Native American 1812 era Brown Bess?

[MStriebel]

Hi All,

I recently purchased from a collector a 3rd. Model Brown Bess rifle that he had in his collection since the 1980s, when he purchased it from a gun show in New York state.

Because the musket has the original “swan’s neck” rather than the later reinforced cock design, the musket had to have been manufactured sometime between 1797 to 1808. The musket has the Tower marking as well as proof markings of a musket issued under the Ordnance System to British troops. The musket is adorned with square shanked brass tacks of the period as was common decoration among Native Americans of the time.

I have found records showing a lot of muskets were issued by the British to Native Americans from 1813 onward during the war. However, I cannot find much hard evidence for arms being issued in large numbers by the British to Native Americans before then. I know William Henry Harrison said he found large numbers of British weapons after defeating Tecumseh's brother's forces at the Battle of Tippecanoe, but all the Canadian/British sources I find claim they never issued large amount of weapons until the war started.

Do any of you know of any stories or records that might tie a British military musket made well before the War of 1812 to Native American use?

Thanks,

Matt




screenshot utility windows

 

[pargent]

It's a smoothbore not a rifle !The tacs were most likely added long after 1815.
When the British supplied arms to native forces it was always with substandard muskets,ie. old ,used and most of the time with repaired captured muskets (old French muskets ).

 

[Toomuch51]

One compelling explanation would be a cut down Bess used by a colonial militia during the war (either Revolution or 1812) and later traded to a local indian during the fur trade era.

Toomuch
..............
Shoot Flint

 

[54ball]

One compelling explanation would be a cut down Bess used by a colonial militia during the war (either Revolution or 1812) and later traded to a local indian during the fur trade era.

Toomuch
..............
Shoot Flint

Impossible for the Revolution as it is a Third Model. Any number of stories could be made up about it but it would be just that, made up stories.

It is what it is, a Third Model Bess with brass tacks on it. Since antique tacks can be found today , it's anyone's guess when and who applied them.

Do any of you know of any stories or records that might tie a British military musket made well before the War of 1812 to Native American use?

In June 1814 the British built Fort Prospect on a bluff overlooking the Apalachicola River in Spanish Florida east of Pensacola. This force is said to have included 10,000 muskets and a force of Royal Marines to arm and train native forces for the up coming Gulf Coast Campaign.

There are reports of Creek Indians armed with British muskets on the Georgia Frontier in late 1814.

The British abandoned Fort Prospect in the Spring of 1815 and then it became known as the Negro Fort and eventually Fort Gadsden after the Negro Fort was destroyed in 1818 by US forces in the First Seminole War.

 

[pargent]

Around 1792-1815 there was a bit of a side show going on and the British just couldn't get enough muskets to arm their troops, so any supposition that an India pattern was given away is B/S .

 

[Rod Lassey]

The bulk of the arms given to the Natives around the time of the War of 1812 were standard trade gun or North West gun patterns. The Indians did not like to use the heavy military muskets--too heavy, too large of a caliber, and used up too much powder & lead.

There were other arms gifted, chief's grade and rifles, but the common NW gun made up the vast majority of arms.

Rod

 

[MStriebel]

54ball,

Thanks for the information on Ft. Prospect. That is a bit of history of which I was never aware. While that history probably has little to do with this particular musket, but I would like to learn more about it.

Do you have any books to recommend on Ft. Prospect that you may have read in the past?

 

[MStriebel]

Phil,

Your point is taken on the incorrect usage of rifle for musket. I am well aware of the difference but past 11:00pm my brain and fingers tend to have different ideas on what to write sometimes.

Attached is the section from the best resource I have found regarding the subject of Native American weaponry during the War of 1812 -- Carl Benn's The Iroquois in the War of 1812
http://postimg.org/image/5bbvfj7rp/

It states that 26,000+ firearms were issued to Native American tribes from 1813-1816. I later read a section from a 1985 edition of the Journal of the Museum of the Fur Trade stated that most of those guns arrive later when the brunt of the fighting had already been shifted from Native allies to regular British troops.

With any antique weapon, unless it has legitimate regimental markings, the best we can do is make educated guesses on the history a piece. If you have some ideas based on documentation or research on this topic, I would welcome your further thoughts.

