• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

North Star West's Early English gun

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Nobdy realy knows for sure what to make of the O'Conner gun. The current conclusion is it is a post F&I war trade gun made by the British for a short time to appease the former French allied Indians that were used to Frenck type D styled Fusils.
The Type G was built probably as early as the 1720's or earlier, thru at least the Rev war. The North West gun was built about the same time frame, but was traded thru great lakes and points north and west . The type G was traded in all points south and south west of there. The NW gun had the Iron trigger guard and a simple sheet brass but plate with a plain finial, and the G had a brass trigger guard and a sheet brass buttplate with more elaborate finial. Both the NW gun and the type G were similar to english built fowling pieces than the french styling the O'conner gun has.
The O'conor gun, is quite a bit different than the Type G and NW gun, The O'Connor guns buttplate and french archetecture can't be compared to the English archetecture of the G and NW gun.
 
How does Colonial Williamsburg's Bumford gun (or as my daughters like to call it, the "vine and flowers gun") fit into this. It definitely appears to be a trade gun. Was there enough variation in the type G that this would be included? Is it a higher grade presentation gun? It's one of those guns that when I first saw it, it looked kind of funky, but it has grown on me and now I really like it.
Eric

Eric Laird
 
The Bumford gun is a standard run of the mill type G. There are tons of dug parts that are an identical match.
 
That was my take on it Mike, but a former post seemed to suggest a different thought on the O'Connor as being a variation of the G, and in general offered a different take on things than what I have garnered from Hamiltons works.
 
TG
I saw that post, but I'm not sure just what to make of it. I guess I need to go through Hamilton's work again with that post in mind.
To my eyes and dim witted knowledge the O'Conner Gun and one other very nearly identical gun I saw in a private collection have more in common with a NW gun than the so called Type G. The serpent sideplate with scales and the iron triggerguard, even with its slightly smaller bow, are features also found on NW guns.
To me the volume of arifacts recovered from large areas and covering long time spans indicate two distinct styles of guns rather than an evolution from one to the other. The O'Conner syle of guns sort of pops up as an anomaly over a shorter period of time, post 1763, and from the Great Lakes area. Maybe the Chiefs Gun that Curly owned also falls into that catagory.
Its all pretty interesting stuff to me.

Regards, Dave
 
Bear with me, but do what you consider Type Gs to be, not have the serpent sideplate?

I have Hamilton's book and have looked at the Weber, and the O'connell as well as the Wilson at great length and am confused, are these considered type G's? Thanks for your patience, I am learning and ordering Hansen's book as I write this.

Aside from modern aesthetics and personal choice, would one expect that the buttplate would be brass on an early english trade piece? It sounds like the trigger gaurd could be either or? Thanks in advance.
 
Schnapser
The Type G has the flat serpent side plate with engraved details while the Wilson and NW guns have the textured scales cast in.
If you look at Hamilton's with those differences in mind its easy to see the difference.
English trade guns from this period generally have brass butt plates. Triggerguards would be iron if they are of the O'Conner style or NW style, while the Type G would be brass I believe.

Regards, Dave
 
"TG
I saw that post, but I'm not sure just what to make of it. I guess I need to go through Hamilton's work again with that post in mind."

I've been re-reading Hamiltons works and some others and still seem to see the O'Connor and other English guns with the Frenchified buttstocks as something different/later than the Early English/typeG/ Carolina guns, maybe I'm missing something but this is what sticks in my mind.
 
Back
Top