canoe guns, blanket guns

[chuckcolas]

Wow! Thanks for all the reponses guys, I didn't know it was gonna be that "spirited". But it is all very helpful.

 

Bones,

Sorry for the spirit.

There's at least one cut down NW gun the retains a buttstock in the Museum of the Fur Trade that is represented crudely in the Trade Gun Sketchbook. It was an 1833 Barnett cut back to around 24-26" with the forearm trimmed back about 6-8" shorter. The butt plate was removed and the butt thinned down at some point to about 1". It has some tacks. Its definitely an NDN gun. Modification to the comb was somewhat common on these guns. Some were dished to give the effect of more drop for the cheek, some were shortened lengthwise to give the effect of a very long wrist for similar reasons.

Sean

 

[Elnathan]

Paul is right about the necessity for a musket and bayonet to be at least 6 and 1/2 feet long, so as to be able to reach a horseman from the ground. I believe that at times the front rank even grounded their muskets at times as he describes. Bear in mind that horses don't like to rush forward into large groups of men, much less a lot of with pointy things. Generally, they refuse to do so - the I believe that horsemen broke a square of musket armed infantry exactly once in European history, and that more or less by sheer luck. A cavalry charge is more psychological than physical - horses are scary! Given all that, it is unlkely that musket breakage was a significant problem.

However, the standard barrel length for firearms prior to 1800 or so was 40" or a little longer. It is common to see New England fowlers with barrels over 50", which sort of destroys the theory that short barrels were necessary for fighting in New England.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Elnathan , you are correct, as I said in my statement above Paul is right in his reasoning for the length of a military musket (44 - 46 inch barrel) but that reasoning holds no water whatsoever for a civilian fowler or trade gun which were often as long or longer than any known standard soldier's musket of the same era. The argument is specious.

As far as the statement "...horses don't like to rush forward into large groups of men, much less a lot of with pointy things. Generally, they refuse to do so - the I believe that horsemen broke a square of musket armed infantry exactly once in European history, and that more or less by sheer luck. A cavalry charge is more psychological than physical - horses are scary! Given all that, it is unlkely that musket breakage was a significant problem."

Really? Have you ever been in front of a horse stampede? They have no qualms about running over people whatsoever. As a mater of fact, if packed together tightly enough they will even try to run over a tree much to their detriment, they have no option. True, a cavalry charge is not a stampede but it is the closest thing to it. As far as a square being broken by cavalry only once, that was more likely a mistake made by people in the square, once a cavalry charge is started it is near impossible to stop but a volley of musket fire, aimed low at the horses knees more than the rider is the true power of the square, while horses don't like pointy things, the flash, smoke and noise of a simultaneous volley delivered by disciplined infantry frightened the horses as well as killed or injured many directly in front of the square and that breaks the momentum of the charge and forces it to flow around the formation - the pointy things are the final sauce that will break the will of the animal AND rider to continue. As far as damage to the musket? If a horse hits the square or the individual soldier in the position spoken of, the musket will break and the soldier will be upended and likely killed or at least injured, it happened but soldiers were trained to do it and it worked.

Now, let's get back on topic, the so-called "canoe" or "blanket" gun.

 

[paulvallandigham]

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I am very sure that the guns that left France and England were made with the long barrels- 42-48 and longer. But I also believe, just because I come from a family with a long history of being poor farmers, that people before the Am. Revolution, made do with whatever was at hand. If someone got mud or snow plugged into a muzzle, and ruptured the first 6 inches, the barrel was not thrown away. It was cut off, behind the bulge or tear, and the stock was shortened. This might be done several times over the long lifetime of a gun.

The same thing was done with Trade guns made for trading to the Indians for furs. Indians had no source of iron, and did not manufacturer their guns. They also didn't have anyone to train them in gun care. If they had a ball stuck and the barrel ruptured when they tried to fire it out, they could find a saw and cut it off. With the lack of training of Indians in firearms care, and the lack of tools, their guns took a beating. They treated the outsides well, but they were not taught, nor did they understand the importance of cleaning the inside of the gun.

So, if there were shortened barrels on guns, they were not made in England that way. They were altered here in the colonies, by very practical settlers, hunters, part-time soldiers( rangers) and Indians. Guns were routinely recovered from battlefields from the dead and wounded. They were a fine source of supply to the Indians, but in the heat of battle, and the apparent inevitability of being killed, soldiers panic, and those guns may not have been loaded properly. Those of us who are members of the Honorable Society of Dryballers know how easy it is to screw up loading a ML gun when there are no people shooting at us, or running at us with knives, hawks, and clubs to kill us.

Is it that hard to imagine that more than one soldier who died in battle failed to shove a ball all the way down on the powder charge? Or that the barrel ruptured when an Indian fired his new prize, causing injuries to bystanders, and a barrel that would only be good to go if it were shortened? We know from documented evidence, and even some guns recovered from Civil War battlefields that MLers were often loaded with multiple charge when the first cap failed to ignite the first load. Is it so impossible to presume that the same kind of thing occurred in upper New England during those terrible wars with the Indians?

While Gunsmiths would arrive later, Blacksmiths were present in numbers with the first settlers in the colonies. Any blacksmith could cut down and crown the barrel on a ruptured gun barrel, to make the gun shorter, but serviceable.

I will agree that the term " Canoe Gun ", is probably just a convenient title we modern Americans have used to describe a gun, with absolutely NO PROOF that those guns were preferred, or even used to fire at enemies or game from a canoe! Blanket Gun seems to have more provinance, but it dates from efforts in the 1870s,and 80s, to subdue and move Plains Indians onto Reservations, and specifically the massacre of Indians at Ft. Robinson, In Nebraska Territory, which is beyond the time period of this forum. The only instance where history tells us that squaws hid guns under their blankets to sneak arms into a British Fort occurred in the attempted capture of Ft. Detroit, in the French and Indian War. Whether the guns had short barrels is not stated. Whether the guns magically became called " Blanket guns" at that time is not known. I have my suspicions that " Blanket Guns " was not used until the 20th century to describe these guns.

I have paddled in one of the huge cargo canoes, and while I know men were a lot shorter in those days, we had one heck of a time just figuring out how two men can sit side by side and use paddles to move the canoe, without bumping elbows. I have no idea how anyone could load a MLers under those circumstances. Again, part of this problem goes back to Hollywood films, where they have 2 man canoes, with lots of room.

 

[poordevil]

I have heard the story of hunters on horse back spitting a ball down the barrel and having a vent hole so big powder would spill into the pan.

I have ridden horses alot and shot flintlocks some. I think spitting a ball down a gun barrel on a running horse is a very good way to lose teeth. And in a fouled barrel unsure if the ball would make it down after the second shot. Same for the self priming vent. After a shot or 2 the thing gets fouled to the point the ball won't seat and powder won't prime. This all sounds very romantic,
but is it fact?

 

I have heard the story of hunters on horse back spitting a ball down the barrel and having a vent hole so big powder would spill into the pan.

I have ridden horses alot and shot flintlocks some. I think spitting a ball down a gun barrel on a running horse is a very good way to lose teeth. And in a fouled barrel unsure if the ball would make it down after the second shot. Same for the self priming vent. After a shot or 2 the thing gets fouled to the point the ball won't seat and powder won't prime. This all sounds very romantic,
but is it fact?

PD,

Woulda been a trick wouldn't it?

See the link below for a quote from Rudolph F. Kurz, Ft. Union on the upper Missouri in 1851 concerning running meat. According to this one the spit it in their hand first. Ive seen both. Definitely not a sport for the meek. Wild and woolly times. Not exactly stuff that would pass muster for safety in this day and age.
http://www.manuellisaparty.com/articles/running_buffalo.htm

I'm still not following Paul keeps talking about all this military stuff when Bones is asking about blanket and canoe or 'oops' guns. These are cut-down NDN, metis, or buffalo runner guns.

Sean

 

[Many Klatch]

I have read and I can't remember where, that you never use the bayonet to cook with because you may need all it's strength someday. You were supposed to use the steel ramrod instead. I haven't tried it but it makes a lot of sense.

Many Klatch

 

[fallaloosa]

T.G. what exactly do you mean sir?

 

[paulvallandigham]

sean: We are talking two different periods of history. The first cut down guns occurred in the 1700s, specifically in the French and Indian War, and before. That War began in Europe in 1754, and was not ended until 1763. It was that war, which proved so costly that caused the British Parliament to vote to impose taxes on goods sold in the colonies,-- The Stamp Tax --to pay for protecting the colonies, that in turn led to the Boston Tea Party uprising, in 1774. Those grievances were the beginning of our road to American Independence. The Iroquois Nation, led by Pontiac, united most of the tribes in the Great Lakes Region, and down the western slope of the Appalachians, and allied themselve with the French to remove all the English Forts from Chicago, to Michilimilmac, to Detroit, and on East to the St. Lawrence. The Fort at Detroit was almost taken save for a warning sent to the British commander, who ordered his men to keep the brave from entering the fort with weapons. a few weapons were taken in by women under their blankets, according to historical accounts, and there was a brief fire fight before the Indians remaining alive were forced out of the Fort. Those guns would have been Besses, and Charlesville muskets, NOT rifles, and not a lot of Trade guns at that time.The War actually helped to spawn a local gun making trade, because the colonies were not able to obtain reliable shipments of arms, powder, flints, and parts for guns. It is during and after that war that you see the advent of American made gun, and then competition from France in particular, to provide cheap Trade guns to the Indians.

I am not picking a fight with anyone. I fully understand the history of short rifles and smoothbores in the development of the Western Plains a hundred years later. I cannot imagine loading a MLer on a running horse, but the obviously did so. :hmm:

 

[Mike Brooks]

sean: We are talking two different periods of history. The first cut down guns occurred in the 1700s, specifically in the French and Indian War, and before. That War began in Europe in 1754, and was not ended until 1763. It was that war, which proved so costly that caused the British Parliament to vote to impose taxes on goods sold in the colonies,-- The Stamp Tax --to pay for protecting the colonies, that in turn led to the Boston Tea Party uprising, in 1774. Those grievances were the beginning of our road to American Independence. The Iroquois Nation, led by Pontiac, united most of the tribes in the Great Lakes Region, and down the western slope of the Appalachians, and allied themselve with the French to remove all the English Forts from Chicago, to Michilimilmac, to Detroit, and on East to the St. Lawrence. The Fort at Detroit was almost taken save for a warning sent to the British commander, who ordered his men to keep the brave from entering the fort with weapons. a few weapons were taken in by women under their blankets, according to historical accounts, and there was a brief fire fight before the Indians remaining alive were forced out of the Fort. Those guns would have been Besses, and Charlesville muskets, NOT rifles, and not a lot of Trade guns at that time.The War actually helped to spawn a local gun making trade, because the colonies were not able to obtain reliable shipments of arms, powder, flints, and parts for guns. It is during and after that war that you see the advent of American made gun, and then competition from France in particular, to provide cheap Trade guns to the Indians.

I am not picking a fight with anyone. I fully understand the history of short rifles and smoothbores in the development of the Western Plains a hundred years later. I cannot imagine loading a MLer on a running horse, but the obviously did so. :hmm:

You have absolutely no idea of what your talking about. :slap:

 

[tg]

"T.G. what exactly do you mean sir? "
My post fell in behind yours it was not intended at you but at the post with all the Military references, and the source of those posts..

I just did not put it as bluntly and to the point as Mr. Brooks did above.

 

[John Tice]

This account on buffalo hunting was written by a man named Martin Hunter, who worked for the Hudsons Bay Company between 1863 and 1903:

“The Indians and half-breeds who went on these periodical round-ups were armed with and preferred the old nor-west muzzle-loading flint-lock. They could load and fire with such rapidity that one would almost fancy they carried a repeating gun. Suspended under their right arm by a deer thong, was a common cow’s horn of powder, and in a pouch at their belt a handful or two of bullets.
As the horse galloped up the herd, the Indian would pour a charge of powder into his left hand, transfer it into the barrel of the gun, give the butt a pound on the saddle, and out of his mouth drop on top a bullet. As the lead rolled down the barrel it carried in its wet state particles of powder that stuck on the sides, and settled on top of the powder charge. No rod or ramming was used.
The gun was carried muzzle up, resting on the hollow of the left arm until such a time as the Indian desired to fire. The quarry being so close no aim was required. On deflecting the barrel the trigger was pulled before the ball had time to roll clear of the powder.
The Indians saw that their buffalo guns had very large touch-holes, thereby assuring the pan being primed. When all the balls were fired a few others were chuked into the mouth, and merrily went the game.”

These commercial buffalo hunters, including the Metis, made most of the living by buffalo hunting and selling the jerky and pemmican to the Hudsons Bay Company to feed their employees during the winter. They had to kill as many buffalo as possible in a short time when they were available.

 

[fallaloosa]

Ahh I see, no blood no foul! I was just wondering thank you for clearing that up :v

 

[paulvallandigham]

You have absolutely no idea of what your talking about. :slap: [/quote]

You are entitled to your opinion, Mike, but the history books on my shelves say differently. I do not intend to engage in a personal attack on you. I wish you would stop yours on me.

 

The guns that the NDNZ cut back for the siege on Detroit were most likely trade guns from the French. Most likely not besses or any military equivalent. :wink:
:rotf: No lengthy thesis needed.

 

[bwhoffman]

Wow! Thanks for all the reponses guys, I didn't know it was gonna be that "spirited". But it is all very helpful.

You should be here when we discuss precut patches versus muzzle cut and round or square. Then we follow it up with a discussion on lubes...which one is best! :slap: :stir: (gotta like these new smilie's!)

I like to read the input from several perspectives. It leavesit up to the reader to decide how to filter and use the info. That,and everyone has their own opinion.

I would have defined canoe gun as one being short and easily manuevered in the boat, but now my thoughts are a tad different with all this insight!

 

[Mike Brooks]

You have absolutely no idea of what your talking about. :slap:

You are entitled to your opinion, Mike, but the history books on my shelves say differently. I do not intend to engage in a personal attack on you. I wish you would stop yours on me.
[/quote]
That was no personal attack, just pointing out the obvious. Your resources on trade guns needs to be updated.

 

[Elnathan]

Really? Have you ever been in front of a horse stampede? They have no qualms about running over people whatsoever. As a mater of fact, if packed together tightly enough they will even try to run over a tree much to their detriment, they have no option. True, a cavalry charge is not a stampede but it is the closest thing to it. As far as a square being broken by cavalry only once, that was more likely a mistake made by people in the square, once a cavalry charge is started it is near impossible to stop but a volley of musket fire, aimed low at the horses knees more than the rider is the true power of the square, while horses don't like pointy things, the flash, smoke and noise of a simultaneous volley delivered by disciplined infantry frightened the horses as well as killed or injured many directly in front of the square and that breaks the momentum of the charge and forces it to flow around the formation - the pointy things are the final sauce that will break the will of the animal AND rider to continue. As far as damage to the musket? If a horse hits the square or the individual soldier in the position spoken of, the musket will break and the soldier will be upended and likely killed or at least injured, it happened but soldiers were trained to do it and it worked.

The one time the square was broken was when a dead horse fell on top of enough infantrymen to create a gap, and another cavalryman was close enough, quick-witted enough, and brave enough to run through the gap before it was closed, and keep it open so that his comrades could follow. It was during the Peninsular campaign during the Napoleonic Wars, the cavalrymen were Germans employed by the British against the French, IIRC. Incidently, the next square was so shaken they surrendered without a fight, while the next after that refused to surrender and could not be broken. It was the exception that proves the rule.

Stampeding horses may run over trees, but charging cavalrymen don't run over a lot of men packed together with spears. It is pretty much a given among students of medieval warfare. I give you the 6th century historian Procopius, on a skirmish between Goths and Eastern Romans: The cavalry charged upon them with much noise and shouting in order to overrun them in their first assault; but the 50 men shield to shield in close formation awaited the attack that the Goths, getting in each other's way, now attempted. The wall of shields and spears of the 50 men was so thick and tight that it brilliantly repulsed the attack. At the same time, with their shields they made a great noise, scaring the horses while their riders recoiled from the spear points. The horses, which became wild as a result of the close quarters and the noise of the shields, and could move neither forward nor backward, reared up and the riders could do nothing against this tightly formed band that never wavered nor yielded, while they vaily spurred their horses against them. Reading closely, it doesn't sound like the Goths ever got close enough to do any damage.
Incidently, quite often people are the same way - it takes a particular type of aggressiveness to keep charging straight in. I read somewhere that most civil war bayonet charges, when one side didn't run away, resulted the charge ending a few yards from the enemy and both sides shooting at each other at point blank range until someone, braver than his fellows or simply losing a reloading race, jumped forward to use his bayonet and everyone else followed.

And now, back to our regular programming...

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

:grin: