correct French Fusil Fin de Chase Type C

[olskool]

what would a correct fusil fin de chase type c look like? did any originals ever correctly have a rear sight? or just front sight, i saw one on line and just wonder if it is correct or if it is just a personal interpretation,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[plmeek]

I think I understand your confusion based on the title of your thread "correct French Fusil Fin de Chase Type C". I'm not even sure which French gun your are asking about.

Kevin Gladysz in The French Trade Gun in North America discusses the following guns in some detail:

• Hunting guns (fusils de chasse)
• Trade guns (fusils de traite)
• Guns with single and double anchor marks (fusils à l’ancre, fusils à double ancre)
• Fine and semi-fine guns (fusils fins, fusils demi-fins)
• Fancy and semi-fancy guns (fusils de façon, fusils demi-façon)

Gladysz used the names he found in period documents for each category of gun he discusses. He also has a chapter on "The Evolution of the French Fusil 1699-1760" that discusses the changes in French gun decoration in stages:

1. Stage One: Late Louis XIV or the Berain Style (1699-1708)
2. Stage Two: Early Regency (1708-1730)
3. Stage Three: Regency -- Rococo (1730-1740s)
4. Stage Four: Rococo -- Louis XV (1740s-1760)

The implication I get from reading Gladysz is that the various fusils changed over time, at least in the style of sideplate, butt plate, and trigger guard.


T. M. Hamilton in Colonial Frontier Guns describes four French guns:

• Type C trade gun (1680-1730)
• Type D trade gun (1730-1765)
• Tulle Hunting Gun (fusil de chasse)
• The Buccaneer

Hamilton based his Type classifications on gun parts that had been recovered from archeological sites.

Hamilton and Gladysz pretty much agree on what the fusil de chasse and the Buccaneer guns looked like. Hamilton did point out that there are as many complete fusils de chasse in museums and private collection as there are individual archeological fragments, which he thought strange. He concludes that these guns were not widely traded to Indians, but meant for civilians and Indian partisans.

It is more difficult to correlate Hamilton's Types C and D guns with Gladysz's various fusils.

Some modern suppliers of guns and kits have associated Hamilton's Type C with the fusil fin because it has a fancier sideplate than the Type D. That doesn't fit with Gladysz's various stages of French gun evolution since the term fusil fin is used in the period documents for most of the history of New France, and he does not associate the fusil fin with any particular sideplate.

So which of Hamilton's or Gladysz's guns are you interested in seeing pictures of?

In answer to your question about rear sights, I don't see any rear sights on the pictures of the French guns in the books, The French Trade Gun in North America or Colonial Frontier Guns. This is probably because all French guns were smoothbore muskets or fowling pieces. and it wasn't common to have rear sights on such guns.

 

[Cruzatte]

Good analysis, Bob. You nailed it.

 

[olskool]

the one i was referring to is this one K-15 French Fusil Fin type C (sittingfoxmuzzleloaders.com) just curious if it is correct, or how correct. i know over the centuries things get changed and lost.

 

[bud in pa]

I have the same book, which i can't get to right now, but there is a drawing of a fusil with a rear sight . I looked like a wide V the top of which was almost bent over to look like wings. Clay Smith used to sell them.

• • answer to your question about rear sights, I don't see any rear sights on the pictures

 

[rick1964]

the rear sight bud refers to is a type G or carolina gun a early english trade gun to the southern area. i have not seen a rear sight on a fusil trade gun as it came from the contract i have seen pictures of original guns that have a lifted rear sight using a chisel to lift metal, notch filed in as a reference

 

[Cruzatte]

the one i was referring to is this one K-15 French Fusil Fin type C (sittingfoxmuzzleloaders.com) just curious if it is correct, or how correct. i know over the centuries things get changed and lost.

My main complaints are two:

1. the barrel is too short by a good ten inches
2. maple is completely incorrect

Now I'm sure some one is going to point out that some of these trade muskets were restocked in Canada, and the barrels cut down at some later date. And he'd be right, too. If one's impression is late (1763 or later) then the maple stocked, short barrel version is quite reasonable.

 

[plmeek]

the one i was referring to is this one K-15 French Fusil Fin type C (sittingfoxmuzzleloaders.com) just curious if it is correct, or how correct. i know over the centuries things get changed and lost.

I agree with the complaints that Cruzatte listed. Gladysz has a table on page 105 some inventory data of fusils fins in New France from 1701 to 1757. The barrel lengths recorded ranged from 3 pieds 8 pouces (46⅞ inches) to 4 pieds (51¼ inches) to 4½ pieds (57½ inches). You would be hard pressed to find a barrel over 46 inches long. I'm sure anything over 50 inches would be a special order barrel.

I see in the description on the Sitting Fox website that the gun can be ordered in either walnut or maple. The more correct choice would be walnut.

The lock and furniture looks correct. The description says the lock is from R.E. Davis, but I believe that Larry Zornes of M&G actually makes the lock. Some of his locks are available from Muzzleloaders Builders Supply. Zorne offers a complete kit for the Type C, so he may be the source for all the parts.

Before ordering a gun from Sitting Fox, you might want to look at these two threads. Swithched locks and Quality problems with kit.