Northwest trade gun

[1eyemountainmen]

I have a question about the northwest trade gun. I was wanting to know what time period does this gun fall into? I was watching "last of the Mohicans" and saw a couple of them? Does that mean they could have been used that long ago?

 

[Dane]

No, I don't believe so.

In the F&I war era, the earlier trade guns, "Type G" for example would be more appropriate.

The NW trade gun was distributed (I believe) about 50 to 75yrs later.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Depends on where you where. Great lakes and beyond was the territory of the nw gun while the carolina gun was distributed through out the south east , southwest and generally anywhere south of the ohio river. I'm sure there was some overlapping. They existed in the same time frame, but the carolina gun died out probably sometime in the 1790's. The NW gun got it's start in 1670, but we don't have a clear idea of what they actually looked like that early.The carolina gun was early also , there are references to it as early as 1720 or so that I'm aware of.

 

[mmahlock]

I'm on the road and without my references at the moment but if I remember, the NW Trade Gun as we generally know it today goes back to around 1760. There were a a number of changes and modifications made after this period through the late 1900s but the general form didn't change. :surrender: :hatsoff:

 

[tg]

That sounds right, I don't have the books in front of me but the there was a mention of the NW gun at least as early as 1760 and the large trioger bow may have been earlier, they may have had a bit different profile and the side plates and locks would differ from what most sell now which are post 1800 style guns.

 

[matt denison]

I've been waiting for years for this to come up. Northwest trade guns in Last of the Mohicans. I love that movie for the action and for Madelin Stowe. She really flips my frizzen. Much of the gear and garb is beautiful and correct and the battle scene at Ft Henry is fantastic. But the guns are wrong for the time frame. I love seeing those Northwest guns in the movie because, well, I love trade guns. Here's the rest of the story: The producer of the movie aproached Curly Gostomski and ordered 50 trade gun KITS that were to be assembled in a warehouse in Burbank, CA. Curly shipped them and the producer took a look at the side plates, the typical serpent, and thought that they were a joke and sent them back and demanded his money back for them. Meanwhile a bunch of part timers assembled the guns for the movie. They PAINTED the sdeplates on with gold paint. Look closely during the movie and notice that you never see a shot of the sideplates. So now every time I get an order for a sideplate I wonder if the guy placing the order has one of those guns and needs to put a side plate on it. Those guns went someplace, they are out there somewhere. It's a testament to North Star and Curly that those guns actually go off in several scenes. When Magua attacks the British troops after the surrender of the fort you get to see all those guns firing in a line from the brush. A great scene.!!

Remember this is Hollywood and they bend facts to make these movies. Don't take them for historical documentery. I actually had a customer tell me that he bought some silk for patch material to try in his gun because "it is more accurate and will shoot farther" Anybody who has seen the movie knows what I'm talking about. :rotf: This is all gosphel truth.

Matt Denison
NSW,I

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

40 yards more..... :rotf:

 

[tg]

You would probably be better off with one of what most call "early English" trade guns, most seem to have a Frenchy styled buttstock and I am not certain that all were like this during the F&I period and they have fancier buttplates again there may nave been guns with plainer styles, the large trigger Bow is a go for this time frame if I recall.NS West has a nice looking Early English gun there are not a lot of people making them and as I said I think most draw from the Wilson gun giving them a French flavor. I think if you took a common English fowler from the period and cheepened up the furniture, I would suspect an early version of the serpent side plate would be correct,maybe a plain strap tg and a simple buttplate, you might be pretty close to the non French version of the early NW gun, but that is just my thoughts on the issue.

 

[wildeagle]

I like the way you think TG. I'm building a smooth rifle, with some french flavor. The wrist, and hardware, ect. I'm working on some pics. I'll start a new thread, I know it's not good manners to hi-jack someones post :bow:

 

[Dane]

I will definitely bow to Mike on this one. I guess the configuration that we know now, was a later gun. I had no idea that earlier versions were being traded.

