French Fusil

Very nice gun Cooner. Looks like you git it right to me, nice and slim! Bet it feels good in the hands.

 

[hawkeye1755]

I shoot rifle mostly so I don't have enough practice with the smoothbores to get fluent. :redface:

Practice makes perfect. :haha:
The first times i shoot my Brown Bess or the Tulle i hit anything, anything except the target. :rotf:
I was so frustrated :cursing: :cursing:
But after long summerdays of practise,i'm now capable to hit the barns door.Of course the door from my neighbor. :redface:
:hatsoff:
Oh, i forget.On the door is the 50m target. :wink:

 

[flintlocknfur]

Can anyone post a few particulars about teh davis kit? Like.. is it a pure cows foot stock? Pic on teh website dosen't really show. Maybe a pull and drop measurement? The website dosent show that either....Also.. Which buttplate is included? the "fusil fin" BP or the "french" bp.

Thanks

 

[tg]

I am pretty sure the Davis kit does not have the cows foot stock shape and I do not know which furniture(buttplate) it has, I am guessing it has what would be called type D,probably not the simple type you see on what many call "Tulles" you can see the different types of furniture in Hamiltons book "Frontier Colonial Guns"

 

[Mike Brooks]

Buttplate.\:
Link
Trtiggerguard:
Link

 

[tg]

Is that a Fusil Fin trade gun buttplate? some thing sounds odd there? is this a fine trade gun, it looks different than the one on Cooners gun from Davis parts, that one looks like some of the D type shown in Hamiltons book, just confused as usuall.I se that the one on the link is similar to one on pg 89 of Hamiltons book but do not know what designation if any it fits.

 

tg, mine is a pieces and parts gun. It ain't the kit. The lock and barrel are from Davis. The parts are the Type D parts from Davis. The barrel is a copy from a Type C but I used it to build a Type D. I am using the abcde terminology for clarifcation. If you buy the kit from Davis, it is the Type C or Fusil Fin. You have every right to be confused here. The only thing I used from the Davis Type C for my Type D was the barrel. No difference in the barrels except the Fin has a sighting flat along the chase. I rounded that all out for my D. With all the filing, that gun was a whole lot of work. :hmm:

 

[tg]

Ok I'm up to speed now, I thought I knew what I was looking at, it makes sense now, still a remarkable gun you made their pard, still wonder about the trade gun Fin buttplate thing, I guess a fine gun could be a trade gun but thought they would more likely be gifts for alliance. And as a side note I do believe a gun with type C or type D can be a fusil fin, the particular choice of hardware is not the determining factor of a gun being fin or ordinare, I think these two types of hardware are just from different time periods and of different styles with the C type usually having matching finials on the tg and buttplate.

 

[Mike Brooks]

All type "C" and "D" are are two different eras of guns. The "C"s are earlier of course, and not neccesarily fancier than the "D" furniture. All depends on the grade. Some "D" furniture was top rate. The hardware RE davis is selling is of the "D" era or 1740's -1760's Just a different style of hardware is all. The cast in engraving on this one is somewhat crude. It would probably fall into the "trade gun" class or the very low end of the "fusil fin" class. All these French words are mind boggling for me.... :youcrazy:

 

"All these French words are mind boggling for me.... "

Yep, me too. Where's that Ol' Lawyer Okwaho when ya need 'em. :grin: He's good at those big words.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I think the term "C" & "D" should probably be abolished all together. They're the same gun just earlier and later. After all, we don't have special designation for earlier of later English fowlers.
I understand the archeological reasons that brought Hamilton to use these terms, but I think their usefullness has expired.
The really tough part is knowing which guns were for the indian trade and which were just low end guns sold to the white population. The high end guns are pretty obvious. This goes for both French and English guns.

 

Several folks have attacked the C and D fusil designations {Okwaho also comes to mind}, but they do apparently have archeological meaning. As I read Hamilton, it seems that there are at least two diferent guns being supplied to the trade and that they appear to be separated in time. Yes, C and D are artificial designations used to classify the parts types that 'go together', but it seems that they do represent real variations in trade guns and are a simple easy to remember short hand notation for them. Why abandon the terms? Why do you think they are not useful? True, they were not used in period, but how else would you propose to communicate the different types?

 

[Mike Brooks]

Early/Late. They are both the same gun. The "C" hardware that is for sale today is much higher quality than the "D" that is for sale and represents a Fusil Finn, not a Fusil De Trait. Type "D"'s can be every bit as high grade as the "C", butt today's furniture doesn't reflect this.
The difference between De Trait and Fin is probably easiest to tell by the quality of the lock. The De traits were completly unbridled, and the Fins had bridled tumblers and quality like we're used to today (or better).
The terms "C" and "D" will probably always be used, and that's fine, but I hope people begin to understand what those terms actually represent.

 

I think I understand--the C and D are both trade guns representing some changes in hardware through time [and there are slight variations within each type, are there not?]. But they [end members] are different appearing at least in the hardware aren't they? I know Caywood uses the same stock pattern for both [for what ever that means]. It was my understanding that if you wanted to do the "early" period you wouldn't choose D hardware, so it seems that there is a reason for understanding the differences. I guess because in geology we often do similar things, that is, make A, B, C, etc classes of objects as a simple way of designating the differences, that the C-D thing has never bothered me...my understanding of them is entirely based on Hamilton's writings---and isn't he the fellow who came up with the labels?

 

[Cruzatte]

Here is a nice kit and from what i understand about as PC as it gets.

Tulle Kit

That's a Fusil Fin, not a Tulle. Tulle is the place where they were made. The correct term is Fusil De Chasse. Re Davis Fusil Fin is on the low end of "Fin"as far as French Fusil Fins go. There were many different grades, the furniture on this one has engraving that wasn't considered high quality back in the day.
having blathered on about Fusils :yakyak: I'd like to say if I were in the market for a french fowler, it would be the Davis gun for me.

It's a real nice gun, IMHO. I only wish it had the earlier style furniture as an option.

Cruzatte

 

[tg]

"--and isn't he the fellow who came up with the labels?'

yes but I think he did so as an archeologist lookingbat pieces of the puzzle not a gun historian looking at the whle thing and its evolution/variations/usage from this viewpoint.