disagreeing with you, because your statements of your family lineage is direct evidence that a NWTG was used in the colonies?

Who is your relative and where is his gun(s) ?

Click to expand...

His rifle , along with everyone else's weapons , were used up a LONG time ago ....

Rob M. said:

Wow ! Are you drinking the river water ! It is just common sense . If anyone threw away perfectly good guns then they weren't too bright . I dont believe that N.W. trade guns were never in abundance in white man's hands but to say " Nope , they were never used ...." is really stupid , esp. in the western colony boundaries . Believe what you want , I dont give a ship ....

Click to expand...

Who said anything about throwing guns away? You said that.

I asked about NWTGs as evidence being used, you said your grandfather used one in the war, so where is this NWTG?

Where is your documentation that your grandfather used a NWTG in the revolutionary war?

Hey and if you have this evidence, that’s great, you ought to write about it instead of arguing here about it, appropriately catalog your information for others to follow.

Otherwise, you’re just making a statement out of conjecture.

Furthermore ending every statement in ‘LOL’ just makes you look very petulant.

FlinterNick said:

Who said anything about throwing guns away? You said that.

I asked about NWTGs as evidence being used, you said your grandfather used one in the war, so where is this NWTG?

Where is your documentation that your grandfather used a NWTG in the revolutionary war?

Hey and if you have this evidence, that’s great, you ought to write about it instead of arguing here about it, appropriately catalog your information for others to follow.

Otherwise, you’re just making a statement out of conjecture.

Furthermore ending every statement in ‘LOL’ just makes you look very petulant.

Click to expand...

No, grandpa used a rifle . I'm saying if N.W. trade guns were around and they were , then they would have been utilized . LOL !! Yes !! I have a hand written document stating each mans named that served with my grandfather and it states the the color of each mans knee breeches and what firearm he carried ....and each one survived the war and is hanging in a museum in Pittsburgh with documentation proving its use and who used it . In actuality .... I lied about everything .... N.W. trade guns did not exist at the time of the Rev. War but did later in Nebraska , just like Mr. Expert #2 said . If such guns would have existed they would have never been used by any Colonialist because they would have been " dirty ' and their use would have been against one of the 10 commandments . All militias used the same flintlock muskets as was issued to each soldier no matter where he was in the colonies . You and they other experts are quite right and VERY intelligent ! Thank you for spreading your wisdom .

Ok I'm not a trade gun expert. But how did they get from England or wherever to the Americas ? if they didn't pass through the coastal ports..? Plus why have they found relics of them almost everywhere..?
Plus if they were traded to the Natives ? Could it possibly be they might trade a gun to Colonists for food or wherever ? Just being curious..

mikesto44 said:

Ok I'm not a trade gun expert. But how did they get from England or wherever to the Americas ? if they didn't pass through the coastal ports..? Plus why have they found relics of them almost everywhere..?
Plus if they were traded to the Natives ? Could it possibly be they might trade a gun to Colonists for food or wherever ? Just being curious..

Click to expand...

The British had control of the Hudson Bay and shipped through there before the F&I War.

After the F&I they had direct access to Quebec and Nova Scotia.

The primary trade routes would have been up through the St. Lawrence. After the proclamation of 1763 trade between the colonists of the 13 colonies and Quebec was considered contraband until the end of the Rev War.

The actual shipments themselves were not always in complete guns, often locks, barrels and hardware were sent over to be rough stocked.

Huh ..... Trade guns in a militias armoury ..... weird

Rob M. said:

Huh ..... Trade guns in a militias armoury ..... weird

Click to expand...

Nobody said trade guns didn’t exist in the colony digressing from your original argument that Northwest trade guns existed, give it up already you can’t keep twisting words to benefit your argument

Using trade guns for militia use ...weird . Never would have thought that ...

FlinterNick said:

The British had control of the Hudson Bay and shipped through there before the F&I War.

After the F&I they had direct access to Quebec and Nova Scotia.

The primary trade routes would have been up through the St. Lawrence. After the proclamation of 1763 trade between the colonists of the 13 colonies and Quebec was considered contraband until the end of the Rev War.

The actual shipments themselves were not always in complete guns, often locks, barrels and hardware were sent over to be rough stocked.

Click to expand...

Northwest guns almost exclusively came over as full arms. They did import guns and parts for the trade. In fact there were very few restrictions on arms in the English colonies, either ownership or going into business to import them for trade.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was about Anglo-Americans settling in lands set up for Indians across the Appalachians. It was soundly ignored, and was one of the causes of the rebellion.

From Colonial Williamsburg web page .... The use of trade guns used by militia mentioned again ....weird