NWTG in the Colonies?

[Clark Badgett]

They couldn’t drop off guns promised to trading posts. This discussion has 2 points of view among those posting. 1) “I have or love NWTGs and want to represent a white colonist and use one, and so I want some historical justification for that.” The same thing happens for fusils de chasse. In defense of this position, so many people have them, and so many suppliers make kits or complete guns, that most folks would assume they were widely used in the 13 colonies between the 1750s and the end of the Revolutionary War. So like Rod Stewart, they look for a reason to believe.

2) Long time students of colonial arms wonder, “Why do these folks (the above group) who express interest in using arms that were very plausibly, or clearly proven to be be used by white colonists during this time frame, not just buy or make guns that were commonly used? And why won’t they buy a few books? Why do they rely on self-proclaimed experts (including me) instead of developing a library that answers all their questions?”

Inexpensive books to buy if you REALLY are interested in documented guns of this period:

For Trade and Treaty
Of Sorts for Provincials
The Northwest Gun
Flintlock Fowlers: The First Guns Made in America

Buy or use the gun you like. At 100% of rondy or primitive shoots your NWTG will be admired. At 40-70% of historical re-enactments it won’t be questioned. If you want to be in a specific re-enacting company and use your NWTG, find an outfit in the old Northwest or Canada or the western fur trade.

Oh I gots those and way more than those. In fact, I have had points from those very books you listed being contested in this very discussion.

 

[jd945043]

Really men? The military is not any different today than back then. Guns and other materials were left behind in Afghanistan and enemies now have the same weapons we do. this is nothing new we have seen it before where they were pushing aircraft off of carriers to Afghanistan where Biden supplied the Taliban it's been that way forever and it will always be when it comes to the military.

 

[Artificer]

The French Fortress of Louisbourg was captured TWICE by American and British Forces in 1745 and 1758. BOTH times the huge and primary arsenal of small arms of the then "New France" was emptied and carried off to storerooms in the colonies. And at least in the last capture, there is documentation that every soldier in the invading force got one gun of his choosing for free. Probably happened the first time as well, but as far as I know, we don't have documentation for it.

Military Arms were not the only guns stored at Louisbourg. Louisbourg was also the initial depository for "trade" guns that were stored to later be given or traded to Native Americans. So though we can't document it, is at least likely to probable that a fair number of French Trade Guns went into the hands of New England Colonists by that way of those captures, alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_of_Louisbourg

 

[FlinterNick]

The French Fortress of Louisbourg was captured TWICE by American and British Forces in 1745 and 1758. BOTH times the huge and primary arsenal of small arms of the then "New France" was emptied and carried off to storerooms in the colonies. And at least in the last capture, there is documentation that every soldier in the invading force got one gun of his choosing for free. Probably happened the first time as well, but as far as I know, we don't have documentation for it.

Military Arms were not the only guns stored at Louisbourg. Louisbourg was also the initial depository for "trade" guns that were stored to later be given or traded to Native Americans. So though we can't document it, is at least likely to probable that a fair number of French Trade Guns went into the hands of New England Colonists by that way of those captures, alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_of_Louisbourg

Agree with this statement. The influence of French arms in the New England Colonies is extremely significant.

Battle Road is a great example, of the military arms used at Lexington and Concord a very common one was a French 1717 or 1728, there were many of them left over from the F&I war used by the militias, this includes the many grenadier and marine variants of those muskets also. Tulle Arms were also very common, this were commonly referred to as French Trade Guns.

I’ve had the opportunity to restore and view many trade guns from the 1730’s - 1750’s, the one salient feature of them all is the weight is extremely light, i held one French trade gun that couldn’t have weighed more than 6 1/2 lbs with a very light weight barrel. The barrel was almost paper thin 10 inches up towards the muzzle.

One trade gun i found very interesting was what if would call an Americanized Dutch Trade Gun. The gun hard a very large bulbous butt and thick wrist, yet. It was very light for a gun with a 48-50 inch barrel, weight was around 8 lbs not more than 8 1/2. The lock was interesting, which i had the pictures but i didn’t upgrade my iCloud thing data heaven thing back then. The lock was fairly large, remenicient of an older sea service lock or king James lock but used an orphaned dog lock ****. The. Barrel was Dutch and the hardware was homemade from sheet iron.

The truth of many guns of the so called trade guns is they’re really just hobbled together from what ever parts a gunsmith had laying around. If the gunsmith had no contracts, the gunsmith was keeping busy by building guns that could be sold quickly.

Of the earliest trade guns I’ve seen, most are of this type. Only one i can say was built from contracted source such as Wilson, the full sized lock was marked Wilson around 6 1/4 long with no bridles at all, full round barrel with a turned breech, not long, around 38”, Rice’s Dolep barrels are very similar and the stock was early English style with lower grade Fowler type hardware. What made it a trade gun i believe is the cheaper style lock with no bridles. It weighed in around 7lbs .

 

[mikesto44]

Remember one thing about books. They are written by the opinion of the author. Many book writer's contradict what others state as fact.
Remember attending a southern rifle show. Their were two "Experts" arguing over a powder horn. When it was made excetra. One late 1700 an the other Expert claiming 1820 or so . They got quite heated over who was right..! It was pointed out to them that it was a contemporary horn made in 2019.!
Books are great but their is a lot of misinformation out their.

 

[jd945043]

^Incorrect^
A musket certainly is not a Fowler.
And “North West Trade Gun” is not a generic “Trade Gun”.
And when exactly is “back then”?

But then again, don’t let facts cloud up the discussion.

Dude you are very wrong and arrogant over an opinion. The French had a very strong influence after the Declaration of 1763. They were in Western North Carolina which is now Tennessee and their guns were in the over mountain region. Many possibilities are open for French weapons.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Dude you are very wrong and arrogant over an opinion. The French had a very strong influence after the Declaration of 1763. They were in Western North Carolina which is now Tennessee and their guns were in the over mountain region. Many possibilities are open for French weapons.

I am not seeing anything incorrect in the posting that you quoted. And Bob certainly did not say anything about French guns.

 

[FlinterNick]

Dude you are very wrong and arrogant over an opinion. The French had a very strong influence after the Declaration of 1763. They were in Western North Carolina which is now Tennessee and their guns were in the over mountain region. Many possibilities are open for French weapons.

What does the proclamation of 1763 (not declaration) have to do with French influence on the colonies ?

And what opinion are you calling out, and who is arrogant ?

Hopefully its me.

 

[Tumbledown]

And what opinion are you calling out, and who is arrogant ?

Hopefully its me.

It wasn't you he quoted.

 

[jd945043]

I am not seeing anything incorrect in the posting that you quoted. And Bob certainly did not say anything about French guns.

He did say no fusil de Chase guns were used but Franklin purchased some of those when he was purchasing weapons from France

 

[Clark Badgett]

He did say no fusil de Chase guns were used but Franklin purchased some of those when he was purchasing weapons from France

Exactly where did he say that?