EAA Boat Gun

[jim gray]

Does anybody have one of these? I'd really like to hear what anyone who has one thinks of it. I am thinking about getting a large bore smoothie, and it's gotta be a flinter. I have a double barrel percussion 12 guage that I really love to shoot, but I think that I would love a flintlock even more. Anyway back to the topic of my post. I can get an in the white boat gun for less than $600 even with the exra $25 for the .75 caliber barrel. I think that's a pretty good deal.

I am not really worried about historical authenticity, but would this gun be acceptable for reenacting or living history. I think it would be a great gun for trekking.

 

[tg]

"I am not really worried about historical authenticity, but would this gun be acceptable for reenacting or living history. I think it would be a great gun for trekking"

I am not so sure you can get to B&C without A

 

[jim gray]

Sorry, I screwed up the subject of this thread. It's Early Rustic Arms.

tg, okay let me rephrase that. "While historic authenticity is not my first concern, as I am basically looking for something that would be fun to use to shoot and hunt, I would like to know if it would be acceptable for the other uses."

 

[Okwaho]

You have two questions here: Is it correct and can I get by with it at an event? The answer is is no and yes.There is no solid basis for canoe/boat guns, blanket guns, or cut down ranger Besses.They are fantasy guns pure and simple but like the Federal period Kentucky rifles seen at F&I events,no one will object.Guns are like other items that have been used so much and for so long that regardless of their lack of solid documentation they have assumed an aura of correctness that is awesome in its lack of authenticity.
Tom Patton :m2c:

 

[Wes/Tex]

Got to go with Okwaho on this one. There's little evidence of shortened guns until the 19th century. Most folks don't object too loudly since they've sort of become part of the muzzleloading community. Other choices are the guns made by North Star West in several cut down styles to the size of sash pistols. These are fun but can't pass F&I War muster...not even AWI. Even the shortened Bess made by Pedersoli is liked by several shooters but can't be called authentic. Good luck.

 

[jim gray]

There is no solid basis for canoe/boat guns, blanket guns, or cut down ranger Besses.

Thanks, that's kind of what I expected to hear.

I believe there is a legend, if that's an accurate term for it, about a case where blanket guns were supposedly used in a battle, that I believe took place at Fort Detroit. I never actually researched this, but I am not convinced of the veracity of the story.

I don't really want to use an idea that is simply someone's conception of something that could possibly have existed if..., but I would love to have a short .75 caliber smoothie.

 

[musketman]

I don't really want to use an idea that is simply someone's conception of something that could possibly have existed if..., but I would love to have a short .75 caliber smoothie.

How about a Blunderbuss? :hmm:

 

[Rebel]

If you would really Love to have a short barreled .75 cal smoothbore, then by all means, buy one. It's your gun.

 

[jim gray]

Rebel,

I will, as soon as I can swing it. I just won't use it for anything that requires a PC gun.

MM,

I was considering a 'buss, but I don't think it would be as useful. I think that I could use the boat gun as a close range brush gun, especially if I get one with rifle type sights. I also want to try it out as a fowler if I can get it to pattern well enough.

 

[Okwaho]

Actually the story may be correct. During Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763-66 the Indians planned on taking Fort Detroit by just such a ploy.On or about May 6,1763 Pontiac and 60 chiefs were to attend a council meeting in the fort with Major Gladwyn and the Indians planned to go in armed with guns cut down so as to be concealed under the mathccoats.Then upon a signal they would rush the British from within and open the gates for the rest of the Indians to enter and take the fort.Supposedly Gladwyn was warned of the plot {by his Indian mistress ?}and was prepared with armed soldiers ringing the inside of the fort. The signal wasn't given and the Indians allowed to withdraw which they did.This is apparently the only known example of cut down guns and it is by far the exception rather than the rule.See
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/colonial/pioneer/index.html ,"The Romance and Tragedy of Pioneer Life"Chapter VII by Augustus Lynch Mason,A.M.1883 I really don't know how much of the above account is true but it is true that a plan to take Detroit by subterfuge failed and a siege undertaken by Pontiac until November 1763 when he withdrew.
Tom Patton :m2c:

 

[The Baron]

The Early Rustic Arms Boat Gun is a pretty fun looking piece. I say go for it - then you can tell us all about it!

 

[TANSTAAFL]

Ever see some of the cut down Indian trade guns? Some were damaged, but many were not, the Indian used what worked. And his woman did a lot of that work, a cut off section of thin barrel from the smoothbore made a great scraper, as well as arrow heads, lance tips, etc, etc.

Even well into the 1800's, such as at the Custer debacle, Indians were still cutting down trade guns.


"Many trade guns would have been cut down to carbine length and would have had decorative tacks driven into their woodwork"

Excerpted from:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:mn_v3...+guns&hl=en

 

[tg]

I think the point here is more whether these guns would be correct for a white mans persona not whether Indians cut down barrels for whatever reason. We often find one example and stretch it as far as we can before it breaks to justify whimsy, fads, and personal preferences.

 

Let's just say as a simplification that pioneers scrounged the battlefields since Boone and Kasper Mansker's days (yes both carried battle liberated Indian hardware) and that we know the Indians cut down guns.

We still have the problem of location and era to deal with.

Flash has given us no material to work with on that part of the decision making process.

The ERA models are cut down NW tradeguns, not appropriate for pre-Rev War efforts for the most part.

:imo:

 

[TANSTAAFL]

I think the point here is more whether these guns would be correct for a white mans persona not whether Indians cut down barrels for whatever reason. We often find one example and stretch it as far as we can before it breaks to justify whimsy, fads, and personal preferences.

When the government sold off old surplus arms to the general public, almost the first thing the White civilians did was customize and cut them down to be more practical for their specific needs.

The practice continues to this day, ever notice the amount of customized Mausers, 1917 Enfields, O3 Springfields and such in circulation.

So I do not consider the cutting off of barrels by Whites of the period to be a stretch.

 

[tg]

"So I do not consider the cutting off of barrels by Whites of the period to be a stretch"

and with all the surviving examples and period records of such action it is certainly in the real of fact....

 

[Okwaho]

The ongoing saga of the elusive cutdown Indian guns is still with us.There are known instances of Northwest guns being cut back in both the barrel and the stock for use on horseback but such guns are rare.It is suggested that Indians cut back barrels to have a gun in carbine length.Carbine length is generally less than 36". The Northwest gun could be bought with 30",33",36",39",42",and 48"barrels thus giving the Indian the option of a short gun which didn't need cutting back.
As to the cut down surplus muskets virtually all of which are Civil War guns which Bannerman and many others sold, the forestocks were cut off about half way,either ribs or thimbles installed and the results sold as shotguns.I've seen a ton of these and the barrels are rarely cut back.The owners liked the longer barrels especially as goose guns.The .577/.58 calibers of these muskets were close to 20 gauge and they were a lot cheaper than a single barrel muzzle loading shotgun.Since many of these muskets were cut back soon after the War and carried west by impoverished ex Confederates it is not implausible that some of them wound up in the hands of Sioux warriors to used against Custer.

I really like to think that if such were the case it would surely be justice delayed but justice rendered nonetheless.
Tom Patton :thumbsup:

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Tom, In "The Treasury of the Gun" by Harold L. Peterson, on pages 110 and 111, there is a two page spread of a NW trade gun. It has had it's barrel bobbed to about 20" to 24", anyway it is definitely short. The stock is severely weathered and it no longer has any ramrod ferrules left. The buttplate appears to be gone. This is a well used and abused gun, yet it looks firable. I've no doubt that most of these "Indian" guns were simply used up and scrapped for whatever was still useful on them. In their day they weren't considered treasured historical artifacts. They were used up junkers and were not dealt with sympathetically. I think it possible that most of the guns that would have been modified were guns of lesser value to begin with and once used up, or obsoleted by breech loaders were not put away for safe keeping.

I've seen a few converted Civil war rifle muskets, some with full length barrels, some shortened. They were all around .60 to .62 bore diameter, about what you would expect from a .58 rifled bore after the rifling had been bored out. Most were still usable, a tribute to the quality built into them 140+ years ago.

 

[Okwaho]

Russ, I concur with what you're saying. I'm not sure I have seen that gun but I cited a similar one from "The Northwest Gun" by Charles E. Hansen Jr.,P.64 which is basically an Indian pistol made from a Leman flintlock fusil.I have also seen a lot of those half stock shotguns made from old CW muskets and I once had a Bridesburg with a cut back stock and a barrel in its original length.
The bottom line is as I stated. These cut back ranger and Indian guns as well as the blanket and canoe guns are strictly aberations.There are several myths that just seemingly won't go away.One is the one under discussion here and the other is the myth that trade guns were sold for the number of pelts required to equal the total length of the gun.The truth is that the guns were sold by barrel length ie; 30",33",39", etc so that :cry:for example a 30"gun sold for 5 pelts, a 33" gun sold for 7 pelts,and a 39" gun sold for 10 pelts etc.etc.

The bottom line is regretfully what I wrote at the beginning of this thread. The answer is no, they're not correct and yes, you can generally get by with them at just about every event I go to.
Tom :m2c:

 

[jim gray]

I really like to think that if such were the case it would surely be justice delayed but justice rendered nonetheless.

Not to change the subject, but the majority of the Sioux, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapahoe who fought at the Little Bighorn used repeating rifles. Custer's fatal wound sounded like it was self inflicted from the description that I read of his wounds.

Back to the original post. I seem to have a problem of unexpected expenses arising whenever I manage to save the money for this gun, but I am determined to get it, eventually. I just don't know if I'll be able to stand the wait once I've actually placed the order.