Information on period weapons...
- Thread starter cjmouser
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
robinghewitt
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,605
- Reaction score
- 23
I'm not very good with your dates :shocking: but it has always been that way.
In England we had to wait until the Army divided it's rifles into 2 piles, one lot went for conversion to Snider breeching, the other lot was sold out of service. The result was a lot of cheap shotguns to replace 2 million worn out Besses. (I over generalise, but you get the point :
Farmers like shotgun versatility, rifles are too fussy for everyday.
Birdwatcher
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 7
I'm sorry to cut in again cj, but Texas is a tad different (I live in San Antonio) than some places. Apart from a major influx of Germans and later, Czecks, it was settled largely by Scotch-Irish settles from the US proper. There were exceptions of course but the ethnic/cultural roots of your character and his father are going to make a difference.
Those coming from the US into what were known to be rough, unsettled regions were very serious about their arms. For a common type of flintlock rifle carried into Texas by the first settlers look for "southern poor boy rifle". A plain, unadorned longrifle built to minimum expense.
Note that your character is a "cattleman", not a "farmer", the difference being that a cattleman is likely to spend a lot of time in the saddle.
At the time of your character's leaving, cattle were kept all across what was then settled Texas (the Plains Indians still dominated the western half the State). The rich river bottomlands were given over mostly to cotton and other crops. Cattle prevailed where crops couldn't; in the sandy piney woods of East Texas and the open praries around San Antonio. In fact the whole "cowboy" culture of ranches, vaquero (Spanish) roots, and even sixguns has its roots in the San Antonio area.
Wherever your character is from, lawlessness was common and a good firearm was an absolute necessity. A good rifle WOULD be handed down carefully between father and son.
The Mississippi rifle was the first US military rifle produced in large enough numbers to show up commonly in civilians hands, prior to about 1850 most of the thousands of rifles in Texas were not of a specific model but were made to a general type by individual gunsmiths.
Smoothbore muskets had been mass produced earlier, but would likely not be cherished as much as a rifle, ESPECIALLY if your guy had been living in open country, where longer-range firefights were the norm.
In this period shotguns and fowling pieces were present, but mostly the weapons of the well-to-do who could afford a separate weapon for hunting.
Important considerations are:
1) Will your character be carrying this firearm on horseback?(likely if he's a cattleman) If so that musket or rifle had better be cut down in length. A musket was about five feet long overall. The Mississippi rifle, by contrast, was shorter and was commonly carried across the Plains on horseback.
2) What will he be doing with it? For short range firefights in woodland or brush it wouldn't make much difference although the musket, with its smooth bore, would be faster to reload.
If he expects to do any precision shooting at all at more than about 50 yards then he'd want a rifle, the ability to hit a man in the head out past 100 yards and to reach out to nearly 300 yards against a man in the open being precisely why rifles were so valued by their owners, especially in Texas.
As an aside, the only British arms I can think of common in the US were various the aforementioned Brown Bess muskets from colonial times on and Enfield rifles imported en mass during the Civil War. "Conversions" were conversions from muzzleloader to cartridge arms, very common by the 1870's, but not at all present before or during the Civil War, wel after your time frame.
Birdwatcher
Those coming from the US into what were known to be rough, unsettled regions were very serious about their arms. For a common type of flintlock rifle carried into Texas by the first settlers look for "southern poor boy rifle". A plain, unadorned longrifle built to minimum expense.
Note that your character is a "cattleman", not a "farmer", the difference being that a cattleman is likely to spend a lot of time in the saddle.
At the time of your character's leaving, cattle were kept all across what was then settled Texas (the Plains Indians still dominated the western half the State). The rich river bottomlands were given over mostly to cotton and other crops. Cattle prevailed where crops couldn't; in the sandy piney woods of East Texas and the open praries around San Antonio. In fact the whole "cowboy" culture of ranches, vaquero (Spanish) roots, and even sixguns has its roots in the San Antonio area.
Wherever your character is from, lawlessness was common and a good firearm was an absolute necessity. A good rifle WOULD be handed down carefully between father and son.
The Mississippi rifle was the first US military rifle produced in large enough numbers to show up commonly in civilians hands, prior to about 1850 most of the thousands of rifles in Texas were not of a specific model but were made to a general type by individual gunsmiths.
Smoothbore muskets had been mass produced earlier, but would likely not be cherished as much as a rifle, ESPECIALLY if your guy had been living in open country, where longer-range firefights were the norm.
In this period shotguns and fowling pieces were present, but mostly the weapons of the well-to-do who could afford a separate weapon for hunting.
Important considerations are:
1) Will your character be carrying this firearm on horseback?(likely if he's a cattleman) If so that musket or rifle had better be cut down in length. A musket was about five feet long overall. The Mississippi rifle, by contrast, was shorter and was commonly carried across the Plains on horseback.
2) What will he be doing with it? For short range firefights in woodland or brush it wouldn't make much difference although the musket, with its smooth bore, would be faster to reload.
If he expects to do any precision shooting at all at more than about 50 yards then he'd want a rifle, the ability to hit a man in the head out past 100 yards and to reach out to nearly 300 yards against a man in the open being precisely why rifles were so valued by their owners, especially in Texas.
As an aside, the only British arms I can think of common in the US were various the aforementioned Brown Bess muskets from colonial times on and Enfield rifles imported en mass during the Civil War. "Conversions" were conversions from muzzleloader to cartridge arms, very common by the 1870's, but not at all present before or during the Civil War, wel after your time frame.
Birdwatcher
As Tom Clancy said: "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense."
You guys got no respect for poetic license. She didn't say the farmer had to take pleasure in shooting the rifle for relaxation. On top of that HE'S FICTIONAL. Someone was using them, as they exist. He's a farmer. Hardship is what he butters his toast with. A friend of mine ( a farmer's son, in fact) had a light single-shot shotgun that kicked like a mule and the forestock came off every time it was fired. He used it, because it was all he had. Perhaps Tex Farmer owned it because the prior owner, Eyebrowless Pete, dumped it cheap. Perhaps the outfitter had only worse choices. This was pre- Gander Mountain and Cabelas.
My favorite rifle style is the Lehigh. The stock is shaped so that it feels to "kick" twice as much as a Lancaster style of the same era. Why would anyone prefer that?
I propose that in 1855 the 1841's were all still in military arsenals. The "good" weapons, especially rifles, were still in general military use. The Hall was in the hands of militia and scrappers. I even found reference that some had "disappeared" enroute to Texas. The breech, 8" from the shooter's face, shouldn't alarm a flintlock user who is used to a flash 2" in front of his eyes. For a rate of fire double the norm of that day it was worth it (no ramrod to fuss with).
Here's another 1819 conversion (stamped 1832 as the conversion at Harper's Ferry Arsenal)
And another:
http://www.horsesoldier.com/catalog/g0012001.html
Someone was taking the time to convert, and presumably use them.
Birdwatcher
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 7
Hiya Stumpkiller... I would also respectfully suggest that an open seam running all the way across the barrel just ahead of the main charge and getting worse over time (Hall) was an entirely different proposition than a small touch hole on the side of the gun and a small amount of unconfined powder in the pan (Flintlock). Then again, how about the worst of both worlds? (Hall's flintlock :
Funny how all them surplus Hall's seem to have promptly disappeared from the face of the Earth, I can't find reference to them in civilian use anywhere, and when I do find reference, seems like nobody had anything good to say about 'em.
Case in point, this from an 1898 speech from one Major Faulkner, at the time eulogizing Terry's Texas Rangers, a Confederate cavalry outfit. After expounding at length how hard-up the Confederacy was for firearms compared to their Union counterparts, Major Faulkner has this to say about the Hall...
High praise indeed ::
OK, two possibilities; cj's character really does use an old Hall as per Clancy and loses a lot of hats and has a permanently singed hairline, furthermore he squints a lot and his family dives for cover every time he lets fly. His impaired vision also makes it difficult for him to maintain the delicate mechanism so he does it by feel, saving valuable candles (for lighting) in the process and developing kung fu fighting styles.
The other case; the character's dad comes from Tennessee Frontier stock, and had brought his battered but servicable longrifle with him to Texas, passing it on to his son with his last breath after whatever awful but dramatic fate befell him. Junior had it bored out and converted to percussion, and also cut it down so it didn't keep hitting on trees and stuff when he was riding. He loves this rifle because it was his dad's and because he himself learned to shoot with it and can he hit about anything with it.
Third possibility; dad on his deathbed like before. Dad likes Junior's brother better than Junior. So he gives Junior the old Hall and gave Junior's brother the GOOD rifle. In a fit of jealousy Junior shoots his brother with the Hall breechblock, takes the good rifle and runs off to Florida with his brother's wife AND all the cattle. Thereby providing motive, dramatic tension AND incorporating both styles of rifle in the storyline.
cj.. feel free to take that theme and run with ::
Regards,
Birdwatcher
(oh yeah, Mississippis seem to have got around pretty well, by the late 1850's even some Indians had 'em).
Funny how all them surplus Hall's seem to have promptly disappeared from the face of the Earth, I can't find reference to them in civilian use anywhere, and when I do find reference, seems like nobody had anything good to say about 'em.
Case in point, this from an 1898 speech from one Major Faulkner, at the time eulogizing Terry's Texas Rangers, a Confederate cavalry outfit. After expounding at length how hard-up the Confederacy was for firearms compared to their Union counterparts, Major Faulkner has this to say about the Hall...
High praise indeed ::
OK, two possibilities; cj's character really does use an old Hall as per Clancy and loses a lot of hats and has a permanently singed hairline, furthermore he squints a lot and his family dives for cover every time he lets fly. His impaired vision also makes it difficult for him to maintain the delicate mechanism so he does it by feel, saving valuable candles (for lighting) in the process and developing kung fu fighting styles.
The other case; the character's dad comes from Tennessee Frontier stock, and had brought his battered but servicable longrifle with him to Texas, passing it on to his son with his last breath after whatever awful but dramatic fate befell him. Junior had it bored out and converted to percussion, and also cut it down so it didn't keep hitting on trees and stuff when he was riding. He loves this rifle because it was his dad's and because he himself learned to shoot with it and can he hit about anything with it.
Third possibility; dad on his deathbed like before. Dad likes Junior's brother better than Junior. So he gives Junior the old Hall and gave Junior's brother the GOOD rifle. In a fit of jealousy Junior shoots his brother with the Hall breechblock, takes the good rifle and runs off to Florida with his brother's wife AND all the cattle. Thereby providing motive, dramatic tension AND incorporating both styles of rifle in the storyline.
cj.. feel free to take that theme and run with ::
Regards,
Birdwatcher
(oh yeah, Mississippis seem to have got around pretty well, by the late 1850's even some Indians had 'em).
Guest
Birdwatcher,.... If you ever decide to write a book, I want one!! :thumbsup: ::
YMHS
rollingb
YMHS
rollingb
Laughing out loud BW!
Now the horrible truth...I have given about -- that much thought to Mr. Polk's ancestry and his relationship with his brother. (smile) I didn't even know he had one. (wink)
I just want him to have a weapon to protect himself and his wife and son and shoot the occasional disagreeable *****. I need to introduce this weapon near the beginning of the book. Mr. Polk doesn't know it yet, but he's going to die in chapter three. Consequently, his wife Ada is going to have to be able to shoot.
I want to describe the gun and it's practical use without sounding like a complete idiot. Yes, it will be carried on horse back, and a shorter weapon would be the absolute best. A multi-purpose tool for both protection and for hunting. One that can be wielded by a healthy woman of average size and build. Will it knock her on her ass? That doesn't matter. As long as she can load it, point it, and hit what she's aiming at. She can always get off the ground afterwards (grin)
I'm beginning to regret choosing the time frame of this novel as a gun was an integral part of frontier life and I don't know enough about them.
Now the horrible truth...I have given about -- that much thought to Mr. Polk's ancestry and his relationship with his brother. (smile) I didn't even know he had one. (wink)
I just want him to have a weapon to protect himself and his wife and son and shoot the occasional disagreeable *****. I need to introduce this weapon near the beginning of the book. Mr. Polk doesn't know it yet, but he's going to die in chapter three. Consequently, his wife Ada is going to have to be able to shoot.
I want to describe the gun and it's practical use without sounding like a complete idiot. Yes, it will be carried on horse back, and a shorter weapon would be the absolute best. A multi-purpose tool for both protection and for hunting. One that can be wielded by a healthy woman of average size and build. Will it knock her on her ass? That doesn't matter. As long as she can load it, point it, and hit what she's aiming at. She can always get off the ground afterwards (grin)
I'm beginning to regret choosing the time frame of this novel as a gun was an integral part of frontier life and I don't know enough about them.
Birdwatcher
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 7
cj... Fear not! Unless Polk's wife has had a sheltered upbringing somewhere, as a common woman of that time and place she will likely be familiar with a firearm. Neither will firing even a hefty charge in whatever appropriate firearm you give her knock her over or even throw her off of her aim much. If recoil does bother her, she will know enough to lessen the charge of powder. Self-reliant and tough, she will be likely be as dangerous as any man with a firearm.
Give her a rifle or a musket, or both, just be aware of the linitations of each when she has call to use it.
The Indians of Florida will surprise you, occupying a sort of cultural continuum from mostly "Indian" to mostly "White". The Seminoles were a general offshoot of the Creeks, and in Florida and Georgia most Creeks had been living in houses (sometimes mansions), kept cattle, many bred fine racehorses for sport and some even kept slaves. Although many of these "slaves", the Black Seminoles, might more correctly have been thought of as allies living in their own villages.
All except the holdout Seminoles isolate around the Everglades (culturally leaning towards the "Indian" end of the spectrum) had been forcibly removed to Oklahoma in the 1830's and '40's, some betrayed after helping the US Government fight their own people.
Expect any Indians she encounters to be thoroughly versed in firearms themselves, and by that date also armed with rifles and old muskets with nary a bow to be found. Many will speak English, many will be of mixed ancestry (White, Black or both). In fact, by that date, Indian and White living in the backwoods will have much in common materially, even those that considered themselves to be mortal enemies.
Fear not too! Folks here will be delighted to help you get through the specifics of describing the use of period firearm. Might I suggest contacting a re-enacting group in your area? I know that there are some who re-enact the Seminole Wars. Almost certanly they would be happy to show you how to load and fire a black powder firearm.
Birdwatcher
Give her a rifle or a musket, or both, just be aware of the linitations of each when she has call to use it.
The Indians of Florida will surprise you, occupying a sort of cultural continuum from mostly "Indian" to mostly "White". The Seminoles were a general offshoot of the Creeks, and in Florida and Georgia most Creeks had been living in houses (sometimes mansions), kept cattle, many bred fine racehorses for sport and some even kept slaves. Although many of these "slaves", the Black Seminoles, might more correctly have been thought of as allies living in their own villages.
All except the holdout Seminoles isolate around the Everglades (culturally leaning towards the "Indian" end of the spectrum) had been forcibly removed to Oklahoma in the 1830's and '40's, some betrayed after helping the US Government fight their own people.
Expect any Indians she encounters to be thoroughly versed in firearms themselves, and by that date also armed with rifles and old muskets with nary a bow to be found. Many will speak English, many will be of mixed ancestry (White, Black or both). In fact, by that date, Indian and White living in the backwoods will have much in common materially, even those that considered themselves to be mortal enemies.
Fear not too! Folks here will be delighted to help you get through the specifics of describing the use of period firearm. Might I suggest contacting a re-enacting group in your area? I know that there are some who re-enact the Seminole Wars. Almost certanly they would be happy to show you how to load and fire a black powder firearm.
Birdwatcher
You mean there has been a time in American history when a gun wasn't an integral part? Glad I didn't live then. :crackup: I think about everyone on this list lives by the gun. I use mine more frequently than other tools like the lawnmower or the hammer. :: I just packed the freezer with the only red meat that will come in through the door of my house for the next full year with two shots (two deer).
The problem is the year was after most of us here take an interest in firearms styles, and the region. Who shoots in Florida? :crackup: I thought the Thompson Brothers were the first white men to hunt there (after the Civil War) and they used bows to go after egret. :haha:
Now, if you want to write a book about 1780 Pennsylvania or 1790 Kentucky we can fill yer stocking.
Birdwatcher
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 7
The history of Florida IS largely overlooked by most history buffs, perhaps in part because it was so different from what American Frontier history was "supposed" to look like. After all, the whole place was run by the Spanish, then by the British, then by the Spanish again and wasn't ceded to the US until 1821. Then too the US was basically whupped in combat in the Seminole Wars, unable to win against the guerilla tactics of the Blacks and Indians despite gridding out the whole place with a series of forts, eventually prevailing largely by treachery.
Turns out too that the cowboys were mostly Indians, at least in the beginning... http://www.amelianow.com/winter00-cattle.htm and the cows weren't longhorns... http://www.kerrcenter.com/overstreet/heritage_breeds.htm (note that the surviving examples come from herds brought out West by the Choctaws). Neither were the cowboys based on the familiar Texas Vaquero style, not even all the ones in Texas...
Turns out too that the cowboys were mostly Indians, at least in the beginning... http://www.amelianow.com/winter00-cattle.htm and the cows weren't longhorns... http://www.kerrcenter.com/overstreet/heritage_breeds.htm (note that the surviving examples come from herds brought out West by the Choctaws). Neither were the cowboys based on the familiar Texas Vaquero style, not even all the ones in Texas...
Forgive me for being so long to reply. I have been mulling this all over...meantime my in-laws showed up three days early for the holidays. I don't want to say that this subject is on the back burner, but for the moment, it's merely simmering. I will be back shortly, to reread all this information.
Thanks.
CJ
Thanks.
CJ
Happy Holidays to you cjmouser and to all of your guests. :thumbsup:
I have a Mississippi Rifle that was made by Eli Whitney who was one of the sub contractors building this particular firearm. What did Eli Whitney do besides invent the cotton gin? He's the guy that came up with the concept of interchangeable parts. Before his ideas, each rifle was made one at a time, each screw, each nut and bolt were only good on that firearm. I don't know why a guy in Texas when the war started wouldn't have access to a Mississippi rifle. Maybe he got it very cheaply from a Mexican that got it off a dead soldier, or a soldier deserted and needed money and traded the rifle for a spavined horse and something to eat. There's always a way.
I have been thinking about this topic a bit. I think a Tennesee style rifle could be very appropriate. In flint or cap lock, either would be correct. You could say it was shortened for easy use on horseback or as the result of an accident if you wish. Caliber could be quite large if it was made that way, don't forget many were not squirrel guns in those days because the owner wanted a bear gun or was concerned about indians or if the barrel was freshened. If your character did any Rangering he could have acquired a better weapons as a result of that experience. In view that a Ranger's life depended on his firearm he probably would have gotten as good a gun as possible. Just a couple of random thoughts.
Birdwatcher
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 7
Just been perusing the Jan/Feb copy of "Muzzleloader" magazine, in it one Peter Alexander has an article about restoring an original 1830's era "smooth rifle", that is a .44 cal rifle originally manufactured without rifling (contradiction in terms I know).
Turns out that, in the Pennsylvania parlance of the early 19th Century gunmakers, a "gun" was a smoothbore, usually half-round half-octagon barrel. A "rifle" was a rifle, octagon barrel and rifled bore. A "smooth rifle" was a rifle without rifling, but with a full octagon barrel. All three of these gun types commonly with the front and rear sights we associate with period rifles.
From one gunsmith's ledgers, it appears that more than half the "rifles" then in use were actually "smooth rifles", and based upon the nature and frequency of repairs these smooth rifles and the smoothbore "guns" saw far more hard use than did the actual rifles. Geeze! assumming "guns" and "rifles" were produced in approximately equal numbers, as many as three quarters of the longarms in common use, at least in that particular area of Pennsylvania, may have been smoothbores.
Alexander goes on to point out the marksmanship record of American riflemen in the Revolution was actually far more spotty than is often popularly supposed, especially at ranges of around 100 yards or more. He suggests that many of those vaunted back woods "riflemen" may have actually been carrying smooth rifles.
Birwatcher
Turns out that, in the Pennsylvania parlance of the early 19th Century gunmakers, a "gun" was a smoothbore, usually half-round half-octagon barrel. A "rifle" was a rifle, octagon barrel and rifled bore. A "smooth rifle" was a rifle without rifling, but with a full octagon barrel. All three of these gun types commonly with the front and rear sights we associate with period rifles.
From one gunsmith's ledgers, it appears that more than half the "rifles" then in use were actually "smooth rifles", and based upon the nature and frequency of repairs these smooth rifles and the smoothbore "guns" saw far more hard use than did the actual rifles. Geeze! assumming "guns" and "rifles" were produced in approximately equal numbers, as many as three quarters of the longarms in common use, at least in that particular area of Pennsylvania, may have been smoothbores.
Alexander goes on to point out the marksmanship record of American riflemen in the Revolution was actually far more spotty than is often popularly supposed, especially at ranges of around 100 yards or more. He suggests that many of those vaunted back woods "riflemen" may have actually been carrying smooth rifles.
Birwatcher
Why is there so much discussion about flintlocks in the mid 1850's? The Mexican war was in 1846 and was fought with caplock arms at least on the part of the U.S. troops. Hall's were made in both rifle and carbine. They were also made in both flint and caplock. The removeable breech was use as a hide out pistol sometimes. I read somewhere that an American officer backed out of a Cantina keeping the locals covered with the breech from his Hall rifle. In 1846 there was at least one U.S. outfit that was armed with Hall's. Jefferson Davis' riflemen were armed with the cap lock Mississippi rifle that shot a .54 caliber round ball. For the civil war a bunch of these were freshened out to .58 caliber for conical bullets. Many pioneers amongst the 49er's heading for California were armed with the 1841 Mississippi -- where did they get them if their rich Uncle Sam wasn't parting with them? I saw in one post that the Indians wouldn't have had any bows. I know nothing of Florida today let alone pre Disney Land -- BUT -- I'm in the process of reading a book titled "Life in Custer's Cavalry" the Diaries and letters of Albert and Jennie Barnitz, 1867-1868. Guess what. The Indians in Kansas that Custer was fighting, Sioux, Cheyenne, Commanche etc. were armed with bows. The troopers carried the Sharps breech loader (paper cartridge) caplock carbine. The Indians had winchester repeaters as well as bows and arrows and lances. Even Indians with the repeaters also carried bows and arrows. I just finished reading about a fire fight at Fort Wallace. Sgt. Wylliams was killed and there is a very gruesome photo of his mutilated body complete with 5 "revenge" arrows stuck in him, and this is in 1867. I'm thinking that any Florida Indian in the 1850's could and probably would have a bow as well as a rifle. How do you eat if you run out of lead, powder or caps? Bows were a part of their culture and I think they wouldn't have lost that part of their culture by 1850. In 1877 the Nez Perce surrendered to Nelson Miles and were disarmed. To the surprise of the troopers guarding them, when they started down the Missouri River to bannishment in Indian Terrority the very next day the Nez Perce were out hunting with bows and arrows. The Nez Perce fought this war with firearms and amunition captured from the army but it didn't take long to have bows and arrows when they need them. Also remember, anything that can be killed for meat with a shot gun can also be killed and eaten using a rifle. However, the same can't be said going the other direction. Shotguns have limits, rifles don't have the same ones. We aren't out sport hunting shooting at flying game. If it's small game, ducks or rabbit, you use your rifle and shoot it in the head. If it's big game you get to shoot it much further away. Lehman and Tyron both were making contract rifles for the Indian trade. These rifles sold for around $7 while the Kentucky rifle was bringing between $12 and $14. So he could be armed with something surplus or stolen from the army, or one of the typical contract trade rifles or even the southern mountain rifle, and if it was a handed down old one it could still be flint, or converted to caplock, or manufactured as a caplock. There are a lot of choices, but once you head in a certain direction, then do some research at that point into the specific firearm you've chosen, because each one is a bit unique. As far as a gal shooing a large caliber. My daughter has shot my .62 caliber knock off an English sporting rifle and it never knocked her down, but she did say "wow". She owns and shoots a .45 caliber long rifle.
I forgot to say in my post that I've video taped a guy shooting a caplock Halls rifle. He didn't get any fire in his face, so at least this one doesn't leak fire from that seam. I've heard lots of talk about the fire in the face, so maybe if they are shot very often and start to wear then that happens. I guess the talk about flintlocks was in regards to the Halls fire in the face deal. I'll try and find that video and snap a still off of it of the rifle going off. The promise is I'll try. I have way too many videos, and not enough sense to have good labels on them.
Birdwatcher
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 7
Cowhand... Interesting about the Hall's, after all every revolver ever made has a chamber/barrel gap at least as great as what one would expect on a new Hall. On the other hand, Colt's revolving rifles were never well favored either despite the obvious firepower advantage over conventional 1850's era single shots. Perhaps the critical factors were the larger powder charge employed in longarms, and the proximity of the chamber-barrel gap to the face when firing.
It was me who mentioned "nary a bow". Well the fact is it ain't entirely relevant to compare the Plains Tribes to those Tribes in the Southeast, especially in the 19th Century. Plains Indians until very late in their history remained relatively remote from most of European/American material culture. Plus the serendipitous combination of the horse and the still-abundant buffalo herds allowed them to live comfortably in the relative absence of that technology.
On horseback a bow served at least as well or better than a muzzloader (repeating firearms, when they finally appeared at the very end, were avidly sought). The value of iron arrowheads being recognised early on and such were a popular article in trade. Likewise the qualities of woven cloth was appreciated over buckskin, trade blankets and capotes still being a Plains tradition recognized today. Iron pots, mirrors, cooking utensils, coffee, molasses were all available through trade and appreciated.
