French Fusils

[tg]

I spent some time browsing what was available in French guns today,I will not mention names but have noticed on more than one vendors write up about thier French guns that the guns with type C or what they call a type C is a fusil fin or fine gun, whereas the guns with type D furniture are ordinare or ordinary guns, in fact these two furniture types designate a change or evolution in the type of furniture used one being early and the other later the break being around 1730 if in fact the C/D designation was relevant to the grade of gun there would have been no fine guns after about 1730 and no ordinary guns before... it looks like as with the guns from Tulle one most really do their homework rather than trust to a suppliers research, If one had a fusil made in 1740 with the type D furniture that was highly polished and engraved and very well finished it would be a fusil fin, will these guys ever make an effort to take the time to put things in order?This is certainly not in the interest of the purchasing public particularly those who have faith in thier vendors.I have even seen one who used the difference between a Walnut and Maple stock as the definition between Fin and ordinare, exuse the rant but some may want to be aware of this.

 

[KHickam]

Very interesting post - I sorta understand what you are saying - however, short of building one yourself or having a custom one built. There is not much you can do about it. I am not well studied on guns of the era - however, with as much variation as I see in modern models - I would assume that there was similiar variation from general models from a variety of makers.

 

[benvenuto]

well said...

I know the gun trade tis a tough business... However, with a tidal wave of cheap imports arriving from India, you'd think that makers in western countries would want to safeguard the one thing they have going for them: credibility.

I think the muzzleloading community has grown a lot more sophisticated in the past few years and that that anyone selling goods that don't measure up historically have a lot to lose in the long term...
:hmm:

 

[tg]

"- I would assume that there was similiar variation from general models from a variety of makers"

True but many of the missleading things that are out there are paramount to someone selling a gun that is documented to 1800 in caplock and claiming it was correct for the F&I period.
I am not talking about variatons that existed but the things that are definate and researched but ignored by those who are looking for a market share at the expense of a non gun educted public.We have many facets of the historical gun building evolution that are prety well cut and dried as to the what where and whenm these are often ignored.The public is quilty to some extent as often the price is good and the gun is what they like and it is easy to believ what one wants to hear.

 

[benvenuto]

Found under a photo of a french-looking gun on a retaillers website:

The American Kentucky rifle was directly influenced by this German made, short barreled, heavy stocked rifle with high cheek. All were carved in high This rifle was introduced by the French during the fur trade era in the 1670’s. It was not originally intended to be a rifle for trade to the Indians. It was available then to two classes of people. The working class or “D” model, or highly engraved “C” for the upper class or officers. The plain D is shown opposite in “aged” walnut. This was the French fur traders rifle, the Voyageur. But it was soon clear that this high quality French longrifle would be the weapon the Indians would want because of its barrel length and increased accuracy. The pressure the Colonists felt to develop the imported short German Jaeger into a longrifle was immense. This stock is the large and heavy style of the fur trade era French Fusil de Chasse, also known as the Tulle. It features the extended wrist down low into the buttstock as it was on the originals with more drop than the common trade gun.

:youcrazy:

 

[KHickam]

:bull: French longrifles?! I thought most of the fusils were smoothbores. Am I missing something?

 

[Okwaho]

Found under a photo of a french-looking gun on a retaillers website:

The American Kentucky rifle was directly influenced by this German made, short barreled, heavy stocked rifle with high cheek. All were carved in high This rifle was introduced by the French during the fur trade era in the 1670’s. It was not originally intended to be a rifle for trade to the Indians. It was available then to two classes of people. The working class or “D” model, or highly engraved “C” for the upper class or officers. The plain D is shown opposite in “aged” walnut. This was the French fur traders rifle, the Voyageur. But it was soon clear that this high quality French longrifle would be the weapon the Indians would want because of its barrel length and increased accuracy. The pressure the Colonists felt to develop the imported short German Jaeger into a longrifle was immense. This stock is the large and heavy style of the fur trade era French Fusil de Chasse, also known as the Tulle. It features the extended wrist down low into the buttstock as it was on the originals with more drop than the common trade gun.

:youcrazy:

I saw the smilie from Benvenuto I must say that his was a natural and correct evaluation of the first quote.
I have been a student of early guns { primarily Kentuckies} for some 40+ years and of European trade level guns {primarily French} for about 9 years now and I must say that I can find nothing in that quote with which to agree.I concur with TG in his two posts and can only bemoan the amount of misinformation offered by some vendors. One of the basic problems lies with the books written by T.M.Hamilton who along with other writers in this field pioneered the publishing of archaealogical material from various sites.Their findings were important but have been misused by many in creating complete guns based on these findings.The classic example is the so called Types C and D precarved French fusils offered with German Jaeger locks along with the statement that the Type C existed from Ca.1680-1730 and Type D existed from Ca. 1720-1763.Hamilton actually assigned types A-R to his findings and a study of ALL his findings along with material recovered since his last book came out in 1980 along with the work of other researchers is far more productive in determining what these early French guns actually looked.The so called Types C and D are in reality Fusils fin {fine guns} and vary from maker to maker.The ONLY French Fusil fin de chasse {the so called Types C and D} kit that I have seen and can recommend is the R E Davis Fusil fin kit {not their Type D kit}.It is copied from an original Fusil fin almost identical to one with which I am very familiar, both of which guns came from the same collection.
Fortunately the Fusil de chasse pre carved kits come with a mortice for the R E Davis Tulle Arsenal lock which is OK but still needs minor tweaking. The L&R Early trade lock is also OK and both locks are OK for the Fusil fins de chasse. All is not lost,however, for those wishing to build a French Fusil fin de chasse. Precarved stocks for those guns are offered without a lock mortice so that a correct lock{either the R E Davis Tulle Arsenal or the L&R Early Trade lock will work}The Davis lock is slightly earlier in its configuration but needs more tweaking.

These early French trade level guns are fascinating and my research is leading me to formulate a theory about the origins of the Fusils fin contrary to the conventional wisdom now popular,although Hamilton and Bouchard have hinted at its possible correctness.

I hope I haven't bored folks with this post but I just felt that I needed to say a few words on the subject of early French guns and I haven't even gotten into the English Carolina{the so called Type G} guns but that's another subject.
Tom Patton

 

[tg]

" French longrifles?! I thought most of the fusils were smoothbores. Am I missing something?"

The French were smoothbores, this is just another example of the buyer beware environment when reading most of the suppliers and some builders writeups on thise guns, you really have to do the homework then hopefully find the right people to talk to and ask any questions about these guns, thankfully there are several on this forum who know the history of these guns and are willing to help folks out, I am gratefull to the help Okwaho and a couple of others gave me a few years ago as I tried to research the guns and read what the suppliers wrote and tried to sort it all out.

 

[benvenuto]

Not bored at all.... your contributuions are always worth waiting for! :thumbsup:

I suspect the first statement in the paragraph I quoted was just a typo that belonged under another picture on another webpage - but i couldn't resist! it just seemed to be such a terrible conglomerate of inaccuracies :haha:

But like i said, it all comes down to research and credibility. After a couple of years being a member here and gleaning a lot of valuable information, I think i would say i have a 0% probability of falling for a sales pitch like that one

 

[Okwaho]

Thanks for the kind words and remember that there are always those guns out there which when discovered can change previous truisms completely.A fine example is the Kentucky rifle described for years as the"Bullard rifle"a probable Southern and possibly Virginia rifle {Rifles of Colonial America 119} referring to its maker which has been for sometime owned by a major museum.A gun turned up a year or so ago identical in virtually every respect BUT signed by John Newcomer {the elder}an early Lancaster,Pa.gunsmith.Yes,they are out there still.The key to all this is RESEARCH and an open mind.As Wes White,a noted longrifle collector once said,"These early guns do not give up their secrets easily.
Tom Patton

 

[Cruzatte]

This is great! So, I have a follow up question then. What is a fusil ordinaire du traite? I know what the literal translation means. It's just an ordinary grade trade gun. I presume they are different than the fusils du chasse. How different are they?

Cruzatte

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

"Based" on what I've been reading, I'd say caliber is the difference, with 62 caliber being the military/militia arm and a 58 caliber (28 balls to the FRENCH pound) for the typical Fusil de Chasse, if there truly is such a thing. Both would typically be iron hardware on a walnut stock, and very trim in the hand.

Pre-1721 the barrel was all round, then to the octagonal to round with a single wedding band. I believe for late model type 'D' that the wedding band transition was a duial wedding band.

Anyone really know what the types 'C' or 'D' stand for? If so ... what 'de heck is a type 'A' or 'B' ??

 

[Wes/Tex]

One of my pet pieves. Even the ones who make an effort to make the over-all gun more believable use the odd locks commercially available, etc. The one maker whose site mentions the rework of the lock to make the gun a better item turns around and recommends curly maple as the stock wood! Pity!

 

[Mike Brooks]

If I live long enough I'll rectify the situation... :winking:
Has everyone seen R.E. Davis's new German lock? I havn't had one in hand, but with only casual observation, it has tremendous possibilities... :hmm:

 

[rich pierce]

There are good builders like MB above who can do it right for anyone. The vendors who sell kits of every description are not to be trusted at all, but put together such nice catalogues and websites that many assume that what they write and offer is correct.

Imagine if their sales pitch went like this:
French trade guns were highly sought after by American Indian tribes served through Montreal and the Mississippi valley from the earliest days of European contact. Although few complete original guns have been found, because they underwent such hard usage, there is good documentation of the furniture, locks and barrels, as well as stock styles.

So, we looked at what parts are currently available or readily made at low cost, what sorts of wood we have in stock that is affordable and popular, and put together kits that at 40 yards or so, to an elderly fella, look about right. And they are selling like hotcakes! Now mind you, they make fine shooting guns, every bit the equal of originals, but any close resemblance to the originals is strictly coincidental.
Reckon that would sell?
Do you reckon anybody would really want a lock without an internal bridle?
Would customers pay high dollars for Euro walnut that was plain or sapwood, when they could get high grade curly maple for the same or lower price?

The biggest problem is that there is going to be a limited market for appropriate locks, especially, that are suitable, and those are the deal-breaker. If lock makers had recognized, 35 years ago, that fusils de trait were among the most common guns ever carried in colonial times, perhaps they would have designed an appropriate lock or two for this purpose. But the market is limited.

 

[KHickam]

Could someone please post a couple pictures of modern repros of correct Fusil De Chasse, Type D and C for comparison?

 

Wish I could, but your best bet would be to get Hamilton's book on colonial guns and Bouchards book on Tulle arms and look at the New France website at his articles for original examples.

There are many makers of fusils de chasse and fusils fin (variously named as in Hamilton's types, etc). They resemble each other. Every maker has his little touches. Truth is there are very few originals intact (not restocked) and most of the trade guns are classed and known mainly from metal parts dug up.

 

P.S. ...let me give an example: I have seen several photos of original fusils de chasse from Tulle. Every one has a different stock profile in detail. Some have exaggerated "Cows foot" stocks, some do not. Many are now in maple, though originally they were walnut. The hardware is similar, but not always identical--this is especially true of locks. These arms were made over a long period and changed a little. The oft criticised L&R trade lock actually looks alot like some of the originals, if not exact in every measurement (see for example the guns on the New France site). Yet 90 % of the repro Tulle fusil de chasse guns look alike, with exaggerated cows foot stocks (mine from the old Narraghansett Arms does not have this). Most repros use the Davis lock which is not right. The Caywood guns use their 'own' lock, but all types (de chasse, C and D) are cut from the same pattern, with just different hardware attached.

 

[tg]

"Most repros use the Davis lock which is not right.'

This lock can be pretty close if you have some spare time and a file...

 

[benvenuto]

The St. Etienne flintlock Gun (fusil) in New France 1665-1700

this is what can be done to a commercial lock to make it look more authentic with some time and effort (not my work):