Longhunters with smoothbores?

[tenngun]

In the thread on percussion vs flint on the plains section a good quote about arms recovered from freebooters on the plains in the 1830s records a lot of smoothbores in the inventory. The common quote about canidians reaching for smoothies vs americans reaching for rifles. This was later then the long hunter times, but it shows that after rifles became popular smooties were still common. Keep in mind that 'cheap' factory made smoohties were avalible, but rifles were made from gunsmith and apprentice made guns. Every advantage mentioned above for rifles counts for thought, we have to keep in mind how wasteful small game and shot would be on the frontier. 70 grains and a and ounce of shot for 1 rabbit and one meal, vs same wt for 1 deer and dozens of meals. But we see a lot of shot and precast ball and shot being sold in to the frontier....was it all just going to Indians and French?...keep in mind I like smoothies so my outlook can be tainted.

 

[Artificer]

But we see a lot of shot and precast ball and shot being sold in to the frontier....was it all just going to Indians and French?...keep in mind I like smoothies so my outlook can be tainted.

In the book "Colonial Frontier Guns" by T.M. Hamilton, it states that most or the majority of ball and shot that was supplied to the Native Americans came from France and not England up through most of the 18th century. This from period records and the fact the French brought it down from Canada or up through the Mississippi river. There was a tremendous amount of "already cast" ball and shot they inventoried and ordered each year. The Mississippi river allowed far easier transport than the English bringing shot on pack animals over the mountains in the East. It also mentions that some of that ball and shot was traded to English Traders on the Frontier.

Such a large amount of ball and shot recorded, suggests many smoothbores in the hands of NA's, BUT there is no way to make that a fully documented statement. I do not know if rifles traded to NA's always came with molds as they did to European Settlers. OR, if rifles were captured from the Europeans, the NA's may not have gotten the mold for it and had to rely on picking out the closest sized cast balls they could get from the traders.

Gus

 

[J.D.]

I have read a good bit about Morgan's hired hunters, and based on memory, as I don't feel like digging out my notes. Morgan's hunters were company men, who bought supplies on credit from Morgan's company, for the upcoming hunting trip. The hunters traveled up the Ohio and tributaries, in boats, think keel boats, loaded with casks of supplies, including ammunition. If I remember correctly, ammunition was drawn on a hunter's account, in the field, as the company clerk kept track of supplies drawn, and hides returned for shipment back to Kaskaskia.

The used, but still usable gear, guns and what not, were returned to Morgan's store, at the end of the hunt, and the hunters paid, in cash and supplies, after their tab had been paid off.

I seem to remember that smoothbores were common, early on, but the hunters began to use rifles, later in the period.

One must remember that Morgans hunters were company men, hunting for hire in the central to western Ohio valley. While the gear used by Morgan's hunters was similar to the gear used by the longhunters from the Yadkin Valley, they were two distinct different goups of people from completely different areas, with similar motives, but with different means of travel, and different mindset, in that Morgan hired hunters, skinners, and camp keepers, overseen by a company clerk. The groups of hunters from the Yadkin valley, for example, traveled by horse, in small groups, and were on their own for six months to a year, or more. The eastern hunters, were more prone to being killed, and, or having their skins and gear stolen. However they did not have to submit to the scrutiny of a company clerk nor did the eastern hunters have extra supplies close by, in the boats.

We must also remember that the game was not overly afraid of the hunters, as they had little or no prior experience, with human contact. What this means is, most shooting was done at close range, even in the east, so much less expensive smooth bores were not a liability, for the hunters. I suspect that as game became more wary, rifles might have become more common.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

If one wants to portray or emulate a persona you need to first define time period, the location and person.

A Voyageur from the 1830s is far different than the 1730's.

As to the original question, it is my understanding that those spending time in the wilderness would have some sort of spare firearm.

 

[Dphar]

I have read a good bit about Morgan's hired hunters, and based on memory, as I don't feel like digging out my notes. Morgan's hunters were company men, who bought supplies on credit from Morgan's company, for the upcoming hunting trip. The hunters traveled up the Ohio and tributaries, in boats, think keel boats, loaded with casks of supplies, including ammunition. If I remember correctly, ammunition was drawn on a hunter's account, in the field, as the company clerk kept track of supplies drawn, and hides returned for shipment back to Kaskaskia.

The used, but still usable gear, guns and what not, were returned to Morgan's store, at the end of the hunt, and the hunters paid, in cash and supplies, after their tab had been paid off.

I seem to remember that smoothbores were common, early on, but the hunters began to use rifles, later in the period.

One must remember that Morgans hunters were company men, hunting for hire in the central to western Ohio valley. While the gear used by Morgan's hunters was similar to the gear used by the longhunters from the Yadkin Valley, they were two distinct different goups of people from completely different areas, with similar motives, but with different means of travel, and different mindset, in that Morgan hired hunters, skinners, and camp keepers, overseen by a company clerk. The groups of hunters from the Yadkin valley, for example, traveled by horse, in small groups, and were on their own for six months to a year, or more. The eastern hunters, were more prone to being killed, and, or having their skins and gear stolen. However they did not have to submit to the scrutiny of a company clerk nor did the eastern hunters have extra supplies close by, in the boats.

We must also remember that the game was not overly afraid of the hunters, as they had little or no prior experience, with human contact. What this means is, most shooting was done at close range, even in the east, so much less expensive smooth bores were not a liability, for the hunters. I suspect that as game became more wary, rifles might have become more common.