Sorry,

 

[redwing]

Why did the Carolina gun die out in the 1790s? I know that many of them did make it to the Rocky Mtns. They were not that uncommon in the High Plains up until the end of the Civil War.

 

[tg]

I think what we see mostly now might go back to 1770-80 with some changes in sideplate and lock as time went by, I think N. Starr West has some pretty decent info on their site about the rough time frames of the current NW guns offered and the early/later furniture.I just have not aeen anything solid as to what a 1760 give or take NW gun looked like compared to the later ones other than the serpent sideplate of some form would be there as would the large trigger bow,the larger bow is mentioned in period records in the 1740's I think there is one in Hansons book dated 1777 a Sandwell I think it is called it looks quite a bit like the later ones to me, it is hard to tell how different or similar one would have looked a decade or two earlier.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Earliest gun I've seen with the typical NW gun serpent sideplate was dated 1751. The Hudson's Bay Co. was having guns made for NDN trade as early as 1670, but we really have no idea what they looked like other than barrel length.
I'm not entirely sure that the Carolina gun's import into the colonies ended with the American's winning of the revolution, But I'm not sure. Carolina gun info is pretty foggy, not much out there, just archaeological evidence and a very few original guns.

 

[tg]

"Earliest gun I've seen with the typical NW gun serpent sideplate was dated 1751."

Was the style and shape of the buttstock, buttplate,tg and the gun overall pretty close to the post 1800 NW guns Mike? it probably had one of the earlier serpent styles there seem to have been several of these over time, I think the first was on a pistol in the first quarter of the 18th century.This topic of NW guns during the F&I period comes up often, but I think that most of the ones available are patterned after later styles of sideplates and likely have later locks than the early guns. the question of how a 1760 or earlier NW gun looks compared to a 1780 one is the main issue I think, what say you about this?

 

[matt denison]

OK, back to the books, fella's. What makes a Northwest gun? Usually considered to be 1. the large bow trigger guard. 2. the CAST serpent sideplate. 3. The squared off butt stock with a flat nailed on butt plate. So I went to S. James Gooding's book trade guns of the hudson's bay company, 1670 - 1970 and on pg. 54-55 is the earliest trade gun that he's seen (and me too) with the large trigger guard and a CAST serpent side plate. The butt plate is nailed on. He dates it to 1741 to 1745. The triggerguard is in my opinion a transitional thing showing traits of "early" trade gun influence as described by Hanson and Hamilton but with a large bow. The cast serpent is unusual for the early time period, (in MHO) because most from this time period were cut from stock and hand engraved. This gun is fascinating to me becuse it shows very early Northwest Gun style but has earlier influences. Unfortunately, like so many early guns it was re-stocked but can be assumed it was re-stocked in the style that was popular at the time. The re-stock job is thought to be done in the 1760's. The hardware is original throughout. This gun throws our initial thoughts about the origin of the traditional Northwest gun out of whack. Previous to this documention, the earliest "Northwest Gun" was cataloged by Charles Hanson as 1761. This shows that the Northwest gun didn't just suddenly appear on the scene but was morphed into being. There are other examples but I don't feel like typing that much. Go to the books. Getting back to the original post, the guns shown in The last of the Mohicans aren't correct. They are more like 1820's era Northwest guns. 'nough said.

Matt Denison
NSW,I

 

[tg]

That pretty much confirmed my thoughts that an early trade gun from England need not have the French influence,or be a Carolina gun, the 1741 date is in tune with the mention of large bows in the factors requests. With the proper early furniture and lock one could come up with a F&I period NW gun, would the current pre carves for the NW gun be close enough to work from if building one of these? and thanx for the info Laffindog

 

[mmahlock]

You mention the large trigger guard as a transitional thing. This triggered a memory which I just checked. On page 134 Gooding includes an excerpt from the records of the HBC from August 24, 1740 from Joseph Isbister, Fort Albany requesting that the guns for the next year be lighter with less wood and more slender and that they have a larger guard because the indians use two fingers to pull the trigger and "our guns will not admit". In December 1740 the HBC records include the following, "Directions were given to Mr. Jones the companys gun viewer t acquaint all of the gunmakers that the guards be made larger than usual." From this information I must conclude that prior to 1740 the Trade Guns has normal sized trigger guards and after this date they were made with the larger style we know today.

The records that Gooding provides are at lest to me a fascinating look into the workings of the HBC regarding the guns they shipped to the Canadas for trade.

 

[tg]

Hamilton shows an early tg that is a strap of iron and a cast serpent type plate with three lock bolts from Ft Fredeica circa 1740, I think, this would suggest the basics of the NW gun go back quite a bit, I am still curious about the profile/arhitecture. seems like there could be a NW gun for the F&I without going to a lot of trouble.The written records does suggest that the enlargement of the bow happned rather quickly, I think some earlier Dutch guns circa 17th cent. have rather large bows, there area couple in Hamiltons, so the concept was not new to everyone I would guess.
book

 

[matt denison]

Yes, what TG said. Remember though that Gooding is only talking about HBC guns but there were other contractors supplying the colonies and those guns are very rare for us to look at now. We have only a half dozen complete guns in original configuration out of thousands that were probably produced and shipped. I personally think that the HBC was the Big Dog and that the contractors in England followed their lead and bent production methods to please them. Then other importers followed along. The HBC kept excellent and detailed records that are still available today and that is what Gooding based his book on. Neuman also used HBC records for his series on the developement of the fur trade. (these are excellent books, very readable, historically educational, a great overlook at how the trade in Canada affected the American Fur Trade)

Concerning the architecture of the convntional Northwest Gun as we know it today I think that it was someone's "good idea" about 1760 (we'll never know who) to make these guns very cheaply and simple for the "red savages" and make a lot of money. By getting away from the Type G stock shape and cast parts the importers could sell just as many guns and make more money. This coincided with the eviction of the French in North America and so eliminated competition. The British were able to sell cheap guns to the Indians, take it or leave it. This is my opinion only after readng most anything I can get my hands on. If anybody has more information or references I'd like to know.

Matt Denison

 

[Mike Brooks]

I agree the NW gun is a cheaper made gun. No engraving is the big time saver over the Carolina gun, not that the Carolina's engraving took any real time. All the Carolina engraving is about as crude as you'll ever see.
As far as stock architecture for a 50's dated NWG I'd lean towards 1750's english fowler architecture. The heel of the butt plate was also more rounded then the later ones that had a sharp 90* bend at the heel. I'd also keep the earlier guns a little slimmer in the stock in general.
I saw a very interesting gun that was connected in some way to the NWG a while ago. I didn't get any pictures as I was distracted by selling a gun, But I did get a quick look at it. Unfortunately by the time I sold my gun the guy had covered his table and left so I couldn't study the gun in depth. It had a 4' barrel of the identical pattern I use on my carolina guns, which is a direct copy of Reeves Goehrings "11 shilling" gun. It had british oval shaped proofs at the breech. The lock had an unbridled pan and a HBC tombstone fox stamp.It was undated if I recall correctly. The sideplate was a typical NWG sideplate. The trigger guard was a iron strap type just like a NWG butt it had a small cupped bow. The tang bolt went from the bottom, up and threaded into the barrel tang. The buttplate was a standard british fowler buttplate in brass, close to 5" tall by 2" wide, fairly nicely engraved. I don't recall if it had a thumb piece. The carving at the breech was very similar to the "Duncan gun" in Hamilton's book. I don't know where this gun exactly fit into HBC's gun orders, but I suspect it was what they called a "Chief's gun". I always disliked that term, but they used it.
I suspect you could have found the same gun in "Carolina gun territory" with the exchange of the cast NWG sideplate for the engraved carolina gun sideplate. It may not have been called a "Chief's gun" in the south, as I think the market catered to whites as well as Indians south of HBC territory. OK , I'll stop now. :surrender: :haha: