Earily Flintlocks in America

[rudy parnell]

For this discussion, let us table the matter of the "Evolution" of the Hudson Bay Company Gun, otherwise North West Gun and the Type G Carolina Gun otherwise, Southern Long Rifle. The question is: Do we know the time line and the guns that were on the continent prior to the Revolutionary War and up to the introduction of the caplock in 1802 ? This simplified approach[ to identify these "Great Guns"] would be very helpful. Thanks.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Caplocks , as we know them weren't used untill the mid 1820's. Other types of percussion ignition such as pill loks and tube locks were very rare even in England, and I doubt wether even a handfull were ever seen in north America.
Gotta run, somebdy else will catch the rest of this....

 

[jchochole]

Hi Gents,

I would be very apprehensive about saying that caplocks or percussion weapons were used much in the 1820's, or 1830's for that matter. I would agree that they existed in superbly crude forms. But most people still had supreme faith in flintlocks due to usefulness and availability of supplies. Most civilian usage, and much less martial, saw a large growth in use during the 1840's and 1850's. Only the very wealthy or cosmopolitan elements within society could afford and access caps, fulmonite of mercury, and those supplies for percussion locks in the 1820's.

Thanks for the great discussion and intersting topics,
Jim Chochole

 

[rudy parnell]

I don't want to mistakenly quote Charles Hanson in his book, "The Plains Rifle", but I think he stated that by 1820 nearly 80% of all the muzzleloaders had been converted and that very few flintlocks were made. I also want to state that I understand that this is the "Smoothbore Index". I simply think that for learning about these old guns you have to start somewhere. I am happy to concede that I am a beginner and I find the subject difficult. Therefore, I simply suggest, that it would be a valuable educational tool, if we could catagorize all these guns and assign some periods and dates. This is really the crux of the question that I propose to my destinquished colleagues of "The Muzzleloading Forum". A matrix or a catalogue would serve us well. Thanks.

 

[Swampman]

"The Plains Rifle", but I think he stated that by 1820 nearly 80% of all the muzzleloaders had been converted and that very few flintlocks were made"

I disagree. For all practical purposes, the caplock is post 1840.

 

[twobirds]

I disagree. For all practical purposes, the caplock is post 1840.

Based upon...??? Just curious about your sources. :hmm:

 

[pathfinderifh]

I think we are a little off topic.It seems the question is what type of smoothbores were common before caplocks[whenever the were introduced]

Pathfinder

 

[Mike Brooks]

Caplocks were becoming the "in thing" for new built guns thru the mid 1820's in england for the english gentry. In fact, by 1830 or so the top british gunmakers were building nothing else. I don't know if every one was rushing out to get their old flint guns converted or not.
I seriously doubt if 80% of plains rifles were caplocks in 1820, that's before the brits had them and they were on the cutting edge of technology at that time. Not likely a bunch of american frontiersman were going to be carrying caplock guns before they were commonly made.

 

[Mike Brooks]

As far as the question at hand, there was such a wide array of guns in north america , it's almost an unanswerable question. We might need to narrow down the paramaters a bit...or, I just don't understand the question. :redface:

 

[tg]

You can find percussion caps in inventories going up the Missori as early as 1833 or so if I recall certainly by 1836.

 

[robinghewitt]

I disagree. For all practical purposes, the caplock is post 1840.

Perhaps :hmm: Forsythe got his patent on using fulminate as detonator, rather than propellant, in 1807. His patent blocked most everything in England but not in other countries, particularly France where Paully was most of the way to a breech loading centre fire shotgun by 1812. When the cap was invented and by whom is a mystery, to many people try to take credit for it. When it came in to use possibly depends on where you are talking about.

 

[Okwaho]

:nono:

For this discussion, let us table the matter of the "Evolution" of the Hudson Bay Company Gun, otherwise North West Gun and the Type G Carolina Gun otherwise, Southern Long Rifle.

"the Type G Carolina Gun otherwise,Southern Long Rifle" HUH ? That is really oranges and watermelons. Do you really mean to say that Southern long rifles developed from the Carolina/ Type G cheap English fowlers.A lot of Southern rifles have English locks and show English influence in their architecture much as many early Pennsylvania Lehigh valley,Berks county and neighboring area guns show French influence in their architecture.The Carolina guns were as stated nothing more than very light but well made cheap English fowlers sent over to traders for resale to whoever could afford them. In other words they were trade guns.Southern long rifles were on the other hand well made fairly expensive guns made by individual makers one gun at a time.
At a time{1740} when these English trade guns were valued at about 11 shillings, a good rifle with a minimal amount of decoration including a box and some simple carving probably cost five times that much if not more.No,the Southern long rifle may have been to some degree influenced by English guns{the fine English fowlers bought by planters and other affluent members of the landed gentry}but they didn't develop from the Carolna/Type G guns traded to the Indians and anyone else who could pay for them.
Tom Patton :hmm: :nono:

 

[rudy parnell]

Thanks Tom. Then it is correct that the NW gun evolved with both French and English influence begining with the Hudson Bay Company Gun? However, it is not the case with the Carolina Type G [this gun did not stick around[did not evolve], nor was it the precursor to some other gun or period]. This important distinction helps us to understand; I am quite sure that it will be difficult to come up with a guide...that, is why we so desperately need one. I feel almost foolish presenting this delicate matter with so little knowledge of my own. So may I suggest that we set the parameters so that the most of the students of the "Flintlock Era in America" may benefit. This is simply another way of stating that probably alot of the information that the "aficionado" take for granted is prime rib to the rest of us poor slobs. Finally, in plain language, I'll need help setting the parameters and hope that others on the forum will contribute.

 

[Mike Brooks]

This is a very big topic to cover. too many guns to talk about.
Let me start here with some generalities about european guns for the north american continent trade. To study these you have to study guns as they were being built in europe. These cheaper trade type guns were nothing more than cheap versions of what was being built in europe at the time.
the French were the trend setters in gun fashion. What the French were making in 1680, the british had finally picked up on by 1720 or 30. The english lagged behind the french in style all through out the colonial period by 20 to 40 years in style, generally speaking.
So, now to the NW gun... With my above statement, we find that all english gun archetecture evolved from french design so , the NW gun would have by default. But, we have no idea what a NW gun actually looked like before 1770 give or take 10 years or so. A 1680 NW gun looked far different than a 1740 NW gun, and that 1740 NW gun looked far different than a 1770 NW gun. Gunstryles changed drasticallly thru this 100 year time span and all of these trade type guns changed too.
The Carolina gun was traded in the south untill they ran out of indians that were interested in it. It seems that by 1790 or so the "classic" NW gun that we are used to seeing today replaced it entirely.
I don't even want to get into colonial american made guns and rifles. VOLUMES have been written about them and there is still VOLUMES more to write, and I'm no expert on them, even tho I have a stack of books about them 6 feet tall. There is just to much information to cover on these, and more information discovered all the time. Wallace Gusler seems to be the one on the cutting edge of what these colonial made guns are all about lately.

 

[tg]

The problem with pre 1770 guns even longrifles to a degree is the lack of existing examples, we have written records and some archeological evidence but these are only hints and clues as to how the guns evolved, anyone building an early gun of most any type must take what little we do know and add a bit of speculation and feel for what the time would dictate and go from there, unfortunately many vendore have taken unsupportable attempts to "earlyize" many types of guns using later parts and styles, this has only added to the confusion particularly amoung the novice students (myself included) of gun history.

 

[rich pierce]

The question is: Do we know the time line and the guns that were on the continent prior to the Revolutionary War and up to the introduction of the caplock in 1802 ? quote]

If that's the question, and we're only talking about smoothbores, the answers are quite straightforward, but the devil is in the details.
There were imported guns and guns made here. It seems the earliest gunsmiths (pre-1700) probably mostly repaired and maintained guns the earliest colonists brought. "On the continent" spans a lot of territory so before 1720 we have Dutch and Swedish guns brought into New York and early settlements in New Jersey and Delaware, English guns brought into the English colonies, French guns brought into Canada and Louisiana, and Spanish guns brought into Florida on over to the Southwest, and up the Pacificm coast. Since early on, settlements were established with military support and often under military command, most guns were current or older military pieces. Quickly the Dutch, French and English made a brisk trade with the Native Americans and began ordering cheaply made trade guns (some of which you don't want to discuss).

Settlers were commonly armed with smoothbore general purpose guns, "fowlers" that could pass for militia duty and also be useful for protection and hunting. Initially (Jamestown, etc) these were often older military models, with matchlocks and snaphaunces commonly in use. Whenever the mother country upgraded or revamped their military musket line, they dumped older models to a willing market- their colonies.

It seems that smoothbore guns were made here (intentionally, from scratch, not simply restocking) in New England and in New York by 1680. The Hudson valley Fowler was a special purpose gun that developed here. I am not sure it was the first "American gun" but it may have been.

That's a start- anyone care to continue, add, correct?

 

[Bountyhunter]

Not being versed in the early guns, I am very interested in this thread. I am curious as to how correct the examples in this website are. No sources are given.
[url] http://www.earlyrusticarms.com/pricesanddescriptions.htm[/url]

I do not intend in any way to show any disrespect for this maker or the guns displayed, I am just curious what the rest of you guys that know,think of this and if this is a good representation of styles. If the consensus is that this site is close on, I may be tempted to order up one of his muskets.

TNX

B

 

[rich pierce]

Not going to go there. So much has been said about different makers and their guns and how authentic they are, and what is and is not PC, that it would all be redundant. I suggest you use the Search function of this site and type in "Early Rustic Arms". Here is one thread thread

I have seen several different stances on Period Correctness exhibited here and I will over-simplify to attempt to categorize the different points of view. None of these points of view are "correct", they are just different points of view!

1) "Nobody really knows what they had anyway. This one's a a flinter (or a percussion, or a matchlock, or a snaphaunce) and they had those kind of guns then, so it's right and anyone who says otherwise is just spoiling everyone's good time." Excellent functioning guns that would work for a "1" type person could be had for as little as $200. Or "fantasy guns" that fit this category for me could cost $25,000.

2) "I like my guns to be similar to those used in a particular time and place. The barrel on this one is the right length and shape (octagon, or round, etc) and approximate caliber, it has the right kind of wood and a lock that is kind of similar to those used in that time and place, the furniture is similar, the overall architecture is similar, and it's not worthwhile to me to pay for expensive extras like correct barrel profiles, or small details that experts use to date and locate period pieces." Guns that would work for these criteria are not going to be available as cheaply as above at the low end- maybe $400 would be the bottom. Again, sky is the limit.

3) "I love to do the research or am willing to pay those who do, and try to get my kit to look like actual examples of existing historic pieces. The details are very important to me. If I found that a certain feature of a gun that is advertised as representative of a certain time and place could not really fit in, this would bother me. I'd rather go the extra mile, pay the extra money to get it as close as we can. But I ain't going to pay for a hand-forged barrel." Even in a plainly finished gun, it's going to be hard to get below $800 here at the low end, in my opinion, unless it is a plain, later period trade gun. Again, the sky is the limit.

None of this is meant to inflame. But it would help us to help you, if we knew where in that spectrum you are.

Remember- advertising is written to result in sales and 3 different people reading the same text, looking at the same website or brochure will react differently, every time.

 

[Bountyhunter]

Rich,

I notice in your profile you bill yourself as a scientist.

I am also a scientist. When I explore new or uncharted territory, I believe it is wise to ask around and see what those who have gone before me think. My specialty is the Fur Trade Era. I never had much interest until lately on rifles/muskets of the Revolutionary war or before.

I understand about advertizing, I use it that way also. I will research the matter myself, as it is apparent that paying others to do my work results in a mixture of their opinions as opposed to credible results.

B

 

[Mike Brooks]

Not being versed in the early guns, I am very interested in this thread. I am curious as to how correct the examples in this website are. No sources are given.
[url] http://www.earlyrusticarms.com/pricesanddescriptions.htm[/url]

I do not intend in any way to show any disrespect for this maker or the guns displayed, I am just curious what the rest of you guys that know,think of this and if this is a good representation of styles. If the consensus is that this site is close on, I may be tempted to order up one of his muskets.

TNX

B

I'm not touching that one with a ten foot pole. The minute you give a gun manufacturer a fair critique, forty guys that have bought his guns jump down your throat and suggest you're an idiot....been their done that , learned my lesson well.. :winking:
Now , this isn't pointed at anyone in particular, but most "gun peddlers" (as I've been called on this board :blah: ) tend to date their guns WAY too early. They do this to sell more guns as earlier time periods are the "in" thing right now. They figure your average gun buyer is an idiot and won't know the difference anyway. Many "gun peddlers" actually know very little about what they're selling other than in general terms.
Before buying , do your research and find out specifically what is correct for the type of gun you think you want , then go find somebody that will sell you or build you that gun.
I've seen a few people go balistic here when they found out their gun wasn't what it was advertised to be. :shake: