18th century Smoothbore lifespan

[plmeek]

Somewhere in my reading recently I was surprised to see the author state that guns only lasted a few years. Guns were considered consumables.
I had also read somewhere that Native American took care of their firearms.
Considering the corrosive propellant used it is not surprising that guns became unusable if neglected but those who depended on their gun must have been able to keep it serviceable longer than a few years.
A gun would surely have been serviceable even if lightly rusted inside and out.
Maintainance was lot harder but if you need a tool you look after it.

I take it that the OP is referring to Indian trade guns when he noted "the author state that guns only lasted a few years", since the lifespan of civilian guns would likely run the full spectrum, but most would last longer than "a few years".

I recall Mike Brooks giving two years as the average life of a trade gun, specifically a type G...I don't know where the 2 year figure came from, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of GA traders' ledgers are still in existence, and since Indians mostly bought on credit year after year (and accordingly the traders needed to record who owed what) I would expect it to be possible to track how often particular individuals purchased guns. There is a thesis project for someone if it hasn't been done yet...

Researchers have tried to address this question and there have been estimates published in books and articles based on this research.

David Silverman in his book Thundersticks said, "The combined volume of gifts and trade [guns] would have been enough to permit the warriors from New France's core Indian allies, which French estimates put at some 4,000 men in 1736, to replace their guns every three or four years."

Lee Burke in his paper, "18th Century English Trade Guns in the South, or the Carolina Gun, It's Time and Place in History", used a maximum gun life of 5 years when discussing the Carolina or Type G guns traded out of Fort Federica in the Georgia colony.

Of course, these are "broad brush" averages based on the estimate of the number of guns being traded and the number of Indians receiving them. Some guns would have lasted much longer and some guns had shorter useful lives. It's also known that some of the tribes in direct contact with the Europeans acted as middlemen and traded European goods, including guns, to other tribes further west and north. If these are taken into count, the calculated average life span of a gun would increase.

Most trade guns used by Indians likely did not wear out, but rather had one or more parts fail or break. Period documents show that the Indians often requested, and sometimes demanded, that blacksmiths and gunsmiths be sent to their villages for extended periods to repair damaged implements and guns. The French often saw this as a way to keep their Indian allies loyal. English and American traders saw it as a way of getting access to furs. The Moravian church provided gunsmiths to the Indians so their missionaries would be more welcome in the Indian towns.

Surviving guns and archeological records give us some insight into the types of repairs that were made, and in some cases, how long the repairs may have extended the life of the gun.

Jim Dresslar's collection included several guns with French hardware that had been period restocked in American maple. The number of these guns that have survived probably attest to the large number of stocks that were damaged from hard use.

T. M. Hamilton in his book Colonial Frontier Guns has a chapter on "Gunsmithing on the Colonial Frontier". He has pictures of a number of gun artifacts excavated by archeologists at Michilimackinac that show signs of repairs or attempted repairs. There were several cocks from flint locks found that have an iron plug or pin immediately beneath the ledge or shoulder. These were fit on replacement cocks that did not fit the timing of the original lock and whose shoulder did not strike the edge of the lock plate to halt their forward movement. The pins acted as a new shoulder. Other pictures show cocks that were broken at the goose neck had been repaired by brazing the pieces back together. Probably more interesting are pictures of two flashpans that were deeply worn and had a piece of iron brazed into the bottom of the pan. One of them repaired this way was burnt through again before being discarded.

It clearly shows that if gunsmithing services were available, a trade gun could be kept working for long periods--enough to wear out a flashpan twice.

If, on the other hand, the natives did not have access to gunsmithing services, a broken lock part, a broken stock, or a burst barrel, could put a gun out of service in short order.

Someone mentioned guns in burials. Hamilton's book, Indian Trade Guns, has a chapter on "Relics from 17th Century Seneca Sites". Archeologists that excavated a number of Seneca sites noted that prior to 1630, there were very few gun parts in graves. So 1630 or thereabouts seemed to be the date these Indians were introduced to guns. Around 1650, gun parts began to show up quite frequently in graves. In 1675, there was a dramatic drop in the beaver market, and after 1675, guns were no longer found in graves. Apparently, after 1675, "the Indians could buy comparatively few guns thereafter, and took far better care of them than they had during the boom years of the early fur trade. During those lush times, guns had been used lavishly as grave offerings, but after 1675 there was a marked tendency to keep the guns for the use of the living."

The ups and downs of the fur trade economy also seems to have played a roll in the lifespan of a trade gun.

Phil Meek

 

[Leadball loader]

The response you wrote was very informative and gives a good peek into the 18th century use of firearms. It is obviously a complicated subject with few definite answers.
I am experimenting a bit on how to maintain my guns with the materials available then. It is not quite as easy as using modern materials but so far so good as far as mostly corrosion protected.
Thanks for your post.
Leadball

 

[Gene L]

I wonder what oil/grease was used in gun maintenance back when? Best would be whale oil, (still is) but that would have been scarce unless along the coast.

Tallow?

 

[Artificer]

I wonder what oil/grease was used in gun maintenance back when? Best would be whale oil, (still is) but that would have been scarce unless along the coast.

Tallow?

Hi Gene,

18th/early 19th century Gunsmiths and others in mechanical trades usually used what were called "sweet oils" as rust preventatives/lubricants in the period. This meant some kind of vegetable oil.

The British Army used Olive Oil most frequently for this purpose as they got it from Spain and other Mediterranean nations. Olive Oil was also imported into this country for the purpose. The British Army would have used more whale oil, but it was much more expensive than Olive Oil.

Here in the Colonies, Olive Oil was used as well as linseed oil and one or two less common oils that I can't think of right off the top of my head. Whale Oil was sold all over the Colonies for Lamp Oil and because it was less expensive here than in Great Britain, it was also used as a lubricant/preservative - though other sweet oils being less expensive were probably more often used.

Bear Oil was also popular when available.

Lard and Tallow were the common greases used in the period, though they were not normally used in the interior of the locks.

Even though crude oil was known in the colonies and may have seen very little use as lubricants in the 18th century, it really did not "take off" until after the Whaling Industry began to falter and/or after the 1840's when refining methods were invented.

Gus

 

[Leadball loader]

From what I’ve read they used vegetable oils like olive oil or bear fat rendered into oil and yes whale oil.
I’m using canola oil with pretty good results. It does tend to thicken but it lubes and protects the metal surfaces from most rust. I try to run an oiled rag over each gun every few weeks and down the bore since that’s where the greatest contact with corrosive residues is.
I have neglected this for a couple months and things were still good.
Powder fowling is flushed with hot water and wiped with damp patches. If I had sources of tow I might try it if cheap.

 

[rich pierce]

Initial quality, cost, and how it was used all factor in. Type G or Carolina guns had very slim stocks, locks with no internal bridle, and very light barrels. Probably carried daily, in canoes, on horseback, on for over rough terrain in all manner of weather. A hard fall or getting knocked off a horse could break the stock or dent the barrel easily.

A New England or Hudson Valley fowler, well and sturdily made with excellent parts, carefully used and cared for, is another story. Spent most of its life over the mantle or in the corner, indoors.

So lumping all smoothbores together doesn’t seem appropriate.

 

[Leadball loader]

I would agree with you on the lumping. I was mostly thinking of frontier situations and that is where the hardest use was required.
Keeping a gun functional was a challenge I’m sure under difficult conditions. Those that depended on a gun for food and defense or offense had to pay attention to their piece.
I suspect many guns were neglected after the frontier moved west and rusted away in the attic or the barn.
In Maine the militia in each town was filled by those who owned a Fowler musket until the civil war era. No musket you didn’t belong.
A family story on my maternal side tells of a member who went with the militia called up for the Aroostook war in the 1840s. When he made it back home he went hunting and lost his gun. They had a very bad time up there in the county and he wasn’t going again I guess.
That particular piece really got neglected and he gave up hunting and stuck to farming.

 

[Gene L]

Well, in the case of Native Americans who hunted for food (and probably a lot of settlers) 25 yards was an extended range for a bow and arrow. I've read but cannot document that NA were lousy at maintaining guns. And given the scarcity of oil or grease, I endorse that belief. Maybe the scarcity of pre-AWI guns is in part because of this?

 

[tenngun]

I am put in mind of Schoolcraft in his book on the ozarks his gun is mostly non functional.

 

[smoothshooter]

Poor cleaning practices took their toll on guns.
Possession of cleaning worms and screwdrivers were not as common as most might think.

One well-documented instance that comes to mind (that I've mentioned here before) was a situation that came up during the F& I War.
George Washington was an inexperienced commander of a large group of militia, and possibly some Regulars, in a hastily built and poorly located log and earth banked fortification aptly named Fort Necessity, in western New York or PA, I think.
After some time fighting off a combined force of French and Indians, dirty rifles and muskets that were increasingly difficult to load and fire became a major problem. Upon investigation, Washington found out that out of the whole command of of at least 150 men ( don't remember the correct number ) only TWO cleaning worms were to be had.
TWO!
Mind you that this was a group of men of which several were combat veterans, and all knew they were going to be in some sort of pitched combat when they left home.

 

[Artificer]

After some time fighting off a combined force of French and Indians, dirty rifles and muskets that were increasingly difficult to load and fire became a major problem. Upon investigation, Washington found out that out of the whole command of of at least 150 men ( don't remember the correct number ) only TWO cleaning worms were to be had.
TWO!
Mind you that this was a group of men of which several were combat veterans, and all knew they were going to be in some sort of pitched combat when they left home.

This is VERY interesting to me on a number of levels. Do you happen to have the source/documentation on that quote? I would love to see it.

Gus

 

[RAEDWALD]

Doesn't say much for his SNCOs who were responsible for presenting his officers with effective soldiers to command and the officers for not ensuring that the SNCOs were doing their job. The fecklessness of the soldiers is assumed as normal background noise, hence the difference from foolproof to soldierproof.

And, yes, I was once a common trooper myself and I find the story quite plausible in an ill run unit.

 

[Grenadier1758]

After some time fighting off a combined force of French and Indians, dirty rifles and muskets that were increasingly difficult to load and fire became a major problem. Upon investigation, Washington found out that out of the whole command of of at least 150 men ( don't remember the correct number ) only TWO cleaning worms were to be had.
TWO!
Mind you that this was a group of men of which several were combat veterans, and all knew they were going to be in some sort of pitched combat when they left home.

This is VERY interesting to me on a number of levels. Do you happen to have the source/documentation on that quote? I would love to see it.

Gus

Of course, it didn't help that Washington chose to build his Fort (Necessity) in the middle of a meadow with high ground overlooking the fort. The rain was also a contributing factor in the poor performance of the muskets.

Normally, only the NCOs carried maintenance items such as turn screws and ball pullers and the artificers carried spring vises. For most cleaning purposes, a ball of tow and a length of linen thread was sufficient to clean a fouled musket.

A soldier coming off guard duty with a loaded musket would be provided by the sergeant of the guard with the ball puller so the unloading could be supervised by the sergeant before the musket was returned to the stand or bell of arms.

That ball pullers were in short supply is rather poor logistical planning, but then they didn't expect to have to pull loads after the duty day. Their planning was to be prepared and muskets loaded at all times.

 

[Artificer]

Doesn't say much for his SNCOs who were responsible for presenting his officers with effective soldiers to command and the officers for not ensuring that the SNCOs were doing their job. The fecklessness of the soldiers is assumed as normal background noise, hence the difference from foolproof to soldierproof.

And, yes, I was once a common trooper myself and I find the story quite plausible in an ill run unit.

While I very much agree that in a disciplined/well trained unit, such things would have or at least should have happened, none of Washington's troops were truly British Regulars.

Most of Washington's forces was called the "Virginia Provincial Regiment" and in a later time would have been better trained, but at this point they were not much more than Raw Militia.

The "British Regulars" so often mentioned in accounts of the battle, were actually a Provincial Independent Company from South Carolina. Now some of them had fought in King George's war 8 or more years earlier and were probably more disciplined than the rest of Washington's forces, but they were not British Regulars.

Further at age 22, Washington was the age of a Modern Day 2nd Lt. and except for the somewhat successful ambush he led a few days later, he had no real combat experience leading troops. He did drill his severely worn troops for a few days before the battle expecting to fight a classic linear battle, but the much more combat experienced French Officers never gave Washington the opportunity to use the limited training.

Fort Necessity was a poor stockade surrounding a shed to store supplies and just enough room to later give shelter to wounded soldiers, but it was a terrible defensive position. Washington had his troops dig trenches around it, but since Fort Necessity was in a low ground / water run off area (not a whole lot better than a bog) the trenches got filled with water oozing up from the ground and of course by the rain. The "Fort" had no well inside to at least provide good water to the troops, either.

MAYBE if Washington had had a good First Serjeant (or better still a Battalion or Regimental Serjeant Major) and would have listened to that Serjeant, things might have turned out differently. But even that is nothing more than speculation.

Gus

Edited to add: P.S. It was a real struggle to type "Serjeant" with a "j" in it, but as a certain Serjeant Major on the forum has corrected me about that in the past, I tried to use period spelling. :haha:

 

[Artificer]

Normally, only the NCOs carried maintenance items such as turn screws and ball pullers and the artificers carried spring vises. For most cleaning purposes, a ball of tow and a length of linen thread was sufficient to clean a fouled musket.

A soldier coming off guard duty with a loaded musket would be provided by the sergeant of the guard with the ball puller so the unloading could be supervised by the sergeant before the musket was returned to the stand or bell of arms.

That ball pullers were in short supply is rather poor logistical planning, but then they didn't expect to have to pull loads after the duty day. Their planning was to be prepared and muskets loaded at all times.

With sincere respect, I believe you are mixing in some maintenance procedures from a later period when all King's Muskets had Steel Rammers. At this period, even the Muskets issued to British Regulars had wood ramrods.

During this period, British Regular Private Soldiers were all issued the "corkscrew" looking worms that screwed onto the end of the wood ramrod that went into the tail pipe. There was a brass "sort of trumpet head" button head on the other end of the ramrod, but it was not heavy enough to be drilled and tapped for a Worm or Ball Screw. While Civilians and Civilian Militia also used the "corkscrew" looking worms on smoothbores and rifles, I don't know how common it was for them to have them in this period.

While you are absolutely correct that Serjeants in this period were the only ones to be issued Turnscrews, they were not normally issued Ball Screws in this period, as Ball Screws would not fit on their wood ramrods, either.

For British Regulars in Garrison or in the field during this period, (and when they were not under orders to keep their Muskets loaded) were ordered to report to the Regimental Artificers in the morning, after coming off Sentry Duty the night before with loaded muskets. The Regimental Artificers had at least one or two "Artificer's Rods," which were long Iron/Steel rods on which Ball Screws (or threaded Worms) were attached. The Artificers not only pulled the loaded cartridges, but saved the pulled balls and powder for re-use later. The used powder was mixed in with unused powder to "refresh" the used powder. Pulled balls were later re-cast.

Now even though only some of Washington's troops were "real" Provincial Troops, I admit I am at least a bit surprised there weren't more than two of the corkscrew type worms that even some civilians used.

Gus

 

[Leadball loader]

I think the cleaning issue explains the scarcity of period guns. We don’t factor in the hardships of living during those times. It took much more time to just provide sustenance for daily life and it was done with limited resources indeed compared to today.
Those who used the gun in military situations probably kept up their pieces in regular troops. The militia probably not as well depending on leadership.
The people on homesteads were likely to be militia so the not as well applies to them.
Fortunately some guns did survive and we can have these interesting conversations.

 

[Elnathan]

I am still waiting to burn a pan out of a flintlock.

Same here. I had never even heard the notion of pans burning out until a recent thread here. OTOH, touchholes do burn out eventually.

In the book Colonial Frontier Guns by T.M. Hamilton, it shows a bare excavated flintlock lock plate where the pan was burnt through, repaired with brass or bronze brazing and then had burned through again. It seems to suggest the parts were deliberately cannibalized off it before it was discarded.

That would be me that mentioned pans burning through, and it was indeed the excavated example in Hamilton that I was thinking of.

 

[Elnathan]

Well, in the case of Native Americans who hunted for food (and probably a lot of settlers) 25 yards was an extended range for a bow and arrow. I've read but cannot document that NA were lousy at maintaining guns. And given the scarcity of oil or grease, I endorse that belief. Maybe the scarcity of pre-AWI guns is in part because of this?

Bear and raccoon oil was a staple of frontier life, both as a food and as a base for body paint, as well as several other uses such as preserving wooden bows. Preserving guns would just be an additional use for a material that was already in common use, so I doubt that it was all that hard to acquire.

Deer can also be rendered for tallow, though I'm not sure how much you'd get from one.

I've never tried bear oil or deer tallow, but I have tried lard kinda by accident and can attest that it works fine as a preservative. I think that animal fats are greatly underrated in this area.

 

[Cruzatte]

Well, in the case of Native Americans who hunted for food (and probably a lot of settlers) 25 yards was an extended range for a bow and arrow. I've read but cannot document that NA were lousy at maintaining guns. And given the scarcity of oil or grease, I endorse that belief. Maybe the scarcity of pre-AWI guns is in part because of this?

Bear and raccoon oil was a staple of frontier life, both as a food and as a base for body paint, as well as several other uses such as preserving wooden bows. Preserving guns would just be an additional use for a material that was already in common use, so I doubt that it was all that hard to acquire.

Deer can also be rendered for tallow, though I'm not sure how much you'd get from one.

I've never tried bear oil or deer tallow, but I have tried lard kinda by accident and can attest that it works fine as a preservative. I think that animal fats are greatly underrated in this area.

Buffalo fat can be rendered, so I'm told.

 

[tenngun]

I use lard a lot, I’ve rendered tallow from and ”˜grease’ from ”˜*****, and chickens. I have also used unsalted butter on guns. All seem to work the same although it might get gummy in a lock.
The five civilized tribes boasted gunsmith before being moved to the nations. And the warriors made and maintained bows lances clubs and more workaday tools. For sure they could do nothing for s broken **** or a worn frizzen but I would bet a bell curve of care was little different then white gun owners.