"Ketland & Co." & "UNITED STATES" marked musket

[Wes/Tex]

Another one from the Smithsonian...maybe it'll gen up as much controversy as the Newtown musket. This one looks post-1800 but not sure about what, when or who. Any thoughts? :wink:
http://nmnh.typepad.com/.a/6a01156e4c2c3d970c01bb08c2c0a9970d-800wi

Probably militia but that's a wide swath.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Oh fudge...just didn't look long enough. Now I'm finding that it's an English made Indian Trade Gun built for U.S. military contractors in the 1820's fur trade... made in Pennsylvania at about that time and of .60 caliber. Think the "made in England" part must refer to the Ketland lock though they weren't specific. Just when I thought I'd found a puzzle!

 

[Artificer]

Very intriguing. Would not have thought to see sling swivels on a trade gun, even if provided by the Military.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

BTW, I like the drop on that gun. Being from PA also explains the trigger guard.

Gus

 

[plmeek]

There is a very similar gun illustrated on page 370 of George Moller's American Military Shoulder Arms, Vol. II. The caption with the picture says its from the James M. Wertenberger Collection.

It isn't marked as to maker, but has a Ketland lock. Moller attributes it to federal procurement for the Indians circa 1795-1803.

The gun in Moller's book has octagon to round barrel and sling swivels.

The lock is thought to be one of the 3,000 Ketland rifle locks that Tench Francis ordered through the Ketland's Philadelphia branch in 1795.

Sling swivels for an Indian trade gun are unusual, but two different sources with similar guns are saying the same thing.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Whatever it is, I think it is a nice looking gun, especially for a cheapie of the day.

 

[Artificer]

There is a very similar gun illustrated on page 370 of George Moller's American Military Shoulder Arms, Vol. II. The caption with the picture says its from the James M. Wertenberger Collection.

It isn't marked as to maker, but has a Ketland lock. Moller attributes it to federal procurement for the Indians circa 1795-1803.

The gun in Moller's book has octagon to round barrel and sling swivels.

The lock is thought to be one of the 3,000 Ketland rifle locks that Tench Francis ordered through the Ketland's Philadelphia branch in 1795.

Sling swivels for an Indian trade gun are unusual, but two different sources with similar guns are saying the same thing.

Thank you for that information. This is even more intriguing, if not downright puzzling, that the contract gun you mentioned also had sling swivels.

OK, this is pure speculation on my part, but why would the U.S. Government have paid the extra money for sling swivels on these guns and especially when the NA's were well used to trade guns without sling swivels? I can't see how the added expense of those sling swivels was justified, especially at a time the U.S. Government did not have a lot of money to spend, to put the swivels on guns that theretofore had never "needed" them?

Perhaps the contract dates of 1795-1803 may give us some clue? During this period the two national Armories at Springfield,MA and Harpers Ferry, VA were just recently in new production and/or still getting things set up. They were not yet making a whole lot of guns and no where near the quantity of arms necessary for the State Militia's.

I wonder if these trade guns were specified to have sling swivels in case the guns may have been needed to Arm the Militia in an emergency, instead of being given to the NA's?

Gus

 

[plmeek]

Thank you for that information. This is even more intriguing, if not downright puzzling, that the contract gun you mentioned also had sling swivels.

OK, this is pure speculation on my part, but why would the U.S. Government have paid the extra money for sling swivels on these guns and especially when the NA's were well used to trade guns without sling swivels? I can't see how the added expense of those sling swivels was justified, especially at a time the U.S. Government did not have a lot of money to spend, to put the swivels on guns that theretofore had never "needed" them?

I wonder if these trade guns were specified to have sling swivels in case the guns may have been needed to Arm the Militia in an emergency, instead of being given to the NA's?

Gus

I think you may be onto something with your last sentence.

There are instances when military guns were taken out of the Schuylkill Arsenal and given to Indians (like the 1792 contract rifles) and other times Indian guns from Schuylkill Arsenal were given to military units (like during the War of 1812).

These guns could have been made for the Indians with no sling swivels, but not issued. When the need arose to arm military units, some of the Indian guns could have been retrofitted with sling swivels and issued to a militia or volunteer unit.

Phil

 

[Wes/Tex]

You two may be on to something....hadn't considered that option but it may be the answer! The War of 1812 caught everyone over confident and under armed...then when they got to Canada, most of the militia wouldn't cross the line. Believe I see the major problem with the militia system as originally set up. :wink:

 

[Artificer]

These guns could have been made for the Indians with no sling swivels, but not issued. When the need arose to arm military units, some of the Indian guns could have been retrofitted with sling swivels and issued to a militia or volunteer unit.

Phil

Yes, that is even more plausible that the guns originally were contracted for/came without sling swivels, but were retro fitted with them for issue to Militia groups.

WesTex,

Back in the late 70's, we reenacted Brush's Company of Ohio Independent Militia for War of 1812 reenacting. We did so because the uniform was so cheap compared to other period uniforms. It was a simple linen hunting shirt (though different from AWI style) linen trousers and a black hat. The belts, shoulder slings for bayonets and cartridge pouches were all black leather and the cartridge pouches were a simple pattern-so I made all of them for our unit.

Anyway, Brush's Company "main claim to fame" was they were cattle drovers who were driving cattle up to supply American General Hull's Army. However, Hull managed to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory before they caught up the Army or even got to the Canadian border. So they turned around and came home.

Gus

 

[Wes/Tex]

However, Hull managed to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory before they caught up the Army or even got to the Canadian border. So they turned around and came home.

Gus

Lot of that happened early on then! :wink:

 

[Feltwad]

Enclosed are images of a sxs flintlock sporting gun by Ketland & Co London
Feltwad

 

[Wes/Tex]

Don't think I've seen a double flinter with octagon-to-round barrels before. Those old Ketland boys were pretty talented builders! :thumbsup:

 

[Feltwad]

Don't think I've seen a double flinter with octagon-to-round barrels before. Those old Ketland boys were pretty talented builders! :thumbsup:

Notice where the octagon to round at the balustrade turn
Feltwad

 

[Wes/Tex]

Could see it with the wedding ring in the first pic but this close up is even better. Am I ever jealous. That's a beauty. Just adjusting and setting that rib in is enough to give me a headache! :wink: Thanks again...that's an amazing piece. :thumbsup: