canoe guns, blanket guns

[chuckcolas]

Howdy all. Is there any historical info about canoe guns or blanket guns. The guy at Middlesex Trading Villiage states on his site that they never existed or were ever sold like that. I don't know. I would think if it wasn't historically accurate, Matt Denison wouldn't sell them at North Star West. Any information would be appreciated.

 

[Homesteader]

My very limited knowledge suggests that NDNZ sometimes cut their guns back. We know that Pontiac's warriors used very shortened guns smuggled into forts by their women.

I'll say this, though: I canoe a lot, and it's easier to carry a long gun in a canoe than on your back.

For whatever it's worth.

 

[Mike Brooks]

A gun built especially for travel in a canoe never existed. There were some trade guns cut down for concealment and running buffalo, these guns were probably near the end of their useful life as long guns before they were cut down. Short new made guns for those purposes were called "pistols" back in the day. :wink:

 

NW guns were sold in barrel lengths of 30", 36", 42" and 48" according to Hanson's findings. There is no evidence that the fur companies were ordering anything shorter than 30" barrels on NW fusils.
On the other hand, a shortened offering from a modern day company dealing in, otherwise, authentic NW trade guns is perfectly legitimate considering the collection of NW trade guns at the MFT in Chadron, Nebraska and pictures of found originals elsewhere that have been personilized and customized by 19th century native people. It doesn't really matter if the company calls them a blanket gun or canoe gun, etc... that is commercial marketing. Cut down NW guns did exist but they were customized by the owner sometime after purchase.

 

[John Tice]

I think Crooner pretty much summed it up here. My understanding is that trade gun barrels were sold in standard lengths, but were at times cut down in barrel and sometimes stock by owners. The MFT has some in their collections and articles have appeared in their quarterly publication over the years (which I highly recommend subscribing to). Buffalo hunters on horse back needed the smaller gun for ease in reloading, which they often did by spitting the ball down the barrel (the original pre-lubed ball). What such cut down guns were called in the day we may not know. Those terms of "canoe gun" or "blanket" gun are just that, names, just like when people call fowlers "club-butts" or "New England" fowlers, or "Kentucky fowler," the names just sort of stick, but likely have no basis in history.

 

[chuckcolas]

Good information. Thanks guys

 

Mike,

What Cooner said at least for buffalo country... And they didn't all have to be ragged out has-beens when they were shortened. When they were running meat, they would spit an unpatched, undersized roundball down the barrel while at a dead run on horseback and keep the muzzle up until they were in position along side a cow. If they let it dip too much the ball would roll down the barrel and often rupture it. If it didn't get him pitched off his pony and turned into hoof jam or take the owner's fingers off, he might have a functional hand to cut off the barrel with a file and keep using it... Somehow it all seems much more unlikely, less exciting, and downright foolish to visualize this hurtling along at breakneck speed in a canoe after a muskrat, but who knows? :wink:

Obviously, I think there's little support for these guns outside of the Plains and Rockies and I believe the term canoe/boat gun is a modern one.

Hey Cooner, you never told me you could sing.

Sean

 

:shocked2: I can't sing. Whoever said I could has a tin ear. :haha:

 

[paulvallandigham]

Back when the french were more present in the New World than the British, and the voyagers used those huge, long cargo canoes, to carry themselves and furs up and down the St. Lawrence river, and the Great Lakes, and later up and down Lake Champlain, in New York, guns were always carried in canoes. Loading a long barreled rifle or smoothbore in a solo, or two man canoe would not be that difficult, but doing so in a canoe stuffed with other men and cargo, it could be very unsafe and even dangerous. More than 300 years has passed, so we will never know much about the arms those early French voyageurs carried, or what changes they made to them. But we know from some written accounts, mostly from Roger's Ranger, from the French and Indian War, that short barreled Besses were used. Now, who cut them down, and what a " short barrel " means is still open to conjecture, but If I was traveling great distances in a canoe with lots of people, I would be thinking about shortening the barrel on my gun, to make it easier, and therefore faster to reload it in the boat. On shore, the woods were so thick, and the Rangers were usually out numbered, that the guns worked just fine for defensive shooting from behind trees and logs. They are also easier to load when you are lying on the ground.

I am not claiming I have some source of knowledge that irrefutably indicates that canoe guns were used by the French, or the British, because as best as I have been able to learn, the written records on the subject leave much to be desired. And the wonderful pieces that are still in the museums in Canada don't indicate when, and who shortened the barrels. We probably will never know for sure, but common sense dictates we consider the possiblity that practical men would alter their guns to serve practical needs. :hmm: :thumbsup:

 

Paul,

Considering the average voyager was like 5'3", I'd like to think they cut them off so they could blow down the muzzle between shots at swimming muskrats while racing along side them in a canoe... That's just common sense, right?

:bull:

Sorry. Couldn't resist. Why do you think the average barrel length of pre-1780 was 3 1/2'-4' if everyone was just gonna cut them off? Think they may have used those long guns to pole their boats?... Smack... Oww, sorry.

:grin:

Sean, who can't sing worth a durn either.

PS Please note I'm not saying their weren't short smoothbore guns. Just joshin' ye a little.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Sean: Most guns were designed to serve a military function, and they had the long barrels to act as PIKES, where you put a long bayonet in the barrel, and attack the enemy in rows, on cadence, to the beat of a drummer, and the count of your Sergeant. Because the guns were primarily smoothbore muskets, Accurate fire was not considered at all, but the noise, and fire from a volley of shots into an opposing enemy's ranks might unnerve them long enough to reach them across that 50 yards with your gun now serving as a PIKE. The pike could also be used to repel and kill the horses of mounted soldiers, and cavalry, by pushing the butt of the gun with the instep or ball of the right foot helping to prevent the butt from moving backward, while the left hand held the long barrel with spike bayonet at an angle where a charging horse would impale itself on his bayonet. The row of soldiers behind that front rank were trained to fire over the shoulders of the front rank to hit the horesmen and take them off the horses.

That is the reason for the long barrels on those early guns. They allowed the men to extend the reach of handheld weapons to have an advantage over their enemies. These were very effective tactics when fighting against European trained soldiers, but also came in handy when Indians rush soldiers over open ground.

The short barreled guns worked much better in the dense forests of upstate New York, where there were no roads, or fields, and all travel was done on watercourses. You have to remember that the rivers and lakes there were the interstate highway system of that day. Once you left New York City, and the plains around it, ( White Plaines, New York?) those long barrels became far less useful in combat functions. Indians didn't rush across open fields. They fired at the Rangers from cover, and only charged if they thought they could overwhelm the rangers that way.

The idea that Indians sacrificed warriors to test the guns of soldiers is more Hollywood nonsense. There is no evidence in history to support those ideas. Those warrior were all related, and grew up together. Indians believed in the value of life as much as did any European.

Sorry to get on my horse on this issue, but so much of what most people consider "truth" about history is based on a lot of nonsense that has made its way into films.

 

NW guns used as pikes? Now, that's a good one, maybe better than my suggestion of using them to pole boats. How about using them as tipi poles? Flag poles? Do you think NDNZ thought they could buy the longer one and cut off a chunk to make a hide scraper as a bonus?

My point was that 'common sense' assumptions become dogma. I'm a nerd. Show me a citation or consider it an assumption. If someone wants a stubby smoothbore, fine. There's plenty of historical evidence for cutting off a barrel in the field that was ringed or split by firing a short started load or maybe one that was dented in an accident. No need to make up or buy into someone else's elaborate story and put a label on it. Instead of calling it a 'canoe gun' we could call it a 'whoops gun' or maybe an '[insert own expletive!] gun'. Then again I see the advertising value of calling it a 'canoe gun' because no magazine will print the '[insert own expletive!] gun'. The latter doesn't sound all that cool anyway.

Bones, I hope I didn't scare you off the stubby gun with all this. If you search the archives here you'll find this has been discussed more eloquently before and with less pulling of PaulV's tail. Despite my arguments it'll be a fun handy gun that will make a lot of noise and flash.

Sean

 

[brubincam]

---I'll betcha they used the long guns with the bayonets to cook sausage over the fire--- :surrender:

 

---I'll betcha they used the long guns with the bayonets to cook sausage over the fire--- :surrender:

Good one. Hotdog sticks, why didn't I think of that? 'Wiener gun'?

Sean

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Sean: Most guns were designed to serve a military function, and they had the long barrels to act as PIKES, where you put a long bayonet in the barrel, and attack the enemy in rows, on cadence, to the beat of a drummer, and the count of your Sergeant. Because the guns were primarily smoothbore muskets, Accurate fire was not considered at all, but the noise, and fire from a volley of shots into an opposing enemy's ranks might unnerve them long enough to reach them across that 50 yards with your gun now serving as a PIKE. The pike could also be used to repel and kill the horses of mounted soldiers, and cavalry, by pushing the butt of the gun with the instep or ball of the right foot helping to prevent the butt from moving backward, while the left hand held the long barrel with spike bayonet at an angle where a charging horse would impale itself on his bayonet. The row of soldiers behind that front rank were trained to fire over the shoulders of the front rank to hit the horesmen and take them off the horses.

