Any known Canadian flintlocks?

[skillest]

Hey everyone!

I've recently been researching Canadian-made muzzleloading rifles for both a historical project but also for possible reproduction purposes, and through all my research, it has been surprising to discover that, at least according to most collectors, no known flintlocks have been discovered that can be proven to have been made in Canada.

I have a book by S James Gooding called "The Canadian Gunsmiths 1608-1900" which has definitely been beneficial and has provided good examples of muzzleloading rifles created in Canada during the mid to late 1800s, but, interestingly, he states that no Canadian-made rifles have been discovered which were made before 1820 and that no known Canadian-made flintlocks exist, only percussion rifles. His book was written in 1962 but still, even today through my discussions with Canadian collectors, no one has found a flintlock that can be proven to have been produced in Canada. There are a few which seem to perhaps have been flintlock-style but made as percussion rifles, or possibly converted from flintlock to percussion, but this seems quite strange to me, as there were definitely gunsmiths in Canada around the time of the flintlock era that were making flintlocks. One Canadian arms collector I have spoken to but have yet to meet, says he has an early full-stock 1832 production percussion rifle that he believes is a converted flintlock, which would make sense.

I'm sure that, during the time of New France, British control, and then leading into Upper/Lower Canada, a lot of rifles that would have been used in Canada would have been imported from Britain/France and likely military models of rifles, perhaps Baker rifles would have been used by hunters? I've seen quite a few rifles used by the Hudson Bay Company who themselves had a lot of registered gunsmiths, but all examples I've seen were simply earlier British muskets or french trade rifles that were purchased by the company, no custom domestic work. There are many examples of custom sporting percussion rifles from the 1830s-1900s I have observed that were made in Canada, and their production is at a scale which shows to me that rifle production didn't just pop up out of nowhere once percussion locks became popular, these gunsmiths must have some sort of production lineage from making flintlocks to making percussion rifles. There are records in Jim Gooding's book of hundreds of Gunsmiths working in Canada at the height of the flintlock era, which also makes me wonder what they would have been making.

Interestingly, an article named "Upper Canadians and Their Guns: An exploration via country store accounts" by Douglas McCalla shows that a large number of flints and round balls were being sold from sporting stores in Canada, being the most popular item around 1808-09, but around 1840 that switched to many sales of percussion caps and percussion locks by themself, not attached to a rifle. In my opinion, these customers likely bought these locks for converting original flintlocks to percussion.

With all that being said, I was wondering if anyone knows of any examples of flintlocks made in Canada, or, marked by any Canadian gunsmiths? Alternatively, does anyone know what rifles the Canadians would have likely been importing/using most often for hunting in and around the southern Ontario area? Maybe there are examples of Canadian-modified trade guns or something? Any information would help. Heck, maybe there is some work already out there on the subject that I don't know about.

It would be interesting to see if any flintlocks are known to exist that were made here, and if so, if there is a similar design to them, similar to how there are similar styles of rifles around the 18th/19th century seen in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Illinois, etc. This is due half to my interest in the history of these arms and due to the fact that I'm making a muzzleloader for hunting season this year, and I'd like to match the styling to be as "Historically Canadian" as I can! Based on the percussion rifles I have found (aside from Goodings Book I've examined 78 rifles if you exclude double barrels and over-unders), there was a stereotypical Canadian "style" that existed at the time around Toronto, London, Hamilton etc, where rifles had American-styled crescent buttplates but british-style locks and forends.

Also, side note but related, if anyone has examples of Canadian percussion muzzleloaders, feel free to post them! I've been collecting information on them including their design queues and features, as well as location, and mapping out where they were made in Canada to see if there is any correlation between time periods, counties, makers etc.

Thats it! Thanks in advance to anyone willing to help!

Cheers,
- Justin

 

[dave_person]

Hi Justin,
Since neither the British or French had much of a rifle culture during the 17th and 18th centuries, rifles would not likely be common unless there was a strong community of German or central European immigrants. Smooth bore long guns would almost certainly out number any rifles by a huge margin. With respect to Canadian-made flintlocks, there is a paper in Man At Arms (Oct 2015) describing a French Canadian-made flintlock pistol by Jean Baptiste Hervieux who worked in Montreal during the 1740s and 1750s. It is a finely made holster pistol of French design mounted in brass. Unfortunately, many if not most French period arms were taken from the French Canadians after 1759 by the British and likely destroyed. Hence, they are very rare.

dave

 

[Daveboone]

Interesting thread....you simply do not hear much of Canadian ML arms....I guess I understand the different firearm culture from the Dutch/German in the Colonies which were such an influence, but they certainly must have mfg. rifles/etc, and had ample gunsmiths, with locally built arms. It is a thin line across the St. Lawrence river from the US to Canada.....frequently for ling intervals....no line.

 

[tenngun]

I’ve not studied Canadian arms but could make some notes compared to America. Before the revolution there were not many American gun makers. And even then they used a lot of imported parts. If you owned a gun in colonial America chances were it was smoothbore and made in England or the Netherlands. You might have a French arm, but these would be rare to an American unless issued from government owned captures.
Outstanding performance at Saratoga or in the south by frontier rifleman created the rifleman myth. And cut off from British trade there was an increased demand for home grown gunsmiths.
Americas gun industry was mostly a post war event. And after the war gun parts still were shipped in from Europe.
Backwoods man might have a Kentucky rifle or early SMR but there was a good chance lock and barrel was made over seas.
Most woodland hunting took place at close range, well within smoothbore range. A rifle that could kill at two hundred yards for the most part just wasn’t needed.
We think of the NWG as an Indian trade gun. And much were. However French Candian woodsman were much of the market. Métis based their economy on pemmican trade, buffs all hunted with with smoothies.
In 1847 Levin, an HBC official wrote a passage on how coming to Canada you didn’t need a rifle, as to sixty yards a smoothbore shot as well as a rifle and hunting rarely exceeded that distance.
The guy with a rifle who can get a clover leaf May look at w six inch group and scoff at ‘shoots as well as a rifle’ but if deer or moose is the target it a six inch group is every bit as effective as a one inch group.
Canada was an open market to Europe at all times. There was no pressure to be independent
And very little advantage to having a rifle.
It’s noteworthy that between 1797 and 1821 the US government operates a trade rifle business, and ML trade rifles continued to be made up to the breechloading era. However the native population preferred smoothies. So much so American makers made NWG down to English proof marks.
There is the old saw about Mountian men. The French and Indians would take the smoothbores, while Americans reached for the rifle. Makes me think it’s cultural more then practical
Few men had corrected vision. Just a tad of nearsightedness renders any advantages to a rifle mote
And no doubt I’ll be whipped out of camp with my own ramrod the fact is in the tall timber a rifle just ain’t worth the expense in the flintlock days

 

[brushblind]

They were probably confiscated by the gun grabbing, fearful government! Seriously though, that is very odd, you'd think that there must have been some made by local smith's.

 

[Louisk]

Have you heard about this guy? : https://www.youtube.com/@TheWoodlandEscape This is quicklly becoming one of my favorite youtube channels and he seems very knowledgeable about history.

 

[Brokennock]

If rifle culture in Colonial America didn't reach north of Pennsylvania until the revolution, and rifles didn't really become "common" in New England until after that, is it so surprising that there were no known rifle builders in Canada until well after 1800? Just seems about right timing wise as we follow rifle usage north. Especially given, as Dave Person said, France and England (the "parent countries" if you will) didn't really have much if any rifle culture.

There was also a difference in the mindset of colonization between the French colony in Canada and the English in what would become the U.S. The English, and those who came here from Europe, seemed to have expansion and growth in mind. France and the settlers of New France seemed to have more of a minimalist attitude, building up population and infrastructure just enough to sustain trade with the natives and gathering of resources. This may have lead to a lack of certain trades amd craftsman. It also seems to have lead to a lack of immigration to Canada during colonial times, of folks from other European countries. Do we have an idea how many German/Deutch immigrants/settlers came to Canada/New France in say, the 1780s, versus how many came to Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia? It is a hard concept for mentoring explain, sorry. But it all ties together.

 

[Brokennock]

but they certainly must have

think that there must have been

Not picking on anyone.....

These are some of the most detrimental lines of thought/phrases in living history/historical research/reenacting. This idea of, "surely they must have ____," sets up a very slippery slope.

Unless, one sets out to find supporting evidence of what they, "surely must have," thought/said/done/worn/carried/used, without bias. Without trying to prove anything one way or another, just finding out what was as best as possible.

