Indian Imports

[chuckpa]

I was out shooting my cookson this weekend and I'm really impressed with it's accuracy at 25 yards. I started with 50grns of ffg and worked up to 75 grns. I plan to drop back to 65 or 70 grns. I used a .662 ball patched with .017 material and a full shot cushion wad over the powder that I punched a hole in with and ice pick. It shot very low but with great groups. I have filed the front sight down and I will give it another test this weekend. I would love to hear about your experiences with this long Fowler.

 

[Many Klatch]

Beowulf. Anyone that puts 30 rounds through a gun before they sell it is really going above and beyond the call. I take my hat off to them.

Many Klatch

 

[tg]

I was looking at that Early Tulle and was wondring where they got the data that puts it at 1730 with the roundface lock and round barrel with two bands, seems that would have been out of vouge by 1720 at the latest?

 

[torn moc]

I jst wanted to trhow this in the fire concerning Indian Imports. I just acquired a 2 band Enfield carbine. The interesting part is that the barrel is stamped Made in India. And it has proof marks on the barrel. It also is stamped 12 ga. 89 grs
black powder not nitro.
It is smoothbore...I have not shot it yet...
it has a serial number and 1971 as manufacture date. Do I fear shooting this? Heck No.

 

[tg]

Maybe it's just me but all the Indian guns just look "off" compared to other accurate repros I have seen pice of, something just doesn't look right I guess cheesy comes to mind for lack of a better term, but there is a big difference in appearance and some subtle oddities in the architecture of some specific models as well, I guess you either love 'em of hate 'em I have come to preferr researching and making my own anyway so it is not an issue for me whether they be good or bad....or in between.

 

[torn moc]

...You are right TG...
but who would ever think that the topic of Indian repros would receive 11 pages of replies!!!
totally amazing in my opinion.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Maybe it's just me but all the Indian guns just look "off" compared to other accurate repros I have seen pice of, something just doesn't look right I guess cheesy comes to mind for lack of a better term, but there is a big difference in appearance and some subtle oddities in the architecture of some specific models as well, I guess you either love 'em of hate 'em I have come to preferr researching and making my own anyway so it is not an issue for me whether they be good or bad....or in between.

They all look like something Elmer Fudd would carry to me. :haha:

 

[pegro1]

Maybe it's just me but all the Indian guns just look "off" compared to other accurate repros I have seen pice of, something just doesn't look right I guess cheesy comes to mind for lack of a better term, but there is a big difference in appearance and some subtle oddities in the architecture of some specific models as well, I guess you either love 'em of hate 'em I have come to preferr researching and making my own anyway so it is not an issue for me whether they be good or bad....or in between.

But putting the Loyalist Arms French TVLLE fusil-de-chasse and Track of the Wolfs French TVLLE fusil-de-chasse next to each other and the only difference in appearance is the Loyalist Arms Tulle has a polished barrel and the TOTW Tulle is already browned or blacked and the ramrod pipes are not brass, and the TOTW uses plain maple stock and Loyalist uses Walnut which was what was used for the French Tulle (I have found this to be the same even with Whitemuzzleloading.com and Middlesex Village Trading Company also). Other than that they are the same, one must remember that the french tulle was a plain workingmans musket much like the so called "Poor Boy" musket. Loyalist only gets their barrels from the India maker not the lock which is an R.E. Davis on mine. I guess its all a matter of what one wants, I will in the future be buying a TOTW Tulle kit and building my own so I'll see better then. As far as looking "CHEESY" at events and shoots I've been told mine looks better than alot of others but this my be due to the fact that I browned the barrel & lock myself, and aged the brass also, the stock was beautiful when I got it and nothing had to be done to it. If I was tech savy enough I post a pic of it to get you guys opinions but haven't figure out how to do that yet:hmm: In the end I think it depends on who makes the gun as to what it looks like, and each owners preference.
Jim

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Maybe it's just me but all the Indian guns just look "off" compared to other accurate repros I have seen pice of, something just doesn't look right I guess cheesy comes to mind for lack of a better term, but there is a big difference in appearance and some subtle oddities in the architecture of some specific models as well, I guess you either love 'em of hate 'em I have come to preferr researching and making my own anyway so it is not an issue for me whether they be good or bad....or in between.

They all look like something Elmer Fudd would carry to me. :haha:

I have to agree with Mike, "cheesy" is a good word for the appearance. As to the breeching of the barrels, I hope none of the Indian barrels have breechplugs that are "pressed instead of threaded". They are surely bombs and I don't mean that it the hip way for "good". Okay, so they are threaded? How well are they threaded? Does Loyalist claim to un-breech all of their Indian barrels to check the threads on the plugs and the barrels? If they do AND fire each gun they sell 30 times and then clean them, wouldn't the barrels made by reputable makers be cheaper? Loyalist's time alone has to worth something...

AND let's remember that the Brown Bess with the split barrel that we saw pictures of a while back appeared to still have it's breech plug intact - the rupture in the barrel was along the side of the barrel, not at the plug. Now, we do not know whose product that was but, whether Loyalist's or someone else's, it blew big time and not at the plug. And as far as proof marks on the barrels of some of the Indian muskets? They mean nothing. Discriminating General's barrels have fake British proof marks that mimic those on the originals and their barrels are not even drilled for the touch hole - you can't proof a barrel that doesn't have it's vent drilled.