That is the reason for the long barrels on those early guns. They allowed the men to extend the reach of handheld weapons to have an advantage over their enemies. These were very effective tactics when fighting against European trained soldiers, but also came in handy when Indians rush soldiers over open ground.

The short barreled guns worked much better in the dense forests of upstate New York, where there were no roads, or fields, and all travel was done on watercourses. You have to remember that the rivers and lakes there were the interstate highway system of that day. Once you left New York City, and the plains around it, ( White Plaines, New York?) those long barrels became far less useful in combat functions. Indians didn't rush across open fields. They fired at the Rangers from cover, and only charged if they thought they could overwhelm the rangers that way.

The idea that Indians sacrificed warriors to test the guns of soldiers is more Hollywood nonsense. There is no evidence in history to support those ideas. Those warrior were all related, and grew up together. Indians believed in the value of life as much as did any European.

Sorry to get on my horse on this issue, but so much of what most people consider "truth" about history is based on a lot of nonsense that has made its way into films.

Sorry Paul, while you may be correct when it comes to the reasoning behind the length of military muskets, your reasoning has nothing to do with the long barrel on fowlers and trade guns. I think some of Sean's reasoning is more believable - I can't see buying a long gun just to use the "extra" barrel metal to make hide scrapers. The short, under 36 inch barrel guns may have indeed existed but they were not hacked off to better fit the short statured or be more convenient to carry, load and shoot in a canoe or hide under a blanket. You might fire a gun from a canoe but why stop rowing to load? If someone is shooting at you from the shore, fine. Fire the gun then row like h#ll to get away, otherwise your boat/canoe/raft, whatever is out of control and you are a sitting duck - even a short gun is difficult to load sitting in a canoe. Also, as far as the virgin forests of North America in the 17th - 19th Century, ground cover was minimal. Undergrowth that we are familiar with today was rare in those days, not enough light got through the dense tree cover to support it. Exceptions might be burned over areas where second growth had started and "new" forests were growing but this was not average forest. There was plenty of room for the long gun.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Paul, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your opinions on 18th century guns is based on modern day myth.
I've paddle many a mile in a canoe with a gun with a 48" barrel and had no difficulty loading or shooting it from a canoe.
How many times does this subject come up per year anyway? :surrender:

 

How many times does this subject come up per year anyway?

Could it be that its just so darned fun to discuss Indian wiener pikemen?

:rotf:

Sean

 

[fallaloosa]

I have to agree with the Gentleman that said the forests were free of the undergrowth that we know now. the reason was as he said, the canopy was too dense to allow the sunlight in to create undergrowth and tangles. As far as long barrels go, In my opinion the powder of the day required the long barrel to develop it's full force before the ball or shot left the bore. The idea that the barrels were long because they were intended to be used as pikes is simply not true, if you want to use a pike, get a pike! Why risk breaking a musket in half to spear horses? a pike shaft can be more readily replaced than the musket itself. The bayonet was a terror weapon and used quite effectively in hand to hand combat after the volleys had been fired. I also agree that the terms blanket gun and canoe gun are made up 20th century terms that have become mainstream. Just because a company sells one does not mean they are authentic to the period. Cut back barrels did exist but these were probably, as has been mentioned here, damaged muzzles or what have you. I doubt that a man would intentionaly cut off the barrel of his fowler or musket or whatever he carried. I seriously doubt an Indian would cu;t one off since it took a lot of work to get it, ie hunting and trading deerskins etc. there's my two cents on the matter and if anyone can come up with documentation stating otherwise I'll stand corrected. :v

 

[tg]

"a lot of nonsense"

And we all know where an unending source of that can be found....

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I often see cut down smoothbores at gun shows--that is guns that were cut down in period. The ones I've seen have always been European muskets for some reason and have always been cut down to the length of a pistol. Why these chopped up relics appear in New England is a mystery to me. The workmanship is usually quite crude and may indicate the final stage of use for a basically worn out musket. Anyway, it does appear that some guns were cut down in period, though whether they were hidden under blankets or carried around in canoes may be difficult to prove.