Muskets in the trade

[spudnut]

Is there much or any referances of military muskets,French and/or Britsh being traded?

 

For trade to who? NDNZ didn't care for military muskets. They are to heavy in the ball and physical weight of the carrying of the musket. Generally NDNZ always asked for light muskets (fusils). Less powder and lead and a whole lot lighter to carry around.

 

[Okwaho]

Agreed,Don, I guess though that Fantasy No.3 {Bess trade guns}is making yet another appearance ad infinitum,ad nauseum.
Tom Patton

 

Cooner and Tom are right on this. Most muskets were too darned heavy and too expensive to shoot. However, there was even an attempt to make a light-weight military-looking musket for the NDN department around 1807 that looked much like a military musket with a light-weight, round, 34"x.54 cal smoothbore barrel. The gun was made by Springfield Armory and was a total failure in the NDN trade. SA made around 1000-1200 of these guns and most of them ended up in the armory at West Point used for training cadets since the NDNZ wouldn't buy them. Orders from the years following the shipments of the Springfield gun specified English-made NW guns or nothing at all. See the last chapter of Garavaglia and Worman's 'Arms of the American West 1803-1865' for a citation on this.

Sean

 

[Mike Brooks]

Not to mention muskets were the front line weapon of the day and the kings property, and expensive.

 

[J.D.]

Not to mention muskets were the front line weapon of the day and the kings property, and expensive.

But Mike, everyone knows the old muskets were traded to the NDNs. Or at least given to soldiers who mustered out of the service. It is common knowledge, after all. :bull:

Sorry 'bout that. I couldn't help myself. :winking:

 

[tg]

There was another possible twist to this also, it would not be in any countrys best interest to arm the NDNs with guns that were equal to their own, if these NDNs changed allaince they would be equally armed... not a good thing.

 

[KHickam]

So, what happened to all the muskets that were lost in the numerous defeats the British suffered 1755-57?

 

There are actually several period sources out there that talk about the eastern tribes in the early 1800's having BETTER arms than the US troops. But they were referring to rifle-guns by gunsmiths such as Dickert, Gonter, Gumpf, Gibbs, and others who contracted to build guns for the Indian Department.

Sean

 

The number of muskets lost by the Brits in battle would've been very small compared to the large numbers of trade fusils imported from England and even later on made by American manufacturers. It would be like saying that since Manuel Lisa carried a 3rd model Bess up the Missouri in 1809, such guns were a common firearm for Rocky Mountain trappers. By and large NDNZ were very specific about what they wanted in terms of firearms. If they didn't like it, it didn't sell.

Sean

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

I'll show my ignorance :surrender: ... NDN means ... ??

 

[Rebel]

NDN-Indian

 

[KHickam]

Small? A couple thousand of them. When the British left the enemy in possession of the field - you think those enemy were going to leave all that valuable equipment? A Brown Bess may not have been a preferred arm - but you can bet they preferred them to no arms at all. What about the lead, powder and other stuff - all those were valuable commodities.

I would surmise that some of those fell into the hands of people other than British soldiers?

Late in the Rev War, when Americans were left in possession of the field - what happened to all the muskets of the dead/wounded redcoats? Surely, they were not left in the field.

So, even though the equipment changes, some of it whether it was superior or not falls into enemy hands and is used until a replacement is found or something better comes along. Or is sold?

What has research of you guys shown?

 

Small? A couple thousand of them. When the British left the enemy in possession of the field

The original question was whether or not there was any documentation of military muskets being trade items. Battlefield finds are a totally different question.

First, more on scale of trade fusil availability. Literally thousands of trade fusils were imported each year. In later years when American manufacturers were finally able to compete with the English, Henry Leman alone had a contract for a single year to produce 6500 NW guns and another contract the next year for nearly that.

I am not a serious student of the F&I or Rev war eras, but I find it hard to believe that even in Braddock's defeat and retreat 'a couple thousand' functional muskets would be left laying on the battlefield. Especially since most of the troops present were militia who generally brought their own arms. Even if they were a 1000 muskets dropped here and there it would be a blip on the larger scale of fusil availability. Others may be better speculators than I on that issue, but muskets would still not be trade items even if it were the case. My interest is mostly in trade arms and mostly a later time period. I welcome speculation or documentation from others who are focused on these earlier eras.

