Correct F&I Smoothbore

[Flint1]

Hi everyone,
Can someone advise me as to what would be the best PC smoothbore for a southern longhunter portaryal? I currently use an early Va rifle, but would like to imclude a smoothbore as well. I have long been fond of a French Type C, and felt I could justify its use by having captured it in battle. Or would the 1st Model Brown Bess be more accurate? If so, how would a lone hunter justify having the King's musket in his possession? I live in SC, and portray a local hunter. Thanks for any advice.
Ron

 

[BCarp]

I assume you are steering away from a well-off gentleman's fowling piece? As a Southerner you would have greatest access to English arms, very little to French ones. I would go with a pre-"Brown Bess" type musket, such as a dog-lock or other 1690-1720 piece. Such "surplus" arms were dumped onto the civilian market in large numbers when the Army standardized with the Long Land Pattern "Bess", and were shipped to the colonies as such....

 

[FireMaker]

Having been a rifle shooter that converted to smoothbore as a French reenactor, I like shooting the fusil. The gun is a great handling gun. The PCness of it will depend on your specific persona and story related to same. :m2c:

 

[tg]

Any of the early 18th century French, Dutch or English Fusils, Fowlers, trade guns, or Hunting guns would work, the trick is to find one of todays offerings that is very close to the originals if PC is a factor. The works of Hamilton and Bouchard are good sources for info on these guns, do remember that type C and D are just references to styles of furniture with a rough time frame of usage attributed to each, trust not to any builder/supplier for the research do your own or ask around these forums for the fcats as to the authenticity level of various guns around today.

 

[Okwaho]

I read the posts and have some comments. First the longhunters seem to have been confined to Kentucky{fomerly a part of Virginia} and Tennessee {formerly a part of North Carolina} over a fairly short period of time in the mid 18th century.It is doubtful if there were more than a hundred or so true longhunters during this short period.I also doubt the presence of "longhunters" in 18th century South Carolina.
As to the appropriate gun, I have to disagree with my colleagues here to some extent.French fusils de chasse were made in two forms; the fusil ordinaire with iron mounts and a pied de vache {cow's foot} butt with the drastically convex comb and concave lower butt was very rare in the South and virtually non existent outside the Mississippi Valley and the same is true of the Fusils fin {the so called Types C and D}T.M.Hamilton, "Early Indian Trade guns:1625-1775"Types A-R ; T.M.Hamilton "Colonial Frontier Guns" I'm sure that rifles were present in South Carolina at this timeand there is a cite in the South Carolina colonial records describing the use of rifles by Indians but we have no idea what they looked like.At this time there are no signed rifles that can be identified as Southern from this period although it is certain that they existed.To build a correct Southern rifle of the mid 18th century would be rather expensive.The long land pattern Brown Bess would not have been available to the average settler needing a gun and it's weight would present a problem.
This leaves only one gun which I think would be best for you and would be eminently correct for the 18th century in the Southeast and South Carolina in particular.This would be an English fowler of the type traders were importing in large numbers.It is called a Type G by Hamilton and a Carolina Gun by others including Lee Burke {see "A Trade Gun Of The 1700's", PP.68-72 in Hamilton, Colonial guns}These guns were cheap but light and efficient English fowlers and came over in large numbers for sale and trade by the English traders to Indians and Whites alike.They were made throughout the 18th century and following the fall of New France in 1760, their use became more widespread in the area formerly controlled with the French.As to suppliers,I don't know anybody who sells these guns other than Caywood which offers the R Wilson Chief's gun which is a good gun but not the standard Type G/Carolina gun.Jack Brooks in Colorado has a fine kit of the standard gun.. There are 2 Type G's on Track of the wolf at present,one by Jack and the other by Les Schowe from a Jack Brooks kit.
Good luck

 

I have an Early English trade gun from North Star West that I built from a kit. Nice Walnut stock--that's one of the things that I think gets ignored when we talk about English and French guns: you aren't going to find too many of them with any kind of domestic wood, especially fancy maple. You have some later NWTG's that are made with maple, but they were made by guys like Lehman and Henry here in the States and patterned after the English guns. So, if you're looking for an english fowler, you really want to go with walnut.

 

[davidesau]

Hi Fellas!
I bought a Jackie Brown 20ga. once. He called it a Carolina Smothbore. Kind of a nondescript type of architecture. It was light but didn't have enough drop for my washtub head. Shot ok with birdshot, but not to good with round ball. Was told later he makes his barrels out of tubing. At around $800. it wouldn't be to bad for a young fella's first smothie.

Keep your powder dry!
Dave

 

[Okwaho]

The Northwest guns are good reenactment guns but there are problems. First,they were used predominately in Canada and the northern plains.I would really doubt their presence in the Southeastern U.S.Secondly the earliest date I have seen on a Northwest gun is [17]62 on a gun found in a burial site on Rock Island in Lake Michigan, "Rock Island" by Ronald J Mason{1980} PP. 128-37. Jim Gooding in his new book,"Trade Guns Of The Hudson's Bay Company 1670-1970" PP.54-57 illustrates a gun built Ca. 1741-45,restocked in the 1760's or 70's,and then later converted to percussion and describes it as the earliest identified Hudson's Bay gun of which he has knowlege.As to the wood used in these guns,beech was used widely in the Carolina/Type G guns and I am not sure about the Northwestern guns although beech was a cheap wood and popular for inexpensive English guns.Then there were the English pattern guns built in Pennsylvania and elsewhere by Henry Leman, William Henry and others which seem to have been sold North and Westin the early 19th century. I'm not sure of the wood used for them but it was likely walnut.Another maker who specializes in the Carolina guns is Ben Coogle who lives in southeastern Georgia. I would highly recommend his guns and he uses many parts cast from relics found in that area.Reach him at [email protected]
Good luck
Tom Patton

 

[BCarp]

A couple of ideas in the "semi-custom" arena:

www.earlyrusticarms.com

Check out the Cumberland Fowler and the Militia Musket. The former is a rather plain piece with English lines to the stock architecture. The latter represents a "commercial grade" or civilian knock-off of the Long Land "Bess." These were simply cheaper copies of the King's issue musket (no thumb piece, no entry pipe, simpler butt plate, etc.) and were quite common.

Loyalist Arms now has an India-made dog-lock musket as well, with a 46 inch bbl....

 

The Northwest guns are good reenactment guns but there are problems. First,they were used predominately in Canada and the northern plains.I would really doubt their presence in the Southeastern U.S.Secondly the earliest date I have seen on a Northwest gun is [17]62 on a gun found in a burial site on Rock Island in Lake Michigan, "Rock Island" by Ronald J Mason{1980} PP. 128-37. Jim Gooding in his new book,"Trade Guns Of The Hudson's Bay Company 1670-1970" PP.54-57 illustrates a gun built Ca. 1741-45,restocked in the 1760's or 70's,and then later converted to percussion and describes it as the earliest identified Hudson's Bay gun of which he has knowlege.As to the wood used in these guns,beech was used widely in the Carolina/Type G guns and I am not sure about the Northwestern guns although beech was a cheap wood and popular for inexpensive English guns.Then there were the English pattern guns built in Pennsylvania and elsewhere by Henry Leman, William Henry and others which seem to have been sold North and Westin the early 19th century. I'm not sure of the wood used for them but it was likely walnut.Another maker who specializes in the Carolina guns is Ben Coogle who lives in southeastern Georgia. I would highly recommend his guns and he uses many parts cast from relics found in that area.Reach him at [email protected]
Good luck
Tom Patton
Tom Patton

Tom, actually I was talking about the 1750's Early English, which is like the Wilson. I agree, though, that it is more of a northern gun. Early Rustic guns are great for the southerners.

 

[Okwaho]

Several points: first there were very few American built fowlers before the Revolution and the earliest advertisement for such a gun was in the March 7 1773 edition of the "Pennsylvania Gazette" Henry J. Kaufman,"The Pennsylvania Kentucky Rifle" PP.102-3. Prior to the Revolution the English mid 18th century fowling piece was superior to all others and the Wilson family which had made guns throughout the 18th century was one of many makers sending over the Carolina /Type G guns of which one was the R Wilson Chief's gun designed to resemble a Fusil ordinaire de chasse to fool the Indian trade.Thus the English fowler was either a fine gentleman's gun or a cheap fowler of the type sold or traded to the Indians and whites alike.
As to the "civilian knockoff" of the English Brown Bess, there were some composite muskets built for civilian militia use just before and during the Revolution but I'm not sure as to the numbers used in the F&I War.There are a number of composite muskets with all sorts of combinations of parts shown in "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution" but most of these were made in the North and particularly in New England.I have an officers or sargeant's fusil made just before or during the early days of the Revolution. It is cherry stocked,with a Bess handrail butt,a lock and barrel of unknown possibly American or Dutch origin,English trigger guard, buttplate, and sideplate and French style brass barrel band along with a simple brass forestock guard and quite possibly was made in Connecticut.These guns were for militia use and due to their weight and ball size weren't preferred over the light weight fowlers which were so cheap and easy to get.
Tom Patton

 

[BCarp]

Neumann has a "commercial" grade Long Land-type musket in his collection which he dates as "c.1736-1746". It is not a "composite" gun made up from mixed parts, but specifically made privately as a cheaper version of the issue musket (and it strongly resembles the Rustic Arms "Militia Musket!).
Neuman writes: "While the official Brown Bess muskets were being issued through the Board of Ordnance to Royal forces, a parallel business existed for similar patterns being produced and sold by private British contractors to individual regimental colonels, trading companies, local english defense units and to provincial colonies, towns and militias in North America. They normally included a reliable lock and barrel, but would reduce or simplify the furniture and other components to remain competitive in price. This example has a full-length .75-cal. barrel and a typical banana lock marked by its London maker 'J HALL.' Yet it reduced cost by providing a low-grade walnut stock and wooden ramrod, plus an abbreviated butt tang, side plate and trigger guard. The tail pipe, escutcheon and nose cap, in turn, have been omitted. Even the usual British cast ramrod pipes were changed to rolled sheet brass."
The Early Rustic Arms musket fits this description in nearly all aspects!

 

[tg]

I think that if one considers the seesaw battle for trade and alliance with the local tribes between the French and English from the Carolinas in the areas twixt the Carolinas and the Gulf coast during the last decades of the French reign, and the mention of various tribes having English and French guns when the English went to war with Spain in the 1730's and the mention of Dutch guns for sale in the Carolinas in the 1750's-60's that it would not be very far fetched for some one in later day S.Carolina to have an old smoothbore of most any nationalities make?????

 

[Okwaho]

Hey,this is developing into a pretty good thread here .
Brian,you are of course correct on the commercially produced muskets and I meant to say something about them but I couldn't edit the second time around.Undoubtedly they were made and quite early but I still wonder about their widespread use by individual hunters and settlers, in other words the commonality of their usage especially in South Carolina where our original question was raised.Larry's musket looks pretty good and with the addition of some correct pipes would be very close to the originals although I don't like that flat faced L&R Quenn Anne lock when it should have a round faced lock.You could forge a round faced plate plate and install the other parts on it as well as doing a little tweaking.Another group of guns including a small group of blue painted fowlers was liberated from the Governor's palace in Williamsburg on the eve of the revolution but I don't know how many or what happened to them.I think the biggest and most widespread use made of military muskets occurred after the Rev.War when they became surplus and were grabbed up and used by market hunters and others or were taken west. An interesting analogy can be drawn between these muskets and the rifled muskets of the Civil War which were shortened to half stock, bored out and used as shotguns.I have seen quite a few of these and once had an old Bridesburg contract musket that had received similar treatment.

Gene,I don't disagree at all that there were all manner of guns floating around including such jewels as escopetas but I was trying to show what gun would have been the most appropriate in that time period and what was the norm rather than the exception.Shumway Nos 140-142 are excellent examples of early rifles used in the pre Revolutionary period which don't look like rifles but in fact are rifles.
BTW I will be getting a lock to try in my fusil and I'll send you some info on it.
Tom Patton

 

[BCarp]

Tom, et al,

The L&R Queen Anne IS a roundfaced lock, but really is too small for musket use. Mr Williams used to offer the Militia Musket with the bigger Chambers roundface lock, but I don't know if he still does. The rolled sheet brass pipes are actually correct for the cheaper grade muskets as described by Neumann....
I was thinking that SC would've been a likely recipient of shipments of guns like this. There is the busy, major seaport, and the Crown even maintained independent companies there prior to, and at the beginning of the F&I War. One of these companies fought with Washington at Ft Necessity.
In addition, militia statutes of the 1740's in many places dictated that members msut maintain weapons with a musket-sized bore, and with the capability of having a bayonet affixed. Thus, I think this class of weapon would have served alongside the lighter fowlers in the hands of many hunters, especially the poorer sort who couldn't afford a hunting gun in addition to his militia piece.

 

[tg]

The last I heard ERA only uses L&R locks which really limits ones choices in what are otherwise some pretty good looking guns, they really strech the old Queen Ann thru a rather long period of gun history...

I undesrstand the commonality issue Tom. but have never fit into the "commmon" or "normal" mould...at least that is what three ex-wives have told me..

 

[Okwaho]

Brian, you're right, the L&R lock is a round faced lock and the gun would look better with the Chambers lock. The f1rst thing to go is NOT the legs especially late at nite.That's the problem with these muskets and others requiring large locks.My composite Rev War fusil has a large lock that measures 6 3/4" by 1 1/4 ". I'm not sure whether it's a Dutch or American lock.There is a fairly simple way of reworking locks to use in these guns and that is to take a lock,like for instance the L&R lock.First strip the lock of all parts and forge a new plate being careful to keep the front-rear ratio the same. You can also cut back the shoulder,if possible,to give a further illusion of length.This is particularly effective on Charleville locks which are rather short between the nose and the front of the shoulder.Then reinstall the parts doing whatever tweaking is necessary such as removal of the bridle and reshaping the pan and frizzen etc. The main body of the lock remains the same so that there shouldn't be any problem with the rear lock bolt.This works with stocks where you have to cut a lock mortice so I'm not sure about precarved stocks. I did this on a repro Ca.1680-90/s French fusil and am getting ready to do it on an original Ca.1700 fusil fin until I find a suitable original lock which may take quite a while.Additionally the old gun was converted using a round tailed English lock and I don't want to touch the mortice in any way. This way I can adjust the plate for the best fit.Then the lock will be aged to fit the gun and the gun will have a far better appearance.Incidentally I will not be welding up the hole for the side lug. Instead we will forge and thread a plug for the hole,drill that plug for a fairly large touchhole and then age the plug to match the lock.
I see no reason why that method cannot be used for lengthening and widening a production lock to suitable 18th century proportions.

 

[Okwaho]

Gene,It is written and chiseled in stone that:
Man cannot live by bread alone.He must have peanut butter.
Tom :results:

 

[LFord]

In your above post you were talking about the Type G English gun being widely imported to the colonies and I looked at the ones on TOW and it seemed to me that they are very similar in design to the Cumberland Smoothbore from ERA without the patchbox and extended trigger guard. I was thinking that one of these with a walnut stock would be pretty close to a type G(since I can't afford the $2700 for the ones on TOW). The big differences that my untrained eye can see are the number of thimbles and the size of the lock. You also mentioned that they were imported in large quantities for sale to both whites and indians I was wondering if they were shipped to areas like SE Pennsylvania through Philadelphia.

 

This has been pretty well covered, but a few observations: The Carolinas, especially via Charleston (Charles Town)were the center of very active trade with the southern nations of Native Americans from the east coast to the Mississippi. 1000s of English trade guns were brought in. There was one pictured in an article (I think) by Pete Alexander in MuzzleLoader Mag a year or so ago--a "Carolina Trade gun". What relationship that has to the so-called "type G" gun I am not sure--that designator is a modern one. This gun looks alot like some of the early southern longrifle 'recreations' I have seen. I think a generic English fowler would also do fine. As to the L&R Queen Anne vs the Chambers Colonial Virginia locks--I have both and there is not a lot of difference in size or function --at least both have functioned well for me so far. Everyone seems to prefer Chambers, so if you have a choice, go with that, but my L&R is jes' fine, thank you very much..... :m2c: