Historic definition of "Swan Shot"

[Artificer]

Smart idea. :thumbsup:

Gus

 

[Rod Lassey]

For what it's worth, Prince Rupert, the inventor of Rupert shot, was also the founder of the Hudson's Bay Company, and cousin to King Charles II, who granted the charter to Rupert's Land (all of Canada draining into Hudson Bay). If you look up old shot sizes, you will also see beaver shot, buck shot, high East India shot, low East India shot, etc. Different shot sizes for different animals, hence swan shot.

Rod

 

[coloradoclyde]

So your saying that swan shot is a designation of size and not shape? :shocked2:
understandable and does explain why there are two definitions for swan shot, though produced differently they could be the same size. :hmm:

Complicating.... :haha:

 

[coloradoclyde]

I found this reference, http://parkscanadahistory.com/series/chs/26/chs26-3f.htm

But it doesn't say that the sizes were named after a particular animal, It simply lists animals that were hunted.

There are more animals than shot sizes.


:hmm: :idunno:

 

[Artificer]

In addition to the British shot sizes that RodL mentioned, Colonial Frontier Guns, by Hamilton mentions around 1733, France contracting for the following kinds of "shot" to be sent to the Louisiana Territory; Bastard shot, duck shot, wild pigeon or Royal shot and Half Royal shot. The following year they added more of the above, plus two sizes of shot that probably were what we would call solid balls for trade guns and muskets. (It also seems in this contract they meant the Half Royal Shot for shooting pigeons as well.) The book does not mention how these sizes compared to British Shot sizes.

Modern shot sizes include the following that I do not remember from hunting in the 50’s and 60’s when we hunted Geese, Ducks, Pheasants, Squirrels, Rabbits and Quail. They are in descending size order FF, F or TTT, TT, and T and are listed for “waterfowl.” To demonstrate what these sizes mean, No. 4 Buck is the size larger than FF and T is the size larger than BBB (Bird). I mention this because I had to look up the sizes mentioned in your link on “Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History No. 26”

Gus

 

[MSW]

more soil to the mud: didn't the British specifically forbid the ownership or use of "swan shot" when the revolution kicked off? (I may be misremembering ... I do that on rare occasion, or on a very frequent basis, depending on which of my children you ask)

 

[Billnpatti]

Here's a You Tube video on how to make Swan Shot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM5KMpZ3DyM

You notice just below the video is a definition for swan shot:

Scott shows how to make shot called "swan" shot (not for swans but for any game), its called swan shot because of its tapered end that can resemble a swans neck. Early settlers made their own lead shot in a matter such as this, scott shows how to add in some modern items to make the process a little easier.

 

[Artificer]

more soil to the mud: didn't the British specifically forbid the ownership or use of "swan shot" when the revolution kicked off? (I may be misremembering ... I do that on rare occasion, or on a very frequent basis, depending on which of my children you ask)

I have never read or heard of that, BUT that does not mean it wasn't true or wasn't done at least somewhere in the Colonies. Maybe someone else has knowledge of it.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Bill,

That is an interesting video, but it perpetuates the Modern Misrepresentation of what Swan Shot was in the period. This is one of many things we thought were correct in the "Bicentennial Period" that have proved to be historically incorrect.

Gus

 

[MSW]

Gus, I'm sure that your history is better than mine (sorry - I went to a "progressive" high school in the late sixties / early seventies, but I'm still trying to fill in the gaps and recorrect the politics)..

if you've not heard of it, then it's probably just a snipped of the neo- progressive historians to which I was subjected as a child.

 

[Artificer]

You are very kind, but I am nowhere near that good on the 18th century. I would be very interested if Spence, Loyalist Dave or others had heard of it, though.

I was fortunate to have gone through a more conservative public school, though there were some interesting times even then.

Gus

 

[mancill]

I watched this video before asking the question.

 

[Alden]

Yes, Swan Shot was always small buckshot/large shot. roughly lead BB thru the mid-.20's I think...

 

[Billnpatti]

Oops, my bad. :surrender: I thought I had something there. Guess I was wrong. :idunno: Thanks for the correction. :hatsoff:

 

[Artificer]

Bill,

Absolutely no reason for you to apologize. Actually, it was a good thing you brought it up as some of the rest of us also saw the video and might have or did think the same thing.

For those of us who began buckskinning, or primitive or reenacting in the 70's - we have found many things that we thought were HCPC back then and have since turned out not to be true. In my case, though initially that was disappointing and frustrating, it turned out that it made it fun again to learn more that was historically correct.

Gus

 

[mancill]

No apology needed. Any and all info is great. I have watched several videos from him and got some good info.

 

[Nativearizonan]

Um...Does it occur to anyone the term may have more than one meaning? Was the English completely set by the 1800s, where the one meaning of a term was the only meaning it was ever used for?

Can we suppose that since only one person here has read of one meaning from a single old source, that it is and was the only acceptable meaning until the 1960s?

I really don't have an answer but refuse to rule out the possibility that both answers may be correct. Just saying.

 

[George]

The newspapers of the 18th century had many ads offering swan shot molds for sale. I doubt they molded tails on them.

They also offered shot for sale, size designated by the game they were appropriate for, such as pigeon, squirrel, pheasant, high duck, low duck, goose, swan and buck.

A chart of numerical shot sizes from early 19th century, by Baker, IIRC, shows swan shot at just under a quarter inch.

My files are unavailable at the moment, when I get them again, maybe I'll post specifics. Not sure it's worth the effort, though, I've been posting it since 1996, with little effect. The ongoing, decades old argument about the shape of swan shot is a perfect example of the fact that once bad information gets into the belief system of some people, the Pope couldn't exorcise it, it's immune to evidence.

Spence

 

[coloradoclyde]

They also offered shot for sale, size designated by the game they were appropriate for, such as pigeon, squirrel, pheasant, high duck, low duck, goose, swan and buck.

Shotshells are still marketed that way today. e.g.. traps shells, dove & quail loads, Rabbit and squirrel loads.....and Turkey loads.

 

[coloradoclyde]

I really don't have an answer but refuse to rule out the possibility that both answers may be correct. Just saying.

Such ambiguity also prevents the possibility of you being correct.