I talked with reenactment groups for ranger and militia units in Ontario as well as the historian at Ft. Malden, which is located near Detroit. He referred me to the War Chief of the Upper Canada Woodland Allies, a Native reenactment group from Ontario told me the following. That gentleman told me the following:

"... the fighting that ensued would have brought all kinds of weapons to the field. Besides the trade guns, (which were manufactured with the cheapest possible ways and not very reliable), the British were the source of the Brown Bess muskets and so the militia and Indian Department had them. Gifts were a fact of frontier life and native peoples were given presents, especially high ranking chiefs and noted warriors. This was done to curry favour and keep what Native Allies were to be had as a crucial part of the military might of the British and Americans who vied with one another for such men. So, it is not at all surprising to find a Bess with native tack designs. Also, some of the ranger units (Butlers and Caldwell especially, carried the Bess and decorated them in Native style because they lived, ate, slept and fought with and as the Tribes. Not an unusual thing at all.
The trade musket certainly was still available for trade and gift giving; but, was by no means the only fire arm out there. Bess could be won in battle as a spoil of war...this was an important source of weaponry also."

 

[pargent]

That musket was British military issue, the absence of unit markings at this point in time means jack. At this point in time there was a global conflict against the French and others the British were very very short of muskets ,they even had to buy them from the HEIC ,this is where the India pattern came from, a battlefield pick up or capture gun most likely .

 

[pargent]

It is a very good 1st India pattern Bess ,it has seen a fair amount of use but has been well cared for and maintained , and had a good value $ wise until some clown later in its life, late 1800's on stuck tacks into it , it is still however quite a good and valueable musket , to claim it was issue to an irregular native (unit ) is very demeaning to the piece and it's value money wise and as a piece of history .It does have some parts that have been replaced but that adds to it's story .

 

[Ken Cormier]

Don't know any thing about the gunne just know its real cooljust my .02¢

 

[Rod Lassey]

One thought is it perhaps saw use later in the century at a fur post. In both Canada and the US, fur companies purchased obsolete military guns for use at their trading posts. For instance, HBC trader Isaac Cowie makes mention of Brown Bess muskets at Fort Qu'Appelle in the 1860s. Likewise, AFC trader Charles Larpenteur at Ft. Union wrote about arming his engagés with muskets and bayonets, and issuing out paper cartridges----archaeological digs at the fort found a number of M1816 parts. It follows that your Bess could have seen possible use at some far-flung trading post.

Is there any way you can tell if those are modern brass tacks (with round steel shanks) or antique tacks (one-piece with square brass shanks)? That would give you some idea of when they were installed.

Rod

 

[MStriebel]

Phil,

My comment about regimental markings was not in reference to this specific musket but a general comment to the effect that it takes a lot of detective work to try to get a clear idea on the history of a firearm unless the weapon has regimental markings or perhaps was dug from an actual battle site.

You stated, "to claim it was issue to an irregular native (unit ) is very demeaning to the piece and it's value money wise and as a piece of history."

Nobody here is claiming in your words -- "jack". That is why the title of this topic ends with a question mark. Indeed, as I tried to illustrate with my previous post from the research I have done I can find records of a hell of a of chief and common muskets issued by the British Indian Dept. and others during the 1813-1816 time period, but I find no evidence of issuance of 3rd Model Besses on a large scale to non-militia or regular army troops other than the ranger units.

What I am trying to gather is not speculation but as much facts as I can to piece together a more clear idea as to this items history. Maybe it is a case of deliberate fraud. Maybe it is a case an embellishment done during the period, maybe it was acquired second hand and at some point later in the 1800s the embellishment was legitimately done but at a date well past the date of issuance of the musket.

Its obvious you have a lot of experience with and knowledge of antique firearms. That is what I am trying to draw upon through the Forum to get to the truth. I believe the truth based on facts and not speculation on any story is the very least that this or any old piece that may have been carried by men into battle deserves.

If I could get you to step off the soapbox for a moment, and get you to impart some of your knowledge to give me some advice on how I can better investigate this to find the truth, then I would appreciate it. For example, I know that the USDA office in Madison, Wisconsin that will test small samples of wood to give an idea of the species when one is trying to identify wood. Do you know of any source that could help me test out brass tacks to see if I could date them. If the tacks date from circa 1900, your suspicions would be exactly right. If they were from a hundred years earlier, another story would be plausible, although not definite.

I have taken out a tack to examine it and both the head and the square shank are brass. That is one bit of information. However, I am wondering if there is a forensic way to test metal parts to get a precise way to date things that you may heard being using by some firearms collectors. I would certainly be willing to pay a whatever it costs if such a test exists that can tell me more.

You also mentioned that some parts were replacements. Would you please advise which parts those are?

Regards,

Matt

 

[MStriebel]

Rod,

Many thanks for the possible idea on the item being sold off second hand and being used long after the war in the fur trade. That is definitely one plausible explanation that I had not considered.

What I have done so far is remove one nail that was already a bit loose to see how it was made. Both the head of the tack and the shaft are brass and not steel (as verified by the good ol' magnet test). Our family business is a furniture manufacturing company, so I know that you can still get 100% brass upholstery tacks even today. However, I have not seen any tacks with a square shank used in the furniture business in my lifetime.

By any chance do you happen to have heard of any lab that other collectors have used to test out metal parts and get a better idea of their age?

Thanks,

Matt

 

[Shine]

It could have come out of mexico also. Imagine a gun pilfered from the Mexican army. :wink: A few years ago I owned a 3rd model in shooting condition. It came out of a gun shop in Old Town maine. It had come from Canada and remained in one Penobscot family all these years. Some knuckle head of the current generation sold it as soon as he inherited it. It has a proper place now. I bought it shot it once. And then phoned a friend.

 

[MStriebel]

Well folks -- it's a fraud.

Phil was 100% right on this item from the get go. I will learn from this and not be such a sucker for a good story the next time.

I contacted a lab we work with in the furniture manufacturing business we operate and use to do quality testing on the leather, fabric, wood finishes, and metal parts we use used. I asked them to see if they could try to find some way to better determine the age of the nail.


I carefully took one nail from the underside of the stock and was wrapping the nail to send it out for testing this morning. I then noticed something unusual on the shank of the nail, so I rubbed it a bit, and then a bit more, and then some more. I found out that what I assumed were square shank nails were actually ROUND shank. The crud around the shank had made them appear square shanked in shape until I cleaned the shank completely.

As I now understand that round shank nails were not made until the very end of the 1800s. This means the nails were applied in the late 1800s or very possibly the 20th century, which is far after the period of use of this flintlock.

My question now is what is the best course of action. I -- very foolishly -- went on trust forward with the purchase based on trust that because the "reputable" dealer out of Gettysburg told me he had the piece in his collection that he had at least done the basic due diligence to determine if it is correct. As this piece was just purchased a few weeks ago, is the best first course of action to go back to the dealer and ask for a refund, even if it costs a restocking fee?

Another route I could take would be to get a suggestion from those on the Forum of a top notch restorer that might be able to work to reverse some of the damage done by the idiot that put the nails on in the first place. I know that its usually best to leave a piece in as untouched a condition as possible, but in this case, I thought a high quality restoration job might be a better way to honor the piece while making sure another person is not misled on the piece at some point in the future.

Any thoughts?

 

[LaBonte]

Round shank tacks appear in the 1870's, but that alone IMO is not enough to call this a fraud.

FWIW - I have a cut down Potsdam musket that was made in 1820 as a flinter, it was factory percussed in 1843, and first came west with the Missouri brigade in 1846 for the Mexican War - according to family history he stayed in Northern NM and became a trader to the Utes..
At some point the barrel was cut to 30" and round shank brass head tacks were added. At one time I had a photo of his mixed blood son holding this gun while on horseback and it was dated 1876.

 

[Shine]

Flintlocks were in use on reservations longer than anywhere else. Mostly because of rules governing use of firearms by Indians after the 1870s it may be a gun that was provided to hunt with be not really a threat to the modern guns of the day. This might account for the tacks they do look like they have been there awoke.

 

[Rod Lassey]

As Labonte noted, it may not be a deliberate fake, but just something that was added in the long life of this particular gun. Frankly, the fact that it survived this long at all is worth something.

As for the tacks, I noted the square brass shank/round steel shank only as a very general indicator of when they were put in. Bear in mind that newly made cast brass tacks are available, and old original brass tacks show up on eBay from trunk restorers---I recently bought 120 originals for use in making knife sheaths and the like. Anyone could add these to a gunstock, and make it look like it was done 200 years ago. Just something to keep in mind, and buyer beware.

Rod

 

[MStriebel]

Rod,

All good points. The point about buyer beware is probably the best point of all!

I think you and LaBonte make a good case that one cannot definitively rule out that this musket may have had a second life late in the later 1800s with an owner that put the nail trim on for his own decoration of the piece.

However, what is upsetting to me was that the dealer presented this to me as an item that had been in his collection for over 30 years and which had a Native American tie in to the early 1800s. If I was able to find in a couple of weeks of owning the weapon evidence that totally disproves any notion that the nails could have possibly been added before the 1870s, why didn't he find out the same thing in his thirty plus years of owning the item?

If he had just presented the item to me in an "as-is / buyer beware basis", that would have been one thing, but for the seller to put in writing in his sales information on the piece that -- "You seldom see American Indian guns from this early time period...The tacks are the very early big fat brass headed squire shanked ones only found on early guns." -- when the truth is that they were steel round shanked tacks from a much later time period is just plain wrong.

Enough of me venting, but I guess I am just upset with the situation.

Thanks,

Matt