Noone Is Authentic!

[Mike Brooks]

There would have been a great difference in the gun Johnson was carrying compared to what one of his average militia man was carrying. It all has to do with who you were and your station in life.
I would think that Johnson hall had alot of trade goods pass thru, and those goods were likely all english, considering who he was. More than likely most guns that were carried in Johnson's area of influence were of english manufacture.
If it were me and I were portraying the common man in that area I'd be looking at an english fowler of export quality. Brass mounts, Walnut stock, 6" roundfaced english lock with an unbridled frizzen, husk finial trigger guard, 42" to 4*" 20 bore barrel. If I had less than average income I'd go with the "Carolina" or english type "G" gun" .
The english were trading rifles to the indians in this time period. From what I've read they were mostly made in the colonies. I imagine an early lancaster type rifle would be appropriate, but the cost of this type of gun would have been quite a bit more than an export quality fowler, and your average militia man may not have had the cash to invest into a gun in that price range.
Oh hell, this is all to hard, just get a pederasoli frontier rifle and be done with it. :haha:

 

[RC]

Patience Mr. Brooks, Patience of a saint! keep goin i'm still learnin! an it's pretty interesting! Thank You! RC :hatsoff:

 

[john1964]

Yes, Thank you Saint Michael!

Good stuff.

Take care,
john

 

[dlemaster]

Mike
I agree with you 100%. That was my point which I didn't do a very good job of making was that the average militia man wouldn't have had a rifle but that only the wealthy like Johnson would have had a rifle.

 

[rich pierce]

Especially in eastern NY state. Unheard of.

 

[Okwaho]

Mike,I should know but it escapes[url] me.In[/url] referring to a "husk" English guard,are you referring to the ones in Hamilton{1980} on PP.86 and 113? Those would be my guess since they are fairly early.
Tom Patton

 

[Mike Brooks]

Here's a nice example that Pete Allen casts.
>>>POKE

 

[Okwaho]

Thanks, I thought that was the right guard I just didn't remember the front finial being called a husk.I have a woodsrunner smoothbore long rifle from probably the 4th quarter of the 18th century using that guard along with probably the buttpiece and "W Ketland" flintlock from a mid 18th century Ketland fowler. See TRS P.71 for the lock and P.69 for the butt piece and guard.I think that during the F&I War and the early days of the Rev. War there were a lot of these composite or "make do" guns being used by early settlers and we tend to overlook them.A look at "Battle Weapons" and Tom Grinslade's new book on fowlers as well as other related guns will show several such guns.These are in addition to the composite muskets and fusils built in the same period.
Tom Patton

 

[DrTimboone]

Sachem, here is a fellow that might help you out. his gun and kit are all displayed and historically documented for the Mohawk River area during the period of Johnson. pretty impressive stuff.... [url] http://www.ccnnwebdesign.com/paladin/document.htm[/url] :hatsoff:

 

[Mike Brooks]

I'm having a hard time buying into that caywood gun going 1750. 1760's maybe , but not 1750... I may be wrong, but I've always had a suspicious feeling about the early date of that style of gun. There's something that just isn't right about it.It's refered to as the "O'Conner gun" in Hamilton's book.
Also parts of the original gun pictured are early , those being the lock and sideplate. The barrel looks to be cut back, as the stock ends rather abruptly. Has the feeling of a restock with the curly grained stock. The architecture is distinctly french in style, I'd suspect it was restocked in the new england area post 1760. But, what do I know....? :yakyak:

 

[Okwaho]

I'm pretty much with Mike here on the dating of Caywood's Wilson "chief's gun".The stock architecture has always seemed strange to me and if it hadn't been shown to be English walnut by the Forest Service,I would agree with Mike that it was a restock.I have also questioned it being a "Chief's grade trade fusil. The gun is decorated with beads ,"1777" and " G G 6"{?}.I really doubt Indian decoration of this type.It might have been traded to an Indian but a White man must have designed the bead decorations.Without knowing the provenance of the gun, I'll hazard a guess that it may have been a gun built for or sold to a White man and the decoration may have been contemporaneous with it's sale.

As to the persona site showing a gun in the Museum of the Fur Trade purporting to be Ca. 1710-1720 and the supposed basis[as per the modern owner] for the Caywood gun, I still maintain that, absent testing showing that gun to have been made from European wood, it was restocked in America sometime in the mid to late 18th century.Additionally a careful reading of the Johnson Papers Vol.I P.833 shows that there were in fact 1300 guns ordered by Johnson with 1000 guns described as "neat Fowling pieces barrels 4 feet long"[no maker specified] and 300 guns, "3 feet Barrel for boys, Wilson maker"

The so called "Wilson chief's grade trade fusil" remains an enigma to me but whether or not it is restocked or of White/ Indian ownership, it is still a very fine old gun.I do, however, agree with Mike that a Ca. 1750-1760 dating is in my opinion questionable.
Tom Patton

 

[Cruzatte]

hey Mike? Am I thinking of the same trade gun? The O'Connor gun in Hamilton (p73) is identified as being stocked in European walnut as identified by the U.S. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wis. The trade gun pictured in The Book of Buckskinning Vol. IV, p. 115 looks like it might be restocked in curly maple.

And I'll buy it that the O'Connor gun in Hamilton has been cut down.

So, which arm are we talking about? Guess I'm a bit confused. :hmm:
Cruzatte

 

[Okwaho]

CORRECTION TO PREVIOUS POST

Please note that the reference in the Johnson Papers should have been Vol.II P. 899 instead of Vol. I P.833
Tom Patton

 

One who educates with experience is a teacher, One who educates with arrogance is an enemy.
:hmm:

TheGunCellar

 

[dlemaster]

Okwaho
I had the opportunity to see and handle another gun in a private collection that was nearly identical to the so called Wilson's Chiefs Gun.
The stock architecture was identical as well as the engraving on the lock, barrel, and buttplate. The differences were this gun had a barrel 48" long as opposed to the O'Conner guns barrel length of something a little over 45" and it had a hand forged Wrought iron ramrod, the spacing of the wedding bands was slightly different though their form was identical.
I agree with Mike, as bad as some of us want these to be F&I War guns I think they are post 1763 just as Hamiliton says. He states that the form of butt plate and triggerguard only show up archaeologically in post 1763 sites.

Regards, Dave

 

Sachem, here is a fellow that might help you out. his gun and kit are all displayed and historically documented for the Mohawk River area during the period of Johnson. pretty impressive stuff.... [url] http://www.ccnnwebdesign.com/paladin/document.htm[/url] :hatsoff:

Just a note: a year or two ago this same fellow was toting a Pedersoli Kentucky for the same persona, so the Chief's gun is a real step in the right direction, perfect or not...isn't the basic hardware documentable to the early 18th century? Not sure whether Caywood's version is totally correct, but alot of the F&I War reenactors in the Ark-La-Tex region carry them!

 

[Mike Brooks]

I agree with Mike, as bad as some of us want these to be F&I War guns I think they are post 1763 just as Hamiliton says. He states that the form of butt plate and triggerguard only show up archaeologically in post 1763 sites.

And there in lies the problem with today's market. Reenactors all want to carry guns that are pre 1763, and preferably dated to the 1740's or 50's. Manufactures then scramble to please the market and take "liberties" with the post 1763 parts that are available and back date them with alot of hype to get their products sold as "pre F&I war guns". Or, they will take the few early parts that are on the market and make them fit into what ever early gun they're trying to market. This becomes an even larger problem with rifles. I really get a kick out of the guys that are offering their rifles as "pre F&I war ". Seems that if you leave alot of extra wood on the stock it instantly becomes "F&I".
The fact that alot of the old research is now out dated with new cutting edge information is making a real mess out of the situation too. When you read Dillon's old book on Kentuckies you'd think most of the kentucky rifles were made in the 1720's :shake: There has been a tremendous amount of work done on these guns since the 1940's whe he wrote the book. we arefar more educated now, and the education continues every day.
Another book that continues to foul people up is that goofy book on the New England gun by Merril Lindsay... :bull: I know it was written in 1975, but there is no reason, even at that time, to be dupped by the number of fakes that are in that book. Did Lindsay even have any idea what he was writting about? He even has 1770's period english fowling guns attributed to new england makers in the 1720's or some such ridiculous date.. I borrowed that book from the library, I sure am glad I didn't buy it. I'd like to become a Book Nazi and burn all of those. :haha:
Back to the original quote.... Caywwod's gun is an excellent representation of the O'Conner gun. The real problem with the man's justification of carrying the Caywood gun is the Caywood gun looks nothing at all like the gun in the fur trade museum. The stock archetecture is different and the side plate is far earlier than the Caywood gun. Not to mention the allready discused fact the fur trade museum gun is probably a restock anyway. This is another great example of "oh hell, that's close enough". Which is fine really, everybody is only going to take all of this as far as they want to and still have it be fun. If you obsses over this in too great a way it all ceases to be fun anyway. :winking: Now, with all of the incorret guns offered as F&I war examples you'd think some clever fellow would be offering something more appropriate wouldn't you. I'll let you all know when some genius that makes overly long winded posts about anal details finally gets his act together.:winking:
So, how's that for being a motor mouth? :yakyak: :haha:

 

[john1964]

Thanks Doctor Boone. That certainly is right in the geographic region I am from. Very interesting.

The rest of the thread is helpful as well in flushing some things out.

To all:

What's interesting is the idea of the persona. If we stick religously we must stay true to the character as indicated in Dr Boone's post.

But, because of the nature of the period, it is also possible to use just about any gun, as long as it was available during that time period. It may not be likely, but it is possible.

Fast forward to today. I am not going to do reenactments, at least I don't think I will. But let's go with ME as a persona. I'm have eclectic taste. For example, I am likely to combine articles of clothing or furniture in ways that would be considered outside the main stream. So, in keeping with my persona, I might choose to pick a firearm based on it's aesthetics and functionality, even if it may not have been common for the area.

I hope this is not too convoluted. I guess what I am saying is, the more I read, the more I am thinking that I would go with a piece that is asthectically pleasing, easy to shoot, built during the period, but not necessarily common for the area. It would still be authentic and would fit the kind of choice I might make if I lived during that time period.

Take care,
john

 

[Mike Brooks]

I hope this is not too convoluted. I guess what I am saying is, the more I read, the more I am thinking that I would go with a piece that is asthectically pleasing, easy to shoot, built during the period, but not necessarily common for the area. It would still be authentic and would fit the kind of choice I might make if I lived during that time period.

Oh well, I figured this would be an excersise in futility anyway. You're going the same path as 80% of all the others in your position. Your choice to get what pleases you even if it isn't correct for the time period and location, and then make up a list of unlikely excuses as to why the gun " coulda- shoulda- woulda- mighta" been there is typical. Nothing wrong with that, most people do it. But, let me say, the correct guns for what you originally wanted to do are available. They are "asthectically pleasing, easy to shoot, built during the period," and WHERE COMMON FOR THE AREA. They are just a little harder to do right, and therefore a bit more expensive, and harder to find.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Hey Tom, On page two I was refering to the fur trade museum gun being a restock, not the O'Conner gun. I didn'y make that very clear. I believe the O'conner gun is legit, i just don't know what to make of it or how it fits into the rest of english trade gun history...especially the time period...I believe it is post F&I for sure.