 

[Omahkapi'si]

Good question, I have been reading lots about Hudson's Bay, Northwest Company etc and no real mention of that, I suspect most came across the pond with these guys but there "MAY" have been somebody somewhere building & repairing.

 

[skillest]

Hi Justin,
Since neither the British or French had much of a rifle culture during the 17th and 18th centuries, rifles would not likely be common unless there was a strong community of German or central European immigrants. Smooth bore long guns would almost certainly out number any rifles by a huge margin. With respect to Canadian-made flintlocks, there is a paper in Man At Arms (Oct 2015) describing a French Canadian-made flintlock pistol by Jean Baptiste Hervieux who worked in Montreal during the 1740s and 1750s. It is a finely made holster pistol of French design mounted in brass. Unfortunately, many if not most French period arms were taken from the French Canadians after 1759 by the British and likely destroyed. Hence, they are very rare.

dave

That's very interesting! I've picked up a copy from eBay to learn more about it.

I’ve not studied Canadian arms but could make some notes compared to America. Before the revolution there were not many American gun makers. And even then they used a lot of imported parts. If you owned a gun in colonial America chances were it was smoothbore and made in England or the Netherlands. You might have a French arm, but these would be rare to an American unless issued from government owned captures.
Outstanding performance at Saratoga or in the south by frontier rifleman created the rifleman myth. And cut off from British trade there was an increased demand for home grown gunsmiths.
Americas gun industry was mostly a post war event. And after the war gun parts still were shipped in from Europe.
Backwoods man might have a Kentucky rifle or early SMR but there was a good chance lock and barrel was made over seas.
Most woodland hunting took place at close range, well within smoothbore range. A rifle that could kill at two hundred yards for the most part just wasn’t needed.
We think of the NWG as an Indian trade gun. And much were. However French Candian woodsman were much of the market. Métis based their economy on pemmican trade, buffs all hunted with with smoothies.
In 1847 Levin, an HBC official wrote a passage on how coming to Canada you didn’t need a rifle, as to sixty yards a smoothbore shot as well as a rifle and hunting rarely exceeded that distance.
The guy with a rifle who can get a clover leaf May look at w six inch group and scoff at ‘shoots as well as a rifle’ but if deer or moose is the target it a six inch group is every bit as effective as a one inch group.
Canada was an open market to Europe at all times. There was no pressure to be independent
And very little advantage to having a rifle.
It’s noteworthy that between 1797 and 1821 the US government operates a trade rifle business, and ML trade rifles continued to be made up to the breechloading era. However the native population preferred smoothies. So much so American makers made NWG down to English proof marks.
There is the old saw about Mountian men. The French and Indians would take the smoothbores, while Americans reached for the rifle. Makes me think it’s cultural more then practical
Few men had corrected vision. Just a tad of nearsightedness renders any advantages to a rifle mote
And no doubt I’ll be whipped out of camp with my own ramrod the fact is in the tall timber a rifle just ain’t worth the expense in the flintlock days

I do believe that the majority of rifles used in Canada would likely have been imports or surplus rather than custom rifles due to the relatively open market with Europe, but you would assume there would be examples of domestically made flintlocks known to exist. I have examined a few examples that look to *possibly* be conversions, and, as stated in my first comment, another Canadian collector of Canadian-made arms believes his rifle was originally a flintlock. These guns all have the location stamped with a specific town or city, and "U.C." for "Upper Canada", meaning the rifle would have been produced pre-1840s, as Upper and Lower Canada became Canada West/East in 1841. However, it's a hard thing to prove. If the earliest rifles made were flintlocks made by french immigrants and they were simply destroyed , that would be unfortunate and, somewhat too convenient in my opinion to dissuade the search for a Canadian flintlock.

Not picking on anyone.....

These are some of the most detrimental lines of thought/phrases in living history/historical research/reenacting. This idea of, "surely they must have ____," sets up a very slippery slope.

Unless, one sets out to find supporting evidence of what they, "surely must have," thought/said/done/worn/carried/used, without bias. Without trying to prove anything one way or another, just finding out what was as best as possible.

I usually would agree, especially if no research had been done on the subject. But some research has, and it seems pretty conclusive that *some*, even if in very small numbers, were produced in Canada, but none seem to exist today. Perhaps if they did they weren't marked as being made in P.Q, Upper Canada, etc. James Gooding's book on Canadian gunsmiths has records of literally hundreds of Canadian gunsmiths, many of which worked in the late 1600s/1700s.

Jim mentions that several immigrant French gunsmiths were recorded as coming over from France and were working in Canada as professional gunsmiths, both as masters and apprentices. Just to provide a small example of an independent outside of the HBC, a gunsmith named Jean Soullard who was born in 1642 at St. Sauveur but moved to Quebec and lived there until his death in 1710. He worked in Quebec as a gunsmith, and there are supposedly contracts existing which he signed to do work. His son Jean-Baptiste, born in Quebec, took up work as a contract Armorer in Quebec, but died in 1723. I doubt the gunsmiths that lived in Canada, born in Canada, or those who immigrated to work as smiths, never made a flintlock while they were here. Even the worst of apprentices would have had to make a rifle before completing their apprenticeship to become a gunsmith. If the user above is correct and that Man At Arms shows a French Canadian-made flintlock pistol, then that is extremely fascinating.

I do agree that American rifle culture didn't really arrive up here until the early 1800s, so I'm not necessarily looking for influences from the American industry of firearms for those early days of Colonial Canada. Also worthy of note, Jim mentions in his book that several records mention HBC stations that had Canadian gunsmiths on hand to provide repairs for workers and Indians with trade rifles, and some mention making locks, but nothing explicitly says "These HBC gunsmiths made this rifle" etc etc. A lot of early recorded gunsmiths in the book are British workers that were contracted to work for HBC, but some are mentioned as working independently, being a part of a gunsmithing cooperation in New France, or have been working for the government.

So that, combined with the previously mentioned article examining store records about the sales of flints switching to percussion locks by 1840, and the *instant* prevalence of Canadian gunsmith companies suddenly being everywhere in the 1830s (some examples I've seen date to 1833 due to records of the gunsmith and some early newspaper advertisements I've found, I've even found advertisements in the Montreal Gazette for gunsmiths in 1808!) makes me think that there had to be someone producing flintlocks in Canada for sale, even if they were copies of existing designs and there was only a dozen or so smiths doing it at the time. It seems much more likely they did make rifles than not, but the fact that no rifles exist today that are flintlocks that can be definitely proven to have been made in Canada is very odd.

 

[skillest]

Interestingly, I am browsing the newspapers.com website for Canadian papers, and I found both an obituary for a Canadian smith named John Marsteller from Montreal who died in 1808, and another article the following week that states "WILLIAM OHALE takes his method of informing his friends and the public in general, that as successor to the late Mr. John Marsteller, he carries on the GUNSMITH business in all its branches, as hitherto by Mr M. in the Quebec Suberbs, where all orders in his line will be executed with neatness and dispatch, on reasonable terms."

So there was some sort of gunsmithing going on for civilians at that point in time, a bit earlier to the mass-widespread use of percussion.

 

[TFoley]

As a near-complete know-nothing about early firearms in pre-Confederation Canada, I have to admit that from what I DO know, the chances of any form of Baker rifle 'finding' its way into Canada is unlikely in the extreme. Even here in England, origin of the Baker rifle, I've never heard of a civilian version.

 

[skillest]

As a near-complete know-nothing about early firearms in pre-Confederation Canada, I have to admit that from what I DO know, the chances of any form of Baker rifle 'finding' its way into Canada is unlikely in the extreme. Even here in England, origin of the Baker rifle, I've never heard of a civilian version.

Oh I didn't necessarily mean that it was a version made for the civilian market, just to clarify. There's much more other examples of British rifles that would have been used.

 

[TFoley]

As far as I can see, the Baker rifle made an appearance in what later became Canada during the War of 1812. Given that, it's a long shot for sure, but still..............hmmmmmmmmm. Seems that 'many of the rifles were sent to the Portuguese, Spanish and Canadian Governments...' You might be right!!

 

[dave_person]

Hi Skillest,
There are also many gunsmiths listed in the English American colonies during the late 17th and early 18th centuries and very few surviving examples. Many if not most of those smiths likely did repair work and restocking rather than produce whole guns for sale. Moravian ledgers from the middle of the 18th century show their smiths were overwhelmingly involved with repair and restocking, with a thriving business among the native Americans. It also should be mentioned that the British discouraged manufacturing in their American colonies. We were to provide raw materials to England, which were then fabricated into goods sold back to us. It was a rabid mercantilist system and it created a lot of discontent in the American colonies.

dave

 

[Brokennock]

I doubt the gunsmiths that lived in Canada, born in Canada, or those who immigrated to work as smiths, never made a flintlock while they were here.

apprentices would have had to make a rifle

Yes, they would have made a flintlock, at least assembled one from rough parts. But, why would they "have to have made a rifle," if there was no real rifle culture?
Prior to the 1810s or so.

And notice in my 1st reply I tried not to say "never" or anything similar. A lot of these discussions can only be had in generalities of what was common. There are often odd outliers on any subject, but they are the exception to the norm. From my perspective of what I've read, the Colonial 18th century and early 19th century mindset was not very welcoming of things outside the norm, lol.

It is an interesting subject. But I think many of us often search very hard for things we wish to be, and that we reason should be, but aren't... I guess that doesn't just apply to history and muzzleloading....

 

[Mas Casa]

The most I can contribute is that Kevin Gladysz's book "The French Trade Gun in North America: 1672-1759" shows a French fusil stocked in maple. It doesn't quite follow the lines of established fusil stocks coming from France and the use of maple, per the book description, indicates that the gun was restocked at some point in Canada. So, refurbishment/repair, but manufacture was unlikely.

 

[tenngun]

If rifle culture in Colonial America didn't reach north of Pennsylvania until the revolution, and rifles didn't really become "common" in New England until after that, is it so surprising that there were no known rifle builders in Canada until well after 1800? Just seems about right timing wise as we follow rifle usage north. Especially given, as Dave Person said, France and England (the "parent countries" if you will) didn't really have much if any rifle culture.

There was also a difference in the mindset of colonization between the French colony in Canada and the English in what would become the U.S. The English, and those who came here from Europe, seemed to have expansion and growth in mind. France and the settlers of New France seemed to have more of a minimalist attitude, building up population and infrastructure just enough to sustain trade with the natives and gathering of resources. This may have lead to a lack of certain trades amd craftsman. It also seems to have lead to a lack of immigration to Canada during colonial times, of folks from other European countries. Do we have an idea how many German/Deutch immigrants/settlers came to Canada/New France in say, the 1780s, versus how many came to Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia? It is a hard concept for mentoring explain, sorry. But it all ties together.

A rule on the forum is we don’t talk about religion. However I’ll throw this in. France was a catholic country. The French and Indian war is within living memory of French killing Protestants
The German speaking countries that brought rifles to America were almost all some sort of Protestant.
I don’t know if any ‘Germans’ that whole chunk of Central Europe, came to French Canada at all, plenty came after the English take over. I would think Protestant British colonies would have been more inviting than French Catholic colonies.
Even a century after the French and Indian war during the Mexican war and the aftermath Mexican Catholics were terrified that Protestant Americans would slaughter them, and Americans that moved in to purchased land had the same fears of the Mexicans

 

[skillest]

Yes, they would have made a flintlock, at least assembled one from rough parts. But, why would they "have to have made a rifle," if there was no real rifle culture?
Prior to the 1810s or so.

And notice in my 1st reply I tried not to say "never" or anything similar. A lot of these discussions can only be had in generalities of what was common. There are often odd outliers on any subject, but they are the exception to the norm. From my perspective of what I've read, the Colonial 18th century and early 19th century mindset was not very welcoming of things outside the norm, lol.

It is an interesting subject. But I think many of us often search very hard for things we wish to be, and that we reason should be, but aren't... I guess that doesn't just apply to history and muzzleloading....

I guess I'm a bit confused as to what your definition of rifle culture is. Do you mean why would they have to have made one if there wasn't an independent growth of firearms design and development like in the US from when the colonies were formed? It was of course common in the states, which is why it developed the way it did, but what I am getting from your message, although I don't think its what you mean, is that if it wasn't generally a widespread common practice, then searching for evidence of it is pointless, which doesn't make sense.

What I've been trying to point out is that rifle manufacturing *did* happen in Canada earlier than the 1820s-ish period judging from gunsmith records and newspaper advertisements/articles about gunsmithing businesses, which would mean that if they were making firearms they were making flintlocks, as percussions didn't become widespread until around the 1820s, especially here. And the issue I have is that although we know this, no examples have thus been found. There could be only a single example still extant that is laying around in some farmhouse somewhere, or perhaps they are identical to British or french trade rifles and not marked with the maker so we have no way of identifying them. I'm not saying it was a huge market or anything, and I agree that domestic Canadian arms lint flintlocks would be much rarer than in the US, but it's odd that *none* (aside from what is supposedly a Montreal-made pistol from 1745, mentioned above) have been found.

Obviously, the manufacturing of arms specifically for sports shooting would not have been prevalent at the time in Canada, and arms making, in general, was not nearly as prevalent as in the US, as the US had been relatively settled much more than Canada by the 1700s. In Canada, only the east coast and down the coast to southern Quebec had been properly settled by the 1600s, and Ontario only really had proper settlements by the 1700s. However, the french government really didn't have an interest in controlling New France or the province of Quebec at the time and they were mostly left to govern themselves. Everything in Canada outside of that was frontiersman, but many lived in central/north Ontario before colonization efforts by British colonization companies or they moved out north-west to Rupert's land to work for the fur traders. So I would assume, if gunsmiths were making firearms in Canada, it wouldn't have started until there were settled areas for a community to have a clientele that could both afford a firearm for hunting and the frontier and were in need of arms that they couldn't just as easily get through importation from Europe. There is another book by Jim Gooding I have yet to read that is about the gunsmiths who worked for the HBC that may shed light on their work while in Canada, but I assume it'd mostly be repairing company rifles.

I have read that, during certain times of French/British conflict, trade was heavily restricted leading to a lot of death in Canada due to the lack of imported food and materials, which may explain the Quebec pistol being made in the mid-1750s, but I could be overthinking that and making a connection where there isn't one.

The most I can contribute is that Kevin Gladysz's book "The French Trade Gun in North America: 1672-1759" shows a French fusil stocked in maple. It doesn't quite follow the lines of established fusil stocks coming from France and the use of maple, per the book description, indicates that the gun was restocked at some point in Canada. So, refurbishment/repair, but manufacture was unlikely.

I've been looking for a copy available online but a lot of them show it as sold out! If you wouldn't mind sending an image or two of the book's spread talking about that rifle I would greatly appreciate it!

A rule on the forum is we don’t talk about religion. However I’ll throw this in. France was a catholic country. The French and Indian war is within living memory of French killing Protestants
The German speaking countries that brought rifles to America were almost all some sort of Protestant.
I don’t know if any ‘Germans’ that whole chunk of Central Europe, came to French Canada at all, plenty came after the English take over. I would think Protestant British colonies would have been more inviting than French Catholic colonies.
Even a century after the French and Indian war during the Mexican war and the aftermath Mexican Catholics were terrified that Protestant Americans would slaughter them, and Americans that moved in to purchased land had the same fears of the Mexicans

Canada had a lot of Germanic immigration, but large-scale German immigration into Canada only happened once the Brits took over in 1763, but there were some Germans who settled before then in New France. Québec's first recorded settler from Germany is Hans Bernhard from Erfurt, who bought land on Île d'Orléans in 1664. By 1760, an estimated 200 German families could be identified along the St Lawrence River — mainly families of soldiers, seamen, artisans, and army doctors. Nova Scotia had 2,400 arrive between 1750 and 1753 and they lived in Halifax but it was majority English by the 1620s. A *lot* of Swiss Mennonites immigrated to Canada in the 1780s from Pennsylvania however, and Dutch-North Germans went mostly eastward while most stayed in the Niagra/York/Waterloo areas. There are still around 200k Mennonites here, roughly 1/4 are in Ontario still.

 

[Brokennock]

I guess I'm a bit confused as to what your definition of rifle culture is. Do you mean why would they have to have made one if there wasn't an independent growth of firearms design and development like in the US from when the colonies were formed? It was of course common in the states, which is why it developed the way it did, but what I am getting from your message, although I don't think its what you mean, is that if it wasn't generally a widespread common practice, then searching for evidence of it is pointless, which doesn't make sense.

What I've been trying to point out is that rifle manufacturing *did* happen in Canada earlier than the 1820s-ish period judging from gunsmith records and newspaper advertisements/articles about gunsmithing businesses, which would mean that if they were making firearms they were making flintlocks, as percussions didn't become widespread until around the 1820s, especially here. And the issue I have is that although we know this, no examples have thus been found. There could be only a single example still extant that is laying around in some farmhouse somewhere, or perhaps they are identical to British or french trade rifles and not marked with the maker so we have no way of identifying them. I'm not saying it was a huge market or anything, and I agree that domestic Canadian arms lint flintlocks would be much rarer than in the US, but it's odd that *none* (aside from what is supposedly a Montreal-made pistol from 1745, mentioned above) have been found.

Obviously, the manufacturing of arms specifically for sports shooting would not have been prevalent at the time in Canada, and arms making, in general, was not nearly as prevalent as in the US, as the US had been relatively settled much more than Canada by the 1700s. In Canada, only the east coast and down the coast to southern Quebec had been properly settled by the 1600s, and Ontario only really had proper settlements by the 1700s. However, the french government really didn't have an interest in controlling New France or the province of Quebec at the time and they were mostly left to govern themselves. Everything in Canada outside of that was frontiersman, but many lived in central/north Ontario before colonization efforts by British colonization companies or they moved out north-west to Rupert's land to work for the fur traders. So I would assume, if gunsmiths were making firearms in Canada, it wouldn't have started until there were settled areas for a community to have a clientele that could both afford a firearm for hunting and the frontier and were in need of arms that they couldn't just as easily get through importation from Europe. There is another book by Jim Gooding I have yet to read that is about the gunsmiths who worked for the HBC that may shed light on their work while in Canada, but I assume it'd mostly be repairing company rifles.

I have read that, during certain times of French/British conflict, trade was heavily restricted leading to a lot of death in Canada due to the lack of imported food and materials, which may explain the Quebec pistol being made in the mid-1750s, but I could be overthinking that and making a connection where there isn't one.

I've been looking for a copy available online but a lot of them show it as sold out! If you wouldn't mind sending an image or two of the book's spread talking about that rifle I would greatly appreciate it!

Canada had a lot of Germanic immigration, but large-scale German immigration into Canada only happened once the Brits took over in 1763, but there were some Germans who settled before then in New France. Québec's first recorded settler from Germany is Hans Bernhard from Erfurt, who bought land on Île d'Orléans in 1664. By 1760, an estimated 200 German families could be identified along the St Lawrence River — mainly families of soldiers, seamen, artisans, and army doctors. Nova Scotia had 2,400 arrive between 1750 and 1753 and they lived in Halifax but it was majority English by the 1620s. A *lot* of Swiss Mennonites immigrated to Canada in the 1780s from Pennsylvania however, and Dutch-North Germans went mostly eastward while most stayed in the Niagra/York/Waterloo areas. There are still around 200k Mennonites here, roughly 1/4 are in Ontario still.

Excellent post. A lot of good information here. Thank you.

By rifle culture I mean a few things combined to various degrees. The ratio if that combination might depend on time-frame. First, was rifle use even known about? Not being flippant, there was a time period in the U.S. wherein rifles were being used in parts of Pennsylvania and Virginia, maybe Maryland,,,, but people in most of New York and New England had never heard of one.
(It does seem odd/interesting to me that with "political" travel between places like Boston, Philadelphia, Fredericksburg, and Richmond, that at least more mention of rifle-guns in period writings and even a few more examples didn't come north sooner.)

Once established at least as a known item, was there a demand for then from local makers? This would tie in with another ingredient in our mix which would establish that "rifle culture," (and one that gets asked about many things when discussing historical material culture),,, how common were rifles? How well accepted were they? What purpose were they put to? For the type of work a gun was put to in Canada at the time, was there a significant enough advantage offered by the rifle over the well established large bore smoothbore?


As to examples or a lack of, this could simply be a numbers game. If we think about it, we actually have very few surviving original period guns in the U.S. either made here or imported, when compared to the number of guns that were available at the time.
I never said anything denying rifles were made in Canada,,,, I wouldn't know one way or the other. But my impression is that it would not have been common and if not common this means that there was a much smaller pool of potential survivors. Less originals equals less examples 150 years later. Maybe no examples depending on where those rifles went and what they were used for. As you said, there was a lot of frontier, and a lot of that was navigated by canoe. Lots of potential for lost guns there, lol.
Also, of a gunsmith can make a decent living fixing HBC guns and guns for the local population, with little demand for new rifles, why build them? Again, not saying they never did, it's just another reason for there being less of them and fewer to no examples.

Where else have you looked for examples? Are there any national museums or archives, or university collections that might house an example or three?