However, the smoothbores of the time were not all that accurate and the smaller bore rifle could be used for head shots where as the smoothbore is not really capable of this. Then again it's the price of ammo. Even a 50 caliber rifle uses about 1/2 the lead a 20 bore SB will. A 44 is perfectly capable of killing deer and bear and uses even less lead than the 50. Thinking that rifles were not in use early is also an error. The governor of New York wrote in 1688 that a militia force he raised was 500 foot and 50 riflemen and 800 natives. But now people will try to tell us that rifles were unknown in New England before the American Revolution even though there is evidence to the contrary. The Moravian Gunshop at Christian Springs listed virtually no smoothbores or smoothbore parts in the inventories until just prior to the American Revolution. But my info may be limited since its from the book cited in a previous post.
Along streams and large lakes where waterfowl were the game the shotgun was far more useful. But in Kentucky there was little use for the thing in market hunting and certainly more disadvantages than advantages. Still its impossible to get inside these people's heads and find out why they did what they did. We have enough trouble with details of the things we know they were doing.
It was serious business and missing a shot was not an option. Especially if the target could run up and split your skull before you could reload.

Dan

 

[LongrifleDoc]

What is a "smooth rifle"?

 

[Wes/Tex]

Generally they are pieces made just like a flintlock rifle, most with sights, but with smooth bores. Some originals are obviously rifles whose bores were worn out and polished smooth to use as is. Some were built that way when ranges would be shorter or for economy.

colonial style with .62 bore
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Archive/imgArchive/aal-132_1.jpg

southern style with .50 bore
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Archive/imgArchive/aal-719_1.jpg

 

[LongrifleDoc]

Excellent explanation. Thank you.

 

[tenngun]

Some of this is an artifact of the way we look on history today. We speak of long hunters or mountain men and over the mountain men or settlers or courier de bouis as if they are all in a category, on their own. Look at Boone. Wagon master, long hunter, settler, town mangenstrate, even plainsman, and military experience. A voyager may quit the company and try some trading on his own and return to the boats in lean times, or visa-versa. Kenton was robbed as a young man and barely escaped, and had to restock himself. This happened a lot all over the frontier. Such a person would restock with the first gun he could lay his hands on. Even without being robbed gunstocks broke and a handy replacement was needed.

 

[J.D.]

However, the smoothbores of the time were not all that accurate and the smaller bore rifle could be used for head shots where as the smoothbore is not really capable of this. Then again it's the price of ammo. Even a 50 caliber rifle uses about 1/2 the lead a 20 bore SB will. A 44 is perfectly capable of killing deer and bear and uses even less lead than the 50.Dan

Why would the smoothbores of that day be less accurate than the modern fusee. Many fusees were equipped with rear sights. Crude as many of those rear sighs were, they were still very usable.Even considering the relative inconsistency in bore diameters of that day, smooth bores can be very accurate, properly loaded.

I know people who can consistently break charcoal briquets, at 25 yards, shooting smoothbores, with NO rear sight. So why wouldn't that kind of accuracy be possible with a period piece?

I also remember reading that NDNs kept smoothbores specially for warfare, because they were more easily reloaded with fouled bores, than rifles, rendering the fussee more reliable in a fight. The fusee was also faster to reload.

Thinking that rifles were not in use early is also an error. The governor of New York wrote in 1688 that a militia force he raised was 500 foot and 50 riflemen and 800 natives. But now people will try to tell us that rifles were unknown in New England before the American Revolution even though there is evidence to the contrary. The Moravian Gunshop at Christian Springs listed virtually no smoothbores or smoothbore parts in the inventories until just prior to the American Revolution. But my info may be limited since its from the book cited in a previous post.
Along streams and large lakes where waterfowl were the game the shotgun was far more useful. But in Kentucky there was little use for the thing in market hunting and certainly more disadvantages than advantages. Still its impossible to get inside these people's heads and find out why they did what they did. We have enough trouble with details of the things we know they were doing.

Dan

I'm quite aware that rifles were probably much more common, depending on time and place, than most moderns are aware of.

I am aware of the remains of the iron mounted rifle found in an archeological site dated to 1741. I have also read a number of references of NDNs carrying rifles and braces of pistols tucked into their belts, pre-Rev War, so yes, rifles... and pistols were more common than many like to think.

I suspect you are succumbing to the modern thought that all fusees were of 20 bore, or larger? Like rifles, fusses could be had in smaller bores too.

It was serious business and missing a shot was not an option. Especially if the target could run up and split your skull before you could reload.Dan

Yes, it was serious business, but again, I suspect your are thinking like a modern, in ignoring that either a smooth bore or rifle can be loaded with a bare ball, in a pinch, and still retain enough accuracy, especially in a fouled bore, to make head shots at 20-40 yards, with more than a little consistency. At least that has been my experience.

Some of my friends can fire four shots a minute, bare balling either a rifle or smoothbore, and make good hits, up to 30 yards, on a "kill zone" torso target. That is a shot, and most often a hit, every 15 seconds.

I can consistently fire three well aimed shots a minute, with either. So, my experience suggests that it's a toss-up, as to which style of firelock might be best suited to the frontier.

 

[ncmtmike]

Well from someone who lives in the original Yadkin Valley area,and spends a great deal of time out hunting & trekking,I have found one reason you all fail to recognize in the Smoothbore VS Rifle debate.
My rifle weighs in just shy of 10#,my Smoothbore a pinch over 6#. For many days of walking/tracking guess which I choose to carry :wink: plus I've never had over a 30 yd shot in 40+ yrs.
Just a little food for thought. :2

 

[tenngun]

I like them smoothies and feel they were alot more in use on the frontier then we creadit them today. How ever as Devils advocate I have to say first growth forest was freer of undergrowth then our woods today. Did the real life Saketts have a lot more call for 100 yard plus shots then we do in the woods today?
Still From the start Indian trade till the comming of suppository guns lots of smoothies continued to flow west.

 

[Major Tim]

Great point Mike!

Now I really want a smoothie!