English Trade Gun

[dlemaster]

Paul
Here is some information I found and posted some time ago. I hope you find it interesting.

I found S. James Gooding's research on the Hudson Bay Company papers which covers the period 1674 to 1781. 46,000 Northwest Guns were made in this 107 year period by 79 London England manufactures. After1684 the greater numberof these guns had 48" barrels; 40' barrels were a close second with a number of 36' barrels appearing after 1717. I found of particular note that Gooding says "No 54" barrels appear after 1699". So it would seem longer barrels were an earlier feature.
I also found that in 1821 the Birmingham gun makers who supplied the North West Company were required to mark their barrels "LONDON" and the barrel lengths were standardized at 42", 36", and 30" and this continued throughout the Northwest Gun period.

Gooding's research was found in T. M. Hamilton's "Indian Trade Guns" 1960 pg 81-95.

Regards, Dave

 

[Okwaho]

UP DATE:I've seen the material cited by dave and he and Mike are totally correct here.I would add that I am in danger of losing my Gilgun English fowler with 1740- 60's styling to my daughter in law. It has a 41 in. barrel and weighs about 7 lbs.She is a wee wisp of a lass and has absolutely no trouble doing reenactment battles in the woods.She has only fired live a few times and loves the gun.

As to Hamilton{1960}citing Gooding see also these:
1."Trade Guns Of The Hudson's Bay Company 1670-1700" by S. James Gooding,The Canadian Arms Journal,Arms collecting, Vol.13 No.3{Aug.1975}

2."Trade Guns Of The Hudson's Bay Company 1670- 1970" by S.James Gooding {2003}

The first one is excellent on the early exploration in the Hudson's Bay area and much of it was incorporated into the second book which has recently been published. I have used both in my research on early Hudson's Bay weaponry and the later Northwest guns.I recommend both highly but the first one is hard to find.Jim's second book is a must in the area of Hudson's Bay Company guns and the Northwest gun.
Tom Patton

 

[Mike Brooks]

Here's a break down of Hudson's Bay Company deliveries.
5' barrels were only delivered from 1680 - 1684 164 guns delivered
4 1/2' barrels were only delivered from 1680 - 1699 956 guns delivered.
4' barrels 1680 - 1781 21,824 guns delivered
3 1/2' barrels 1680- 1781 16,500 guns delivered.
3' barrels 1688 - 1781 3,841 guns delivered.
From the numbers we can come to the conclusion that 17th and 18th century folks prefered english trade guns with 4' barrels over all other lengths.

 

[tg]

"4' barrels 1680 - 1781 21,824 guns delivered
3 1/2' barrels 1680- 1781 16,500 guns delivered.
3' barrels 1688 - 1781 3,841 guns delivered.
From the numbers we can come to the conclusion that 17th and 18th century folks prefered english trade guns with 4' barrels over all other lengths'

A dedicated man will spend a lot of time on details... I wonder HOW much more prefered the 4' over the 3 1/2' guns were? with 21000+ of one and 16000+ of the other and almost 4000 short guns it would just about split the 4' with the other two.... but then some hanging chads nay have skewed the count....

 

[Mike Brooks]

well tg you could say 4' barreled guns were more prefered than all the others combined.... :haha:

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

"Civiliam arms then, as now, tended to conform to the military guns of the day, both in calibers, accoutrements, and lengths. Trade guns, built solely for trading with First peoples, were the exception."

Remember that the Brown Bess and the French muskets were built with standard 46 inch barrels until the third quarter of the 18th Century. After that, the French went to 44 inch barrels until the early 19th Century - the Americans followed their example and did not adopt a standard musket with a short (42 inch) barrel until 1816 and even as late as 1865, the standard length US musket was 40 inches. And the soldier did not shorten his musket, even if he was a little guy of 5' 6", an average height in the 18th Century British army, he loaded it according to the manual with the but by his foot and the barrel straight up. Given all that the 48 inch barrel of the standard trade gun does not seem that long...

 

[tg]

At least as early as 1729 some French Fusils had 44" +or= barrels, I just wonder where all the original guns or records of the 41" barrels we see so many of today are?

 

[Stumpkiller]

At least as early as 1729 some French Fusils had 44" +or= barrels, I just wonder where all the original guns or records of the 41" barrels we see so many of today are?

Out in the barn where the Shimmel Rifles are also kept. :rotf:

 

[Ingram]

In putting together my circa 1770s persona (which has been juried at a couple of places, Mansker's Station included), I studied both the heights of individuals of the time, and the barrel lengths available and in use.

My conclusions match the figures as listed above. However, I'm no longer one to try to convince folks of stuff once they have made up their minds, so on that note, I won't add to the argument.

However, if you don't mind, I will relate a PERSONAL fact at this time: My flintlock Tennessee (style of about 1815) has a 42 inch barrel, which is 7/8. The gun is excellent for serious target work....a tad muzzle heavy, but that simply aids in it's ability to hold in place 'while everything else' is going on.

I also have a Brown Bess, 2nd. Model, with the 42 inch barrel. It is capable of surprisingly tight groups, and it is comfortable to carry and shoot, and I thought of it as a 'light' gun, until I got the one that I currently use for my persona.....

The gun that I currently use is almost a dead ringer for the one that is a subject of this post, and it has a 48 inch barrel. To me, it is lighter and handier than my Brown Bess, and it is also my favorite. For sheer comfort, and having a gun in my hands all day, this is the one that I prefer....

The thing is, as I stated, the barrel length is 48, and I stand at the towering height of 5'3"........

Think about something: We live in a world where a great many (most, it seems like) folks drive around with a cell phone stuck in their ear, and many of our young folks are unable to imagine a time when such was not possible. We live in a time when all we need to do to change the channel is hit a button....how many of us remember when you HAD to get up to go to the tv to turn the knob? Let alone remember when there was no such thing as a tv....

We live in a time when if you want a meal, if is simply a phone call or a drive through away. We live in a time when if we wish to heat our home, it is just a flicker of a switch away....

Many of us are pretty serious historians, and we put a lot of time and effort into studying the eras that interest us, but to believe that we are able to do so without having at least SOME of our 21st. century creep into our thinking is a bit of a stretch....

What barrel lengths did they REALLY carry back then? Well, I wasn't there, so I have to rely on the research, which indicates that the longer barrel was predominant. Now days, I have a choice as to what guns I can carry, and perhaps it is only a coincidence that at 5'3", I find the 48 inch barrel gun to be the most graceful and most comfortable.....

 

[tg]

I am very much in agreement that the longer barrels were the norm in the mid 18th century and earlier, Bouchard, Hamilton and many records show this, I just think that for some guns a 42" would be as correct as a 48" and therre were exceptions to the norm, I recall a French fusil with a 59" barrel,I am curious as to what inspired all the 41" barrels used buy several makers on English and French guns

 

[Mike Brooks]

I am curious as to what inspired all the 41" barrels used buy several makers on English and French guns

Length of the bed on the lathe :winking: .......

 

[tg]

Thank you Mike.....any thoughts on why they scaled down most of the early style locks from what most originals were on many guns????

 

[Mike Brooks]

Thank you Mike.....any thoughts on why they scaled down most of the early style locks from what most originals were on many guns????

Lack of knowledge? :hmm: :winking:
There are good english styled locks available back to 1730'-40's or so. But, there are no correct french locks of any type for any era available. That's an area that really needs looked into. I've heard rumors that R.E. Davis is in the process of making a new french lock. Who knows what it may be like. I'm keeping my fingers X'd.
:thumbsup:
There seems to be a trend these days for portraying ever earlier periods. Those that design and make locks would be wise to start offering some locks from the 1650-1720 era, maybe even earlier than that.