French Fusils

[Cruzatte]

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

Ah, here's where I can add some insight to the thread. The whole Type C, Type D thing was begun by archaeologist T.M. Hamilton, and appears to me to be something arbitrary, but useful to him to help categorize his findings. And as far as I know, there's nothing about Type A, or Type B. How he arrived at his labels, I've no idea. Still, "Colonial Frontier Guns" is a good read and still has some value as a reference book.

Cruzatte

 

[Okwaho]

TG,I had to start somewhere. I really didn't want to get into this mess again but what then hell,here we go in no particular order.

1. Forget Types C and D. They were simply archaelogical classifications by T M Hamilton used in his 1980 book "Colonial Frontier Guns"In his earlier book,"Early Indian Trade Guns:1625-1775"{1968} written under the auspices of the Museum of the Great Plains, he illustrates Types A-R. Types A and B are very early French guns with iron mounts except for one with a solid brass side plate.These were found at the Angola site in Louisiana.Hamilton's practice was to add letters of designation when he encountered a new example.
The letter designations bear virtually no connection with complete French guns or those made elsewhere such as Liege.Complete Type C and D guns exist only in the hearts and minds of reenactors and vendors.The sooner you put all that C and D business to rest and do your own research the better off you are.

2.[A] Tulle guns were NEVER Fusils du trait {guns for trade},they were made under contract with the King through his Ministry de la marine from 1691-1741.They were made for issue to the milice, use by traders, govt.officials and the like,and a few as gifts for Indian chiefs.They are classified by contract date rather than model number as were regular infantry muskets.
Before I go any farther it would be wise to note that the vast majority of Hamilton's French material was excavated in the Southeast rather than Canada where the majority of Fusils de chasse was actually used.
Tulle made the following guns:
1.Muskets for the Compagnies franche and other land troops. They were larger bore{ about 18 balls to the pound}or approx. .69 cal. They were made in two forms;the fusil ordinaire or common musket and Fusil grenadier for the grenadiers who were equipped with grenades. They differ from the common musket in that they have an extra barrel band with a sling fitting as well as a ring on the side plate side.
2.Hunting muskets;light weight sturdy muskets either with the pied de vache butt congiguration or a straighter one which is usually found on Fusils fin.They are:
a. Fusils de chasse usually with the pied de vache or cow's foot pattern and usually with iron mounts.A few have been found with brass mounts but these were probably Indian gift guns. These were white man's guns issued to the Milice and were used by traders,govt. officials, and the like and occasionally as Indian gift guns..
b.Fusils fin{de chasse} these are as indicated above a little fancier Fusils de chasse.
c. Fusils fin de chasse et de service{fine muskets for hunting and for military service, again these are finer and/or fancier guns for white men and occasionally for gifts for Indian chiefs.
As you can see Tulle did not provide trade guns for the Indian trade. These were provided by St. Etienne and other arms makers in France and Liege.
3. Buccaneer Muskets,These were used aboard ship and to some degree ashore but were actually pretty uncommon in Canada and New France in general.

There are several books by Russel Bouchard and others on Tulle and trade guns and they are as follows:
"The Fusil de Tulle in New France 1691-1741" by Russel Bouchard
The Canadian Journal {of} Arms Collecting, Vol.15,No.1," The Trade gun In New France,1690-1760" by Russel Bouchard
"Les Armes de Traite[the guns of trade}by Russel Bouchard. This book is in French but one can muddle through and it's not limited to guns.
"The French Soldier in Colonial America" by Rene Chartrand. Included is a section on the weapons.
"Firearms on the Frontier: Guns at Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781" by T. M. Hamilton{1976}This is an excellent paperback on that fort and has some good info on guns and the ammo used in them.
Some miscellaneous thoughts.I have no idea where one writer came up with the round barrel idea. While English guns are almost universally equipped with round barrels[ie;Brown Bess etc.]and there are French guns shown in Lenk,I can find nothing on round barrels on trade level French guns used in New France in the fur trade,by French Bourgeois,or by the Milice.Nor can I find anything on the double rings on French trade level guns.A note;Mike Roberts mentioned an incorrect R E Davis lock. I am sure he was referring to the R E Davis Jaeger lock that is sold as a part of the so called Types C and D precarved kits.IT IS INCORRECT although one could put a ton of work into one and have it come out half way decent.Both the R E Davis Tulle Arsenal lock and the L&R lock are OK but need some tweaking especially the R E Davis lock which has a slightly earlier look to it after tweaking.

That's all folks :surrender: :v

 

[Okwaho]

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

Ah, here's where I can add some insight to the thread. The whole Type C, Type D thing was begun by archaeologist T.M. Hamilton, and appears to me to be something arbitrary, but useful to him to help categorize his findings. And as far as I know, there's nothing about Type A, or Type B. How he arrived at his labels, I've no idea. Still, "Colonial Frontier Guns" is a good read and still has some value as a reference book.

Cruzatte

Your post is a good one and Hamilton did categorize his findings . He started with SUPRISE!}the letter "A" and whenever he came upon a new example he looked to see what was the next letter and you know the rest.The problem is,as some have noted, that vendors want to sell complete guns and rather than truthfully categorize them as Rich has suggested they made up a gun to loosely conform to what reenactors want. It's pretty easy when you are producing Fusils de Chasse with the classic pied de vache butt configuration but very difficult when there are virtually no examples to go by.
Anyway good post, :thumbsup:
Tom Patton

 

[Cruzatte]

I always did wonder about his choice of letter designations. I guess I'll have to find some of Hamilton's earlier writing. And the other books and articles sound interesting, too. I bought Bouchard's The Fusil de Tulle in New France 1691-1741 and I highly recommend it.

Cruzatte

 

[Mike Brooks]

I kinda like Hamilton's A,B,C, etc. labels. It makes casual conversation about these guns a little easier because everybody has some idea of what is being talked about. He had to call all those piles of rusty parts something after all..... :winking:
C's and D's are the same gun, C's being the earlier of the two.There are several quality or grade levels of C's and D's. Some very high quality and a whole bunch of lower grade trade quality for the indian trade. The higher quality guns have more decoration done with greater skill. The lower grade guns still had decoration, but it was done very quickly and shows it. The locks on the expensive guns were also bridled where as the cheap guns were bridleless.

 

[Okwaho]

Mike, unfortuneately I suspect you are right here on the C- D- G trichotomy.The problem with Hamilton's classification system is that it doesn't lend itself to the making of complete trade level Fusils fin.There's entirely too much conjecture there.Bouchard in "Fusils de Tulle" with reference to Tulle guns pointed out that as of that date{1980} "No complete fusil fin of the 1695-1729 period has been found and therefore drawings could not be made,however with the help of parts found during archaeological woek,it is possible to develop an idea of how they looked. One detail became evident:these muskets incorporated the latest developments-the flat lock required in the 1696 contract is proof of this generalization." PP.26-27.One needs also to look at Lenk as to the development of French guns as they progressed from the Classical Louis XIV style of the late 17th century to the Berain style of the early 18th century.

There is a group of guns discussed in Lenk{P.110 et seq}which I believe is very important here.These guns discussed plus the Daniel Thiermay Liegeois gun{ lenk-Plate 88}lead me to suspect that many of the non Tulle Fusils fin found in America both in Canada as well as Louisiana and the Southeast were actually made in Liege and shipped over probably through the Dutch.I have two guns from Liege made probably in Thiermay's shop or by a maker strongly influenced by Thiermay.One of these guns canme from New England and while I don't know the provenance of the other, it definitely relates to the New England gun.This may have a bearing on the scarcity of early 18th century Tulle Fusils fin in Canada and the Southeast.
Reference here is made to Torsten Lenk,"The Flintlock,Its Origin and Development"

I realize that this theory ,and it is only a theory at the present time,may be considered revolutionary by some but it is one that I am continuing to pursue as a "working hypothesis" As always I welcome responsible concurring and opposing comments.
Tom Patton

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

FYI:

I just found this site that I had never seen or have been referred to before. It is writtin in Spanish, but has some great phots of what appears to be a 1728 Fusil complete with barrel bands, click here.

 

[rich pierce]

Okwaho, what re-enactors want is a book with pictures or drawings that illustrate the various types of fusils, when they were made and in what numbers, where they were traded and to whom, and what were their primary characteristics. A sort of "Fusil Sketchbook".

I think you realize that only a very few people can dedicate the time to research things and then handle the knowldge the way you and a few others do. If such a Sketchbook were offered as a work in progress, it would be very helpful, and popular, too.

Since so few (to none) of the originals exist extant, it would be necessary to qualify things a bit, but still, such a booklet would be helpful. One way to break it down for re-enactors might be to do it by persona and place. In other words, a NDN in the interior in 1650 would likely carry this or this, in 1720, this or this, in 1750, this or that.

If only we knew someone who could write such a book, wouldn't that be great? :winking:

 

[Mike Brooks]

Tom,
Here's how I see all of this. Let's competly forget the designations "C" & "D". Lets look at all smooth bored guns in new France from say 1700 to 1760. Fusil Fins and Fusil detrtaits in 1700 are going to look quite similar in archetecture and mounts. The difference being quality of parts and decoration.
Now, Fusil Fins and Fusil De Traits in 1760 are going to look quite similar to each other too, but they will not look like the 1700 examples due to changes in style.
Speaking in generalities here....the earlier guns will be more straight stocked and the later guns will have more curve in the lower buttstock.Both early and later guns in all grades where stocked quite slim and gracefully. The earlier guns have more elaborate furniture in both the high grades and the low grades, the later guns furniture is more "stylized". The locks of both early and late guns reflect their year of manufacture which is influenced by the style that was popular at that time.The lower grade locks will be servicable, but no "bells or whistles" added.
I've purposly avoided any talk of the De Chasse guns as I feel they had a peculiar archetecture all of their own that wasn't seen on the other fusils. These were Gov. contracted guns, and were built to Gov. specs.
By the way, there are surviving examples of fusil fins, you have several, and Lenk photographed many. Unfortunatly the guns Lenk Photographed were destroyed in WWII in the firestorm in Dresden.... They certainly havn't survived in pristine condition if they stayed in North America either, as they were pretty well used up and then broken up for their parts. Many New England fowlers are mounted with old reused Fusil Fin parts. Of course I know you already know all of this, this is more for the new guys that havn't studied the subject to death.... :yakyak:
Please excuse any odd typing errors, I tried my damndest to cut off the end of my finger yesterday :nono: .....typing is not my forte' today! :shake:

 

[hawkeye1755]

What is with the Simon Gilbert Collection or the Fusil de Chasse from the Parks Canada Collection.
The Tulle hunting gun c. 1730 with Indian motifs from the Simon Gilbert Collection.

Mike and Tom, have you ever seen this collection?
:hatsoff:

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

If only we knew someone who could write such a book, wouldn't that be great? :winking:

Couldn't "we" write one, as in all contribute? Maybe just on-line here? It would be sweet to have ONE post where 3 or more MZL members could repeatedly 'edit' the one post when new info is to be offered.

Kind of like Mike Book's excellent gun-building tutorial. Claude ... ??

I have been researching Tulles and Fusil's de Chasse in particular, and I've lots of pictures (copyright issues?) that could accompany the text/data ... most of it that I learned from you esteemed gentlemen here.

 

[Okwaho]

What is with the Simon Gilbert Collection or the Fusil de Chasse from the Parks Canada Collection.
The Tulle hunting gun c. 1730 with Indian motifs from the Simon Gilbert Collection.

Mike and Tom, have you ever seen this collection?
:hatsoff:

I have not met Simon but we have mutual collecting friends. I haven't see his collection nor have I personally seen the Parks Canada collections. The major problem with Fusils de chasse is that so many of them have been restocked during their period of use.It has long been thought by collectors that a number of the Parks Canada fusils de chasse are old restocks.I have no knowlege of either the quantity or quality of Simon's collection but he is a major player in the arena of early French fusils of all types.
Tom Patton

 

[hawkeye1755]

Tom, in August i will be one week in Paris,France.
I will visit the 'Musée de l'Armée'.Hope to see some originals. :hmm:
:hatsoff:

 

[asabai]

Some of the photos I have seen of original guns have a poor inletting job for example on the butt plate. I can’t remember if they still had original stocks or were restocked. If they were original I guess if you wanted to be PC, then you would purposely do a bad job putting together a Fusil kit. If that’s the case I could be a gun maker. :shocked2:

 

[mark/wi]

I know this is a very good thread, I have nothing to add but have enjoyed read it, lots of good thought out information. Make me want to learn more. thanks Mark/wi

 

[benvenuto]

you mean start a fusil Wiki?
If anyone wants to try their hand at writing a slim booklet, my partner is a talented desktop publisher and i would be happy to host a download on my website.

I have been thinking about a project like this for a while, maybe to make it easy a series of short articles by different authors including a section on the practicalities of re-creating these guns. The main sticking point would be finding pictures that are "public domain" or "creative commons" and not copyrighted

 

[tg]

"TG,I had to start somewhere. I really didn't want to get into this mess again but what then hell,here we go in no particular order."

I had intended to lure you into this Tom(VBG) I hoped this post could be a good reference source for those who wish to make a French gun and have it be fairly close to what we know about the originals, and /or give folks some info to present to suppliers/builders who may try to steer them in another direction.

 

[Renaman]

Gents,

I, for one, am lovin' this thread! Keep at it. As numerous and important as these arms were, it is a darn shame there is not much more info and examples/pictures available.

I have a question. Did the trade guns prior to 1690 have round faced locks?

It seems that hunting guns existed before Tulle made them. So, same question, but for these earlier hunting guns.

Mark

 

[hawkeye1755]

Tom, did you know something about the ' Pierre Cayla Collection'? The Rifle Soppe,Inc. wrote in their Cataloge about a French Marine Officer's Fusil from that collection.Nicely carved,extremly high quality in the 1700's.
:hatsoff:

 

[Okwaho]

No, but I saw the copy that Jess made in return for being allowed to copy the gun.It was a really nice copy and I could have bought it for about $1,500 to 1,600 at a reenactment. I passed because I didn't need another French reenactment gun.
Tom Patton