Is anyone familiar with Larry’s type d trade gun kit. If so how close to the originals are they.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Larry Zornes (Mold And Gun Shop) type d trade gun
- Thread starter JCB
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Cruzatte
50 Cal.
If the lock pictured on the Muzzleloader Builder's Supply web site is any indication, probably not at all like the originals. Pictured are Germanic locks that resemble the R.E. Davis Jaeger lock. This is patently not the lock the French were using.
The other thing I take issue with is there's no such thing as a Type D trade gun. Never was. What you see in the ledgers, contracts, and other 18th century documents are terms like fusil fin, fusil demi-fin, fusil a l'ancre, fusil de chasse, fusil a la façon etc.
Now out of print unfortunately, Kevin Gladysz's book The French Trade Gun in North America 1662-1759 attempted to put to end this type C, D, nonsense.
If you want a reasonably accurate reproduction French gun, get Track of the Wolf's Fusil de Chasse parts set. Or else have some one like Alex Efremenko who knows what he's doing build you a French gun.
The other thing I take issue with is there's no such thing as a Type D trade gun. Never was. What you see in the ledgers, contracts, and other 18th century documents are terms like fusil fin, fusil demi-fin, fusil a l'ancre, fusil de chasse, fusil a la façon etc.
Now out of print unfortunately, Kevin Gladysz's book The French Trade Gun in North America 1662-1759 attempted to put to end this type C, D, nonsense.
If you want a reasonably accurate reproduction French gun, get Track of the Wolf's Fusil de Chasse parts set. Or else have some one like Alex Efremenko who knows what he's doing build you a French gun.
As long as I have been at this game, I had never heard of those letter designations for barrels until I joined this forum. It is confusing. What is wrong with stating barrel configurations in inches and weight?
C and D in reference to French trade guns has nothing to do with current swamped barrel configurations.
TM Hamilton researched early French trade guns and used archaeological specimens (dug up parts) quite a bit. He was a pioneer in researching these guns and divvied them up as best he could, trying to understand which parts went together, looking at the few available remaining intact originals.
For the sake of being able to discuss easily, he proposed types of French trade guns and gave them arbitrary letter designations.
We’ve learned more since then but all built in his foundation. Criticizing it is like criticizing The Kentucky Rifle in its Golden Age by Kindig. “Better” resources that are more up to date all rest on that foundation.
However, those designations Hamilton proposed are outdated but relying on Track’s kits as a real resource for historical accuracy is an endeavor in relativism.
TM Hamilton researched early French trade guns and used archaeological specimens (dug up parts) quite a bit. He was a pioneer in researching these guns and divvied them up as best he could, trying to understand which parts went together, looking at the few available remaining intact originals.
For the sake of being able to discuss easily, he proposed types of French trade guns and gave them arbitrary letter designations.
We’ve learned more since then but all built in his foundation. Criticizing it is like criticizing The Kentucky Rifle in its Golden Age by Kindig. “Better” resources that are more up to date all rest on that foundation.
However, those designations Hamilton proposed are outdated but relying on Track’s kits as a real resource for historical accuracy is an endeavor in relativism.
plmeek
40 Cal.
I agree with Rich, up to a point.
What he says about TM Hamilton research is correct.
But we still have a big gap tying names researchers have found in period documents to the archaeological evidence and even surviving specimens.
Case in point, the documents list the fusil de chasse as one of the most common guns the French shipped to New France. But the parts of what is commonly called the fusil de chasse today is almost absent in the archeological record. There are more surviving intact rifles than there are parts of that model found in archeological excavations. For a gun that was supposedly brought to North America in such large numbers over such a long period, that makes no sense.
For this and other reasons, some modern researchers believe that what Hamilton classified as the Type D may be what the period documents are referring to as the fusil de chasse.
The period documents do not describe any of the various guns in sufficient detail to match them up with archeological parts or surviving guns. For this reason, using classifications such as those that Hamilton came up with still makes a lot of sense and is far from outdated.
By the way, Hamilton's Type G and the term "Carolina" gun is a similar situation. The word "Carolina" gun has been found only three times in historical documents and none of them describe the gun in any detail.
Lee Burke is stretching it to link an 1855 and 1815 references from English proof documents to a gun that hadn't been proofed in more than a half century in one case and a full century in the other. We really have no idea what the writers meant by "Carolina" gun other than a trade gun of some type.
Phil Meek
What he says about TM Hamilton research is correct.
But we still have a big gap tying names researchers have found in period documents to the archaeological evidence and even surviving specimens.
Case in point, the documents list the fusil de chasse as one of the most common guns the French shipped to New France. But the parts of what is commonly called the fusil de chasse today is almost absent in the archeological record. There are more surviving intact rifles than there are parts of that model found in archeological excavations. For a gun that was supposedly brought to North America in such large numbers over such a long period, that makes no sense.
For this and other reasons, some modern researchers believe that what Hamilton classified as the Type D may be what the period documents are referring to as the fusil de chasse.
The period documents do not describe any of the various guns in sufficient detail to match them up with archeological parts or surviving guns. For this reason, using classifications such as those that Hamilton came up with still makes a lot of sense and is far from outdated.
By the way, Hamilton's Type G and the term "Carolina" gun is a similar situation. The word "Carolina" gun has been found only three times in historical documents and none of them describe the gun in any detail.
Lee Burke is stretching it to link an 1855 and 1815 references from English proof documents to a gun that hadn't been proofed in more than a half century in one case and a full century in the other. We really have no idea what the writers meant by "Carolina" gun other than a trade gun of some type.
Phil Meek
I think Einstein said that first.
:rotf:Phil, you’re more of a scholar than I in this area. I think one challenge is we expect consistency and specificity in period accounts, so that “fusil de chasse “ wherever and whenever the phrase is found in period accounts, corresponds exactly to (for example) a plain, iron mounted French trade gun with such and such style lock, a barrel of approximately 20-24 ga, near 46” in length, and costing the importer/trading company Y livres.
It seems more likely to me that styles changed over 100 years or more, people were aware of it, and the terms therefore meant different things over time. Like “car” or “Jeep” or “Refrigerator” meant something different in 1940 than they do today.
The challenge for the builder of historical arms and the collector of original arms, to categorize and explain the historical context of their re-creation or original gun.
Meanwhile for simplicity’s sake, vendors classify their offerings and folks accept that their offerings represent a model that existed across time and space, unchanged.
It seems more likely to me that styles changed over 100 years or more, people were aware of it, and the terms therefore meant different things over time. Like “car” or “Jeep” or “Refrigerator” meant something different in 1940 than they do today.
The challenge for the builder of historical arms and the collector of original arms, to categorize and explain the historical context of their re-creation or original gun.
Meanwhile for simplicity’s sake, vendors classify their offerings and folks accept that their offerings represent a model that existed across time and space, unchanged.
Educational thread, gentlemen. Thanks for your posts.
plmeek
40 Cal.
I agree 100%, Rich.
Your mention of a refrigerator is a great analogy. My parents grew up in the Great Depression. When I grew up in the 50's and 60's, we called the refrigerator an "ice box" because back in the day, folks used to have an insulated box that they put a block of ice in to keep dairy products and other items cool. I still sometimes call our refrigerator the "ice box" without thinking.
I don't know who first assigned the term fusil de chasse to the "plain, iron mounted French trade gun with such and such style lock, a barrel of approximately 20-24 ga, near 46” in length", but Russel Bouchard made the connection in his book The Fusil de Tulle in New France, 1691-1741 copyrighted in 1980. I suspect some collectors quickly latched onto it, and the various firms that sell kits always like to have a marketing angle. It doesn't matter if it is correct or not.
Kevin Gladysz in his book The French Trade Gun in North America did a wonderful job of reviewing historical documents and organizing and classifying references and names of guns he found in those documents.
Gladysz cites a letter, circa 1710, that compares the fusil de chasse to the marine musket.
It is interesting that he, and probably others before him, associated the fusil a l'ancre with surviving guns and archeological artifacts that have an anchor engraved or stamped on the lock. But, he didn't use the same logic to link the fusil de chasse to the guns and artifacts that have a hunting scene such as a hound chasing a stag engraved on the side plate. Why not?
Symbolism and imagery were very important in past European cultures. They weren't engraved on guns purely as a whim. If the image of an anchor was used to designate a fusil a l'ancre, then it follows logic, that an image of a hunting scene was used to designate a fusil de chasse.
Phil
Your mention of a refrigerator is a great analogy. My parents grew up in the Great Depression. When I grew up in the 50's and 60's, we called the refrigerator an "ice box" because back in the day, folks used to have an insulated box that they put a block of ice in to keep dairy products and other items cool. I still sometimes call our refrigerator the "ice box" without thinking.
I don't know who first assigned the term fusil de chasse to the "plain, iron mounted French trade gun with such and such style lock, a barrel of approximately 20-24 ga, near 46” in length", but Russel Bouchard made the connection in his book The Fusil de Tulle in New France, 1691-1741 copyrighted in 1980. I suspect some collectors quickly latched onto it, and the various firms that sell kits always like to have a marketing angle. It doesn't matter if it is correct or not.
Kevin Gladysz in his book The French Trade Gun in North America did a wonderful job of reviewing historical documents and organizing and classifying references and names of guns he found in those documents.
- fusil de chasse
- fusil de Saint-Etienne
- fusil de traite
- fusil a l'ancre
- fusil fin and demi-fin
- fusil de façon, demi-façon and fusil de maitre
Gladysz cites a letter, circa 1710, that compares the fusil de chasse to the marine musket.
This is probably the best description he found. But the same could be said when comparing any civilian arm to its military counter part. It doesn't say anything about the type and style of mounts or the type of decoration, if any.
It is interesting that he, and probably others before him, associated the fusil a l'ancre with surviving guns and archeological artifacts that have an anchor engraved or stamped on the lock. But, he didn't use the same logic to link the fusil de chasse to the guns and artifacts that have a hunting scene such as a hound chasing a stag engraved on the side plate. Why not?
Symbolism and imagery were very important in past European cultures. They weren't engraved on guns purely as a whim. If the image of an anchor was used to designate a fusil a l'ancre, then it follows logic, that an image of a hunting scene was used to designate a fusil de chasse.
Phil
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2016
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 491
I am by no means able to answer the question Of authenticity to the original, but I have done business with Larry and he and his products are top notch. He rebuilt a lot lock for me in tuned it for a price that was way more than fair! I had enough left over that I bought a replacement lock for my northwest trade guy that was pretty much a drop in fit for the old Lott lock That I’ve been desperately trying to replace. His locks are strong tuned perfectly and produce tons of Sparks! So you might not be getting it perfect replica but I will say you’re getting a amazing product for a great price his kit pricing is very reasonable and Larry is great to work with! Give him a call and he will talk to you like you have known each other for years, he is so polite and will answer any question. Hope this helps and good luck!
Fun topic. The more I learn about trade guns the less I know.
alex efremenko
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2010
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 2
The fusil de chasse as guns from tulle were of a military nature. Thier hardware bares resemblance to military arms. Think a sporterized military gun. The anchor marked guns and others were civilian arms.
Once in New France,they could all be had for a price.
New France was administered by the Dept of the Marine (Navy)
The anchor marked was a marking denoting it came in thru such.
Higher grade guns were brought over,(master made guns,ECT) and used as gifts to natives.
Kevin's book details and documents much of this
The lock on the m &g fusil is incorrect,
Once in New France,they could all be had for a price.
New France was administered by the Dept of the Marine (Navy)
The anchor marked was a marking denoting it came in thru such.
Higher grade guns were brought over,(master made guns,ECT) and used as gifts to natives.
Kevin's book details and documents much of this
The lock on the m &g fusil is incorrect,
tenngun said:
The greater my need becomes :hmm:
tenngun said:
that's how I feel. If it sparks and goes bang, I'm happy. :wink:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
FOR SALE Investarm Lyman Cabelas in .45 Hawken rifle with peep sights
- Latest: Kicking&Screaming
-
-
-
-