I did find a bit more documentation on 'military type' muskets in the trade. In 1839, Henry Deringer had a Government contract for 900 'guns for Indians', all were to be of 32 gauge (~.54 smoothbore, much smaller than standard military muskets). Half of these were to have barrels of 2'10" and the rest were to be 3'10". At least some of the latter apparently used musket locks with brass pans from 1816 muskets. Of the shorter models, the only known example has a cheap British export pistol lock. The contract also specified that the short models would have sling swivels. This contract was issued on January 10, 1839 and Deringer delivered all 900 on May 27 of that same year. There are no records of similar contracts going to Deringer. Those in subsequent years specified standard NW guns. For documentation, see 'Henry Deringer's Guns for Indians' in the Museum of the Fur Trade Quarterly, 1967, volume 3, #4, pages 5-9.

Sean

 

[J.D.]

but I find it hard to believe that even in Braddock's defeat and retreat 'a couple thousand' functional muskets would be left laying on the battlefield. Especially since most of the troops present were militia who generally brought their own arms. Sean

Most troops under Braddock were militia? You might want to do a little more research.

It has been quite some time since I have read about Braddock's troop numbers, but to my memory there were few, if any, militia.

There were some scouts and spies, including 8 NDN's. The Virginia Regiment was present, provincial regulars from Va, who were uniformed and armed by the commonwealth, but few, if any, militia. The rest of the command consisted of Brit regulars.

Now to the question of what happened to all of those captured weapons. I do know that some of the artillery captured from Braddock found its way to Niagara, and possibly other french forts, but what about the small arms?

I vaguely remember reading some blurb about a number of captured Brit muskets in the french armory at Louisburg when it fell to the Brits.

Has anyone found any documentation as to the disposition of captured small arms?


J.D.

 

Most troops under Braddock were militia? You might want to do a little more research.

Figured I'd say something wrong there that would get someone going. Like I said F&I is not my thing, but it doesn't change the rest of what I said. Issue muskets were not trade items. Trade guns with musket parts were not favored by the tribes.

Sean

 

[tg]

"There are actually several period sources out there that talk about the eastern tribes in the early 1800's having BETTER arms than the US troops'

My comment would go back mush earler when military arms were measured by their size of ball or capability for buck and ball and bayonet, one side would be considered at a disadvantgae if armed with undersized bored guns without paper cartridge capability or bayonet usage, this is where the thought that the European countries were quite contentnot to trade or sell arms equal to their own to the natives who were at times were fickle as to who their friend were, this is mentioned in some research writings as a plausible attitude at the time but I do not recall the souirce.

 

[KHickam]

Sean - So, when you say the Trade - you are talking specific trade muskets made up for trade. In that, you could be correct.

I was talking about guns making it into the trade from foreign powers or natives. How much was a Brown Bess in good condition worth? Now, hypothetically you are a native/french militiaman. You have a fine fusil de chasse, fusil fin or other gun you are very happy with.

But, after the battle is over the enemy leaves the field and there are lots of Brown Besses lying on the field - you gonna leave them there?

Modern day terms - there is a field full of $50 bills - you gonna leave them there?

Or you are the French army left in possession of the field - your muskets are nominally .69 cal - the Bess is nominally .75 caliber. Obviously, for continuity you are not going to arm your troops with two different caliber guns unless you have no choice - the logistics is a nightmare.

It is just common sense they would pick up the arms and either destroy them (to prevent them from falling into enemy hands again). Or perhaps sell them to recoup some of the costs of fighting a war - and perhaps you might arm your allies in order to have a more effective fighting force.

Do I have any historical documentation to back this up - NO.

 

TG,

You are likely right on changing views over time.

KH,

No offense, but I think this is really trying to prove a point based on conjecture and are using 'trade' in the wrong sense. If you want to put a Brown Bess or Charleville in NDN hands during the period, I see no problem with that. It could have happened and likely did at some point, but realize the relative availability of muskets and the NDN preference for lighter, smaller bored fusils demonstrated in period literature. Also realize that large scale battles were rare events compared to small skirmishes with settlers who were not armed with King's muskets. In short, just don't think of it as an everyday common thing, and be careful with further speculation that turns these muskets into sawed off 'riot guns'. Speculation is fun, but it should not replace research of period literature and documented collections.

Sean

 

[KHickam]

:bow: I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of the 18th century than mine. :surrender: