Northwest trade gun

[matt denison]

Interesting gun, Mike. Especially the steel strap T.G. with a small bow. The HBC also ordered guns for their employees that were a little nicer than the trade guns made specificaly for Indians, made by the same contractors. Besides it being a Chief's Gun it could be one of these. I can't find any reference to a Chief's gun with an iron T.G with a small bow, only the really early ones with a large bow. Also remember that so many of these guns have been restocked with whatever parts survived. It can get very confusing.

Matt Denison

 

[mmahlock]

I believe you are correct about the adoption and change of the trigger guard size. The HBC was a business and like all businesses when the tastes of the customer changed they changed the product to match. There are enough references competition in the HBC records that it is easy to conclude that some one else before 1740 was making slender guns with large trigger guards and that the HBC modified their trade guns to compete.

As for the date of a "NW" gun, I think that every one tends to take the reference that Gooding found of the Armorer at Fort York ordering NW breach plug tap and die and a ramrod boring bit in 1760 as the date of the creation of the NW gun. I believe this is dead wrong. AND HERE IS WHY.

1-People in general do not coin phrases out of the blue.
2-When the do coin a phrase it takes time for it become accepted.
3-Within business organizations the identification of products are generally standardized and controlled.

Taking these and common sense into consideration, one has to understand that the term "North West Gun" had to be in use for some time before 1760 for it to be simply tossed out they way it was in the order. Also, what constituted a NW gun must have been very well established and generally known for the order to be placed the way it was. Just as today when we ask for lug nuts for a chevy that statement alone is enough to define the diameter and thread pitch. His asking for a Breach Plug tap and die defined for anyone involved in filling the order the exact diameter and and thread pitch. That type of standardization does not just happen because one armor decides to toss it out in 1760.

:surrender: :hatsoff:

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Logical, very logical and entirely possible.

 

[tg]

I would think that the NW gun would have had to be around for a while before it was mentioned in the records in 1761 as you said it was a record requireing something to be like somthing that was allready there, and I think Mr. Brooks confirmed my thoughts about building an early NW gun around a fowler of the period but just cheap it up, or would that be down? At any rate one would not have to have a French influenced NW gun when doing a 1740-70 persona with a NW gun.Good thread and thanks for the imput guys, this comes up pretty often a nd the usuall end result is that the NW gun dates to 1770-80 and all point to trhe Frenchy "Early English" as the proper choice, I think one could come up with an Early NW gun for that period and remain very English.

 

[Mike Brooks]

As I';ve said before this O'Conner gun in hamilton's book is an english trade gun anomaly that existed for a very short time to appease some great lakes Indians who were used to french guns. I'm also convinced the the "usual" NWG was being traded simultaneously as the O'conner styled guns. HBC was ordering guns made as early as 1670. I believe there was an "evolution" to the mid 18th century HBC north west gun. I also believe it just didn't "pop up" out of now where. In Goodings book you'll notice how damned skinny the 1751 gun is. Although for some bizzar reason he doesn't show the whole gun.... :youcrazy:

 

Good thread. I've been reading Gooding's book lately and had been thinking along the same lines as this. Have to agree with Mike. Its a great book that is frustratingly deficient on photos.

Sean

 

[pichou]

Mike it's my impression that the O'Connor type guns were a Eastern Lakes thing? Some have tried to connect this stock profile to the Sir Wm. Johnson trade guns. Thoughts?

On true NW guns vs. transitional I think the main thing is like the stock profile which is a deeper butt and more drop like a Carolina.

It is also my impression that a lot of the early and transitional guns get classified as chief's guns in auction catalogs.

Interesting topic... I will have to read through again! :thumbsup:

 

[crockett]

There has been a couple of books on these type firearms but the best is "The NorthWest Gun" by Charles Hanson Jr. On p. 15 he says the first known references to Northwest Guns appeared in 1777-1780. The Northwest guns were made up through the early percussion era.

 

There has been a couple of books on these type firearms but the best is "The NorthWest Gun" by Charles Hanson Jr. On p. 15 he says the first known references to Northwest Guns appeared in 1777-1780. The Northwest guns were made up through the early percussion era.

Dave,

I have the Hanson monograph and its a great resource, but its a little dated on some things. Gooding's book that we've been discussing has quite a bit of new info on this topic. Buck Conner's book "A Sucess in the North American Fur Trade" is another good one. Unfortunately neither of these has the quality of photos that Hanson's 'NW Gun' has. Laffin' Dog told me that Gale Potter from MFT told him it would not be reprinted. That's really too bad. Anybody interested in this should snap up any copy they can find. Another great resource are the articles in the MFT Quarterly for which reprints are available through the Museum.

Sean

 

One other thing, Mike Brooks talked above about the development of the squared off butt plate on these NW guns. Interestingly enough, there were a lot of these from the 1820's and forward that had relatively curved butts in terms of the heel. Not curved like a southern rifle mind you, just a subtle rounding of the heel like the Carolina gun. Barnetts in particular seem to have done this. There's one from the 1850's like this in Gooding's book and there's detailed photos of a great 1820 dated Barnett like this in the winter 1989 issue of the MFT Quarterly (vol 25 #4).

Sean

 

[pichou]

Great points...

Love Hanson, but research never ends... 1955-2008, yup, 53 year old book now.

MOFTQ... one of my favorites!!!!! Someday I'll buy the whole set.
They are currently a little short of subscribers too (hint)

Same with Gooding. Don't own it yet but one of those must haves.

People get confused when they say Brit guns had a strong French influence, that means light and with a curve in the toe. Not the same as saying they all had a pied de vache. IMHO the Caywood Wilson type is over represented in the repro world. I have seen a bunch of early Wilsons and they all had the Carolina Butt profile, except a few had a downward curve from the TG to the toe.

Upward curve in the toe is also a Brit thing. I don't think I have seen that in any TG's though... ? Is that a German/Dutch influence, early holdover, or... ?

Thanks! :thumbsup:

[edit]
Forgot to bring up the John Kinzie gun at the MOFT. Cast dragon sideplate, silver thumb piece, cast buttplate, 42 or 46" bbl (I forget). French type butt the comb is straight with no notch at the wrist. A lot like the Peachy print gun. Nice early "fine gun." I would like to repro that one someday.