Native Americans and guns

[George]

I've heard a lot of opinions over the years that Native Americans were not good shots, didn't understand about proper loading of their guns and didn't take care of their guns. Maybe that was true at times and in some places, but maybe not everywhere. Here's an interesting blurb from very early 18th century, in the southern colonies, written by John Lawson, Surveyor-General of North Carolina.

"A New Voyage to Carolina; Containing the Exact Description and Natural History of That Country: Together with the Present State Thereof. And A Journal of a Thousand Miles, Travel'd Thro' Several Nations of Indians. Giving a Particular Account of Their Customs, Manners, &c.", by Lawson, John, published in London, 1709

He made a long journey through the lowlands and piedmont of South and North Carolina beginning in 1700. He is speaking here of an Indian guide they hired on one leg of the journey:

   "Our Indian having this Day kill'd good Store of Provision with his Gun, he always shot with a single Ball, missing but two Shoots in above forty; they being curious Artists in managing a Gun, to make it carry either Ball, or Shot, true. When they have bought a Piece, and find it to shoot any Ways crooked, they take the Barrel out of the Stock, cutting a Notch in a Tree, wherein they set it straight, sometimes shooting away above 100 Loads of Ammunition, before they bring the Gun to shoot according to their Mind."

Spence

 

[Many Klatch]

That passage indicates that the guide was using a trade gun or fowler since he was able to hit with either single ball or shot. I like the fact that he was bending the barrel to get it to shoot to point of aim.

I never subscribed to the idea that the NA's couldn't shoot straight. If you depend on your firearm to feed yourself and your family and to defend the same then accuracy becomes important whether you are NA or European.

Many Klatch

 

[TinStar]

Coming from upstate NY I am always interested in early colonial history as my area is so rich in it.
I have read the opinions of some posters that the carrying of rifles was quite common amongst the Indians during this time, yet I wonder where the written history and artifacts are that support that. But with trade guns we have much proof in both categories when compared to rifles.
It goes to show how versatile those trade guns were and what the Indians did to achieve that level. Good post Spence as usual.

TinStar
Soli Deo Gloria!

 

[BrownBear]

I suspect marksmanship was as variable among the Indians as among the whites. Same today really, if you look at what's happening around any range you visit.

It's a funny coincidence that I was reading Journal of a Trapper last night and came across this passage:

Well sir after we had eat what plums we wanted me and Dave took down the creek and staid all night on a little branch in the hills and this morning started to our traps we came up to Dave's traps and in the first there was a 4 year old "spade" the next was false lickt went to the next and it had cut a foot and none of the rest disturbed, we then went up to mine to the mouth of the branch I rode on 5 or 6 steps ahead of Dave and just as I got opposite the first trap I heard a rustling in the bushes within about 5 steps of me I looked round and pop pop pop went the guns covering me with smoke so close that I could see the blanket wads coming out of the muzzles Well sir I wheeled and a ball struck Too shebit in the neck and just touched the bone and we pitched heels overhead but too shebit raised runnin and I on his back and the savages jist squattin and grabbin at me but I raised a fog for about half a mile till I overtook Dave" The foregoing story was corroborated by "Dave" a small inoffensive man who had come to the Rocky Mountains with Gen. Ashley some 15 years ago and remained ever since: an excellent hunter and a good trapper

Several guns fired at once at around 15' and only his horse was nicked.

 

[nchawkeye]

We must remember, in 1700 there were probably very few rifles in the Colonies and those that were here were probably made in the Germanic area and brought over here...

 

[rodwha]

I was given this book several years ago by a friend who had told me it was interesting, but drug on, and so I never opened it until I read this thread. I began yesterday and am halfway through it now. I'm glad I did.

 

[George T.]

I bet that the poster that said that marksmanship was as rare then as it is today. Heck I have worn glasses since I was 12. Without them I would redefine "easy pickings". Geo. T.

 

[SAJones]

Got a copy of the Museum of the Fur Trade's "Encylopedia of the Fur Trade - VOl 1, Firearms". They have a good discussion of Indians and firearms usage. Seems they adapted well to the new European techology, including marksmanship and gunsmithing. It also discusses how quickly they adopted and the decrease of the use of bows afterwards. Expensive book, but worth it. Lots of detail & stuff I never knew before.
Coincidentaly, I'm currently rereading Russell, probably for the fourth time. As far as Dave's near miss, I've known a lot of veterans who were in combat, and good shots, and they pretty much say that when the adrenaline starts, accurate shooting leaves.

 

[54ball]

In the southern tribes, Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Shawnee and Creek, able bodied men were referred to as "gunman" starting very early in the 18th century.

In the deerskin trade the Indians had to be pretty good shots as the whitetailed deer was nearly hunted to extinction by the early 19th Century. As the trade went on through the 18th Century and deer became harder to hunt, the Indians started to demand rifles.

In the Rev War the a lot was made over the Pennsylvania and Virginia riflemen and their Indian dress and their preferred method of "Indian Fighting" what we know of today as "modern warfare" or flank and maneuver from cover.

Since these riflemen dressed and fought like Indians, Was not their main weapon, the rifle, a Indian weapon?

The U.S. Choctaw trading factor at Fort Stoddard just north of Spanish Mobile had this to say in 1805...

Smoothbore guns are unsalable to the Choctaw, they want rifles.

 

[Zonie]

Indians taking large amounts of game with a smoothbore or rifle doesn't surprise me a bit.

Although I don't have any documentation to prove it, it only stands to reason, the Indians were excellent hunters with the bow and arrow.

Using these same good hunting techniques to get within bow range but using a Trade Gun to take the animal would almost guarantee a very high success rate even if the Indian couldn't shoot accurately at long ranges.

 

[George]

Although I don't have any documentation to prove it, it only stands to reason, the Indians were excellent hunters with the bow and arrow.

Lawson, again:

"All small Game, as Turkeys, Ducks, and small Vermine, they commonly kill with Bow and Arrow, thinking it not worth throwing Powder and Shot after them."

Spence

 

[54ball]

One thing to consider. Human Nature....

Take two groups of expert marksmen. Now put in a situation where they face each other, playing for keeps.
When the bullets and blood start flying marksmanship can go out the window. Be them Native American or White.

Sometimes or maybe even most of the time the one who survives is the one who keeps his wits.

How many perished in an ambush or combat...

not to tell the tale?

 

[TinStar]

So from what I read here; rifles became more available after the Rev War. Prior to that (colonial period up to the F&I War) they were scarce and smoothie trade guns were the norm.
I am mainly referring to the northeast part of the colonies and southern Canada.

Anyone know of any good books concerning the trade for the colonial northeast?

TinStar

 

[Rod Lassey]

As always, it depended on the man. There are a number of accounts of good marksmanship among Indians, but there are also many who had no idea how to handle a gun---not unlike today, eh?

I'm reminded of the account of Upper Missouri fur trader Henry Boller, who watched a Native man load his NW gun---with a double handfull of powder and several balls, one atop the other. Boller reckoned the safest place to be when he fired would be in front of the muzzle.

On the other hand, the Nez Perce were noted marksmen, as the troops pursuing them in 1877 found out.

Rod

 

[Dean2]

The quality of marksman had to do with how good their eyesight was, the native Americans seldom had access to glasses, and practice. I have hunted a lot with Inuit and Indians using modern guns and modern optics. Some of them are tremendously good shots, others mediocre to poor. Universally the good shots take good care of their guns and know how to fix them. The poorer shots, it is a lot more variable as to the quality of care of the gun, just like the white guys I hunt with.

 

[nkbj]

Is there some big difference between European guys and those other guys that had previously made it in the Americas? Think the guys here couldn't figure a set of sights? Buy tickets to a soccer game.

 

[Dean2]

Is there some big difference between European guys and those other guys that had previously made it in the Americas? Think the guys here couldn't figure a set of sights? Buy tickets to a soccer game.

If you really are replying to my post,(if you choose reply attached to a specific post it will show as you replying to it. If you just hit the bottom reply it replies to the last post above) then I am not sure how you got where you did. Since I will assume we all read fairly well I presume you were replying to one of the earlier posts.

 

[RedFeather]

Might be how you referred to those guys you hunt with. Taking care of your equipment, being a good shot, etc, is mostly independent of race, education or economic condition. Alvin York certainly had no edge in most of those categories and he did right well.

I agree with Zonie. Successful hunting is one-half the equipment and two-halves woods skills. I should think that those guides had maybe three-halves.

 

[Dean2]

I think then that my comments were misunderstood. The Indians and Inuit I hunted with were not guides, they were friends. Most of the time we were hunting for food, not for fun.

I have hunted with many native and non-native people. Getting game truly is way more about woods skills and in that area, guys that hunt 12 months of the year to live, and have since they were very young, have skills far beyond what most people would ever develop.

I have known many successful hunters who were only average shots but very skilled at getting close enough this made little difference in game taken. That said, pure shooting skills does vary widely, regardless of whether the person is white or native.

I have know very good shots who were native, and very good shots who were white. Race does not determine who is a good shot. Natural talent, practice and good eyesight are among the key determinants. That said, being a good shot does not guarantee you will take a lot of game. You have to find it first.

What I was talking about above was pure shooting skill and was in response to some of the comments about natives having been poor shots in general, and questioning their knowledge of how to fix their firearms.

 

[RedFeather]

Yeah, the thread kind of reminded me of a contest held shortly after the first of the modern Olympics. They matched Olympians against native Americans. Of course, the Olympians trashed the natives, hands down. Now, could those "athletes" survive in the woods? Even going back to the historical record, as above, presents a bit biased account. Most Indians probably lacked access to the best firearms and equipment, having to make do with what they had and limited supplies. I doubt they held schuetzen fests. And I would also submit that a great many "civilized" folk weren't the best shots, either. Unless they were subsistence hunting or in a club, the Average Joe was probably about on par with his indigenous neighbors. Anyway, it's asking a lot to draw general conclusions from one or two lines of print.