In 1982 Shumway wrote a series of articles in The Buckskin Report on English Pattern Trade Rifles. It was entitled, "Arms of the Indian Trade". Turns out the English figured out what the American Indians wanted to shoot- big, strong, accurate "kentucky rifles" and so they made copies of American longrifles, standardized, for trade. I think this is interesting because it shows that in addition to rifles made by individual gunsmiths there were trade RIFLES avaliable for reasonable price (the Indians bought them and there were few Indians living in mansions, so my reasoning goes, which may be faulty at my age).
Type A, the earliest, was roughly similar in appearance to an early Lancaster rifle with a sliding wooden patchbox. It was fully brass mounted with a wide flat buttplate, wide trigger guard, nice walnut stock, and decorative carving all over the gun (tang, forestock, cheekpiece, etc. Shumway places these at 1770-1790 although the style is pre-Revolutionary. the locks are nice English locks, the barrels have proof marks. The example he showed was .62 caliber.
Type B modeled the daisy patchbox Lancaster, Shumway identified at least 10 specimens and estimated that 5000 were built. The gun wa sfully appointed in brass and looks every bit a Lancaster rifle, but with a Ketland lock and proofed barrel and has "London" script engraved on the barrel. Shumway placed these at about 1780-1790s based on markings, lock style, etc. These were more slender than the A type.
Type D (I lost the May issue) had a simple 2-piece brass patchbox cast of heavy brass. It is later in style of trigger guard but retains the large buttplate. Shumway places these at around the War of 1812. Probably many of these rifles were given or sold to Indian allies of the British in the Great Lakes area when we were still striving for that territory.
Those are the data. My interpretation: The brass-mounted Pennsylvania longrifle was desired by the American Indian in the latter 1700s and the Brits decided to fill that need in their trade. They made large, sturdy, fully appointed rifles for Indians who certainly, as much or more than Boone and all, lived and hunted in the wilderness. The Indians must have found them practical, dependable, desirable, and affordable, for these guns to be made in large numbers and to survive till today in many collections.
Regardless of whether or not these guns were locally distributed in the upper Midwest, the Brits were clearly involved in a global economy and would price things according to what the market could bear.
These would be good guns for re-enactors to use as they would be of a recognizable type that was documented to be present in large numbers in the 1780's-1790's, give or take a decade. Shumway went on to document the later models associated with the fur trade. Iron mounts came only on the later models. In the October 1982 issue of the Buckskin Report, Shumway published letters from the Henry factory outlining the features and cost of the late pattern English rifle- fullstock, scroll guard, large brass box, 6" long tang, stout round-tailed flintlock, plain maple stock varnished and light in color, oval cheekpiece, etc. $10.50 in 1834. Barrels were down to .45 caliber but still long and still stocked to the muzzle.
Just a comment- the Indians did not worry about "shiny brass". In my experience it is very hard to keep the brass on a working rifle shiny. It naturally tarnishes to a dull mustard color on its own without any shine. It does not rust and is easy to cast, making it a terrific material for gun furniture.
Type A, the earliest, was roughly similar in appearance to an early Lancaster rifle with a sliding wooden patchbox. It was fully brass mounted with a wide flat buttplate, wide trigger guard, nice walnut stock, and decorative carving all over the gun (tang, forestock, cheekpiece, etc. Shumway places these at 1770-1790 although the style is pre-Revolutionary. the locks are nice English locks, the barrels have proof marks. The example he showed was .62 caliber.
Type B modeled the daisy patchbox Lancaster, Shumway identified at least 10 specimens and estimated that 5000 were built. The gun wa sfully appointed in brass and looks every bit a Lancaster rifle, but with a Ketland lock and proofed barrel and has "London" script engraved on the barrel. Shumway placed these at about 1780-1790s based on markings, lock style, etc. These were more slender than the A type.
Type D (I lost the May issue) had a simple 2-piece brass patchbox cast of heavy brass. It is later in style of trigger guard but retains the large buttplate. Shumway places these at around the War of 1812. Probably many of these rifles were given or sold to Indian allies of the British in the Great Lakes area when we were still striving for that territory.
Those are the data. My interpretation: The brass-mounted Pennsylvania longrifle was desired by the American Indian in the latter 1700s and the Brits decided to fill that need in their trade. They made large, sturdy, fully appointed rifles for Indians who certainly, as much or more than Boone and all, lived and hunted in the wilderness. The Indians must have found them practical, dependable, desirable, and affordable, for these guns to be made in large numbers and to survive till today in many collections.
Regardless of whether or not these guns were locally distributed in the upper Midwest, the Brits were clearly involved in a global economy and would price things according to what the market could bear.
These would be good guns for re-enactors to use as they would be of a recognizable type that was documented to be present in large numbers in the 1780's-1790's, give or take a decade. Shumway went on to document the later models associated with the fur trade. Iron mounts came only on the later models. In the October 1982 issue of the Buckskin Report, Shumway published letters from the Henry factory outlining the features and cost of the late pattern English rifle- fullstock, scroll guard, large brass box, 6" long tang, stout round-tailed flintlock, plain maple stock varnished and light in color, oval cheekpiece, etc. $10.50 in 1834. Barrels were down to .45 caliber but still long and still stocked to the muzzle.
Just a comment- the Indians did not worry about "shiny brass". In my experience it is very hard to keep the brass on a working rifle shiny. It naturally tarnishes to a dull mustard color on its own without any shine. It does not rust and is easy to cast, making it a terrific material for gun furniture.