I'm sorry, I do not want to insult Loyalist or their product but too many things don't add up. See an earlier post by me on the subject where I quoted Blair's statement concerning their work in progress of the Austrian Lorenz rifle musket. He stated that they didn't have an original to copy so they thought that they had done a pretty good job of making one that looked like an original. It seems that they don't bother to copy originals of any of their guns and go by photographs or line drawings. Come on, with what they are paying the Indian makers to make their barrels and the rest of the gun, they could make an accurate copy and still have the same profit margin. Who knows, maybe even use walnut instead of whatever Indian wood it is they use...

 

[tg]

" not the lock which is an R.E. Davis on mine."

Which Davis lock do they use? and why would someone brown the barrel on one of these guns?

"Other than that they are the same, one must remember that the french tulle was a plain workingmans musket much like the so called "Poor Boy" musket'

Yeah I have looked into the history of these guns just a little bit...thus my questions, maybe I need a tutorial on early French guns.

Their write up starts out about trade guns then talks about having Tulle on the lock and Tulle did not make trade guns, if they can't get the history right I wonder about the product.

 

[bingo1952]

The one I have is also shooting 6" low and 8" left or thereabout at 50 yards. I am using a .67 ball in mine cast from a NEI mould with a .012 patch, an over powder and cushion wad. Groups are running around 6" at 50 yards if I am having a good day and will open to 8" or a little larger if I am not. I am using 80 grains of powder behind the ball. My trigger was extremely heavy but is now down to 4 lbs after a lot of stoning, polishing, and angle changing. The sear notch on mine was cut at an acute angle so I had to overcome the mainspring when I shot it. I didn't have a trigger pull scale that would go anywhere near high enough to measure it but it was a "Real Bear" to get it to let go. I bought mine more for a shotgun and have fired more small shot and buckshot from it I have ball. With the small shot I get really tight patterns at 25 yards, at 30 yards they are beginning to open, and at 35 yards they are about as loose as I would care to use on the small furry and feathered critters. This is a yeoman of a gun and is not meant as a wing shooter. Wing shooting was a rich man's game and really did not become popular in this country until the mid 1800's and the market gunners and almost anyone who was looking to feed the family or make a living continued to shoot ducks and geese on the water and sitting flocks of other types of fowl well into the early 20th century. If you wish to play at being a gentleman sport get one of the nice light 6-7 lb custom fowlers. Those are the one's that have survived to this day to be copied because they did not see everyday use and abuse. The average man wanted a good sturdy reliable gun to feed his family and make a living with. The lightweight guns would not have stood up to hard use under foul conditions.

 

[bingo1952]

Hey I kinda like Elmer! Where would Bugg's be without him? Just another bunny in the pot. :wink:

 

[tg]

" Those are the one's that have survived to this day to be copied because they did not see everyday use and abuse. The average man wanted a good sturdy reliable gun to feed his family and make a living with. The lightweight guns would not have stood up to hard use under foul conditions."

I think one might need to rethink this, we cannot judge what was done in the past by what we think may have happened, this is often done to justify certain guns and gear and is not a valid approach to the game.

 

[bingo1952]

and to say that only the 6-7 pound fowlers were the only ones that were produced is just as invalid. :v

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Actually there are some fowling guns left for us to copy that belonged to ABOVE average men from the 1730-1760 time frame that had large bores and were in the 10-12 pound range for duck hunting and some even bigger that were punt guns for sport. :grin:

The cheap guns known as the Carolina guns were nice,slim and light. They were for trade with the indians but also for purchase by the "average man". Some have still survived and are being copied. Click here to see an original "average poor mans smoothe gun" http://www.flintriflesmith.com/Antiques/Bumford_trade_gun.htm

 

[bingo1952]

that is a nice one. I especially like the vine painting on the stock. :thumbsup:

 

[tg]

"and to say that only the 6-7 pound fowlers were the only ones that were produced is just as invalid"

I did not say they were but we must stay within that which is known to place the term "accurate" on it,and not go on a hunch or wishfull thinking and try to slip it in history on a whim, this type of gun is widely made and many are beautiful but undocumentable and fall into the class of fantasy guns, not a bad thing just not something to use as an example when giving a gun history lecture.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

But the large bore heavy weights were not meant to be carried afield. The uplands birding pieces tended to be lighter and more manageable. When I was a kid, the gentleman that lived across the street had the fowler that had belonged to one of his ancestors. It dated fron 1740-1745 and weighed around 6 pounds. It was a 20 bore and had been converted to percussion at some point. 40 or 50 years ago there were a lot of these light fowlers in New England and they were usually found hanging over a fireplace--about the last place they would have been seen when in general use.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

I dont disagree at all. Just merely pointing out that there were larger fowling guns. The larger guns were meant to be taken afield but were made to be duck guns and not created for the little pah-tridge. :thumbsup:

Somewhat the same today. One might duck hunt with a big heavy 10 g. semi but quail hunt with a light 28.

Now those punt guns needed a swivel! :grin:

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

When I say they weren't taken afield I mean they weren't carried around but mostly were fired from blinds. They fired big loads at big birds like waterfowl and didn't need to be as portable as an uplands gun--hence the size of the Hudson River fowlers for example. Lovely old things for certain, but I don't think I'd want to tote one into the uplands on a fine fall day!