However hides and robes were readiliy available (and free). A hide tepee was likely superior to a canvas one. Paunches and bladders used to cook and/or carry water were more easily portable than their metal equivalents, and their next buffalo conveniently came equipped with both (a simplification here to make a point).
In the East by contrast, by at least as early as the Revolutionary War, there wasn't a whole lot of difference materially between a great many Indians and the settlers. Many Indian lived in log cabins and houses, kept livestock, planted orchards, and had access to their own smiths. Which is not to say that this material similarity implied a cultural similarity. To a large extent social structure and values remained intact, or at least conspicuously different from those on the American side of the Frontier.
Famously, by the time of Removal, the Cherokees in the Southeast had slaves, churches, livestock, schools, elected government, their own alphabet and newspapers. About fifty years prior to that time up in the Northeastern Ohio Territory, the Miami Chief Little Turtle lived in a large frame house, slept in a four poster bed, had a piano, fine furniture including a much remarked-upon large wall mirror, a multi-hole outhouse out back, and entertained guests on fine china. The main Miami town, Kekionga, had two saloons, a whorehouse, at least one blacksmith shop, several trading houses and plank sidewalks lining the main street. All of this by 1780.
Specific to the Creeks/Seminoles, to the best of my knowledge muskets and rifles were the only projectile weapons used by the Upper Creeks as early as 1813 against Jackson's mixed force of Tennesse Militia and allied Cherokees in the climactic battle of Horseshoe Bend. Certainly about thirty years later during the Second Seminole War, the accounts mention only muskets and rifles, not bows. In fact, its been awhile since I read up on it, but I seem to recall mention of the Seminoles sometimes light charges in their firearms in an effort to conserve dwindling supplies of powder.
Another interesting question is just how important hunting was to the Indians of this region as a food source by that time, especially in times of peace. Already by the beginning of the Nineteenth Century there was a long tradition of keeping livestock and, oddly enough, horses.
All of which is not to say that the Eastern tribes entirely forgot the bow (or blowguns for that matter, I was just at Tahlequah last summer, and at least a couple of Cherokees are still making and using both), just that they had apparently ceased to employ them much, if at all, in warfare.
Birdwatcher
It was me who mentioned "nary a bow". Well the fact is it ain't entirely relevant to compare the Plains Tribes to those Tribes in the Southeast, especially in the 19th Century. Plains Indians until very late in their history remained relatively remote from most of European/American material culture. Plus the serendipitous combination of the horse and the still-abundant buffalo herds allowed them to live comfortably in the relative absence of that technology.
On horseback a bow served at least as well or better than a muzzloader (repeating firearms, when they finally appeared at the very end, were avidly sought). The value of iron arrowheads being recognised early on and such were a popular article in trade. Likewise the qualities of woven cloth was appreciated over buckskin, trade blankets and capotes still being a Plains tradition recognized today. Iron pots, mirrors, cooking utensils, coffee, molasses were all available through trade and appreciated.
However hides and robes were readiliy available (and free). A hide tepee was likely superior to a canvas one. Paunches and bladders used to cook and/or carry water were more easily portable than their metal equivalents, and their next buffalo conveniently came equipped with both (a simplification here to make a point).
In the East by contrast, by at least as early as the Revolutionary War, there wasn't a whole lot of difference materially between a great many Indians and the settlers. Many Indian lived in log cabins and houses, kept livestock, planted orchards, and had access to their own smiths. Which is not to say that this material similarity implied a cultural similarity. To a large extent social structure and values remained intact, or at least conspicuously different from those on the American side of the Frontier.
Famously, by the time of Removal, the Cherokees in the Southeast had slaves, churches, livestock, schools, elected government, their own alphabet and newspapers. About fifty years prior to that time up in the Northeastern Ohio Territory, the Miami Chief Little Turtle lived in a large frame house, slept in a four poster bed, had a piano, fine furniture including a much remarked-upon large wall mirror, a multi-hole outhouse out back, and entertained guests on fine china. The main Miami town, Kekionga, had two saloons, a whorehouse, at least one blacksmith shop, several trading houses and plank sidewalks lining the main street. All of this by 1780.
Specific to the Creeks/Seminoles, to the best of my knowledge muskets and rifles were the only projectile weapons used by the Upper Creeks as early as 1813 against Jackson's mixed force of Tennesse Militia and allied Cherokees in the climactic battle of Horseshoe Bend. Certainly about thirty years later during the Second Seminole War, the accounts mention only muskets and rifles, not bows. In fact, its been awhile since I read up on it, but I seem to recall mention of the Seminoles sometimes light charges in their firearms in an effort to conserve dwindling supplies of powder.
Another interesting question is just how important hunting was to the Indians of this region as a food source by that time, especially in times of peace. Already by the beginning of the Nineteenth Century there was a long tradition of keeping livestock and, oddly enough, horses.
All of which is not to say that the Eastern tribes entirely forgot the bow (or blowguns for that matter, I was just at Tahlequah last summer, and at least a couple of Cherokees are still making and using both), just that they had apparently ceased to employ them much, if at all, in warfare.
Birdwatcher
Like I said, Pre Disney Land Florida is something I know nothing about. It's just that I'm reading that book right now, and the bows were in use at that time and place, and even much later than that out west. I'm thinking that trying to shoot a buffalo to eat using a .44 Henry didn't work near as well as a bow and arrow. No way to prove that though, and I sure might be wrong there also. Out on plains I've read about civilians and soldiers shooting buffalo with pistols. In "My Life on the Plains" Custer was chasing and shooting buffalo with his pistol, and managed to shoot his horse right between the ears. So I guess a close range (point blank) .44 Henry shot into the lungs on a stampeding buffalo would no doubt sooner or later slow it down if not kill it out right. Then after the chase ended you just had to look back and see how many were standing straddle legged and how many were on the ground dieing or dead. All I really know is I have some .44 henry cartridges, and they aint much, and it would be really interesting to know is a Henry was as good as a bow or even better for close range buffalo running. Regarding the Hall's and the colt revolver and revolving rifle. The difference here is the revolver has to be timed. It's not the gas escaping, it's the fact that if it is slightly out of time and doesn't line up properly, then a little lead is shaved off the bullet and comes out the gap, making the gun a side shooter. So if you shoot a revoling rifle and held it like a regular rifle, then you stand a chance not so much for powder burns, but lead being imbedded into your arm. Also, on the revolving rifle it was a cap lock, and if not greased properly you stood a good chance of all the cylinders going off. I've had that happen with a Colt Navy one time. I was greasing the cylinder using a tube of vaseline. Seemed reasonable, but it wasn't. First shot not only melted all the vaseline, it chain fired the entire cylinder. It got my attention for a fact, but didn't hurt the gun a bit. Not even the one that was on the bottom inside the frame. I just put some powder in the cylinder and reloaded the ball. Luckily no one was beside me when that happened, so no one got hurt, and now if I'm shooting a cap and ball revolver I use some old time really stiff water pump grease over the ball. Anyhow, with a revolving rifle you don't want your arm in front of the cylinder for any reason. On the paper cartridge breech loading sharps carbine that I owned in the distance past, there is a seal of sorts and it doesn't noticeably leak gas -- that is unless its been abused and isn't working properly which I found out was wrong the first time I shot it. After a trip to a local gun smith that works almost exclusivly on antique arms, it was a shooter with no gas leaks. As I recall it has a moveable metal seal that the pressure from the shot holds back against the breech and it does a pretty good job of sealing it. If that's allowed to rust or isn't able to move is when the sharps leaks gas. It's been so long sense I've looked at a Hall that I don't remember what they were doing to try and seal that breech, but I don't think that it's just a cut out flat across, I think it slides forward and sort of seals. If I can find those video tapes and snap some stills off of them, I'll start a new thread on the Hall's and see where it goes. Key word is find the videos, so it might not be anytime real soon.
Birdwatcher
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 7
Cowhand... I had forgotten all about the chain-fire problem and timing issue with revolvers, the prospect of losing one's forearm every time you pulled the trigger surely would be a concern.
Anyways, here's apretty good series of photos of a Hall, this one a repro from Track of the Wolf...
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/categories...partNum=AAA-354
It looks in the photos like a straight up and down pivot on that block with the breech-barrel gap angled slightly back towards the shooter.
If nothing else the photos show how much more complex these things were over a regular muzzle loader.
Birdwatcher
Anyways, here's apretty good series of photos of a Hall, this one a repro from Track of the Wolf...
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/categories...partNum=AAA-354
It looks in the photos like a straight up and down pivot on that block with the breech-barrel gap angled slightly back towards the shooter.
If nothing else the photos show how much more complex these things were over a regular muzzle loader.
Birdwatcher
Similar threads
- Locked
