Original Trade Gun/Fowler barrel profile?

[Notchy Bob]

Fair enough. I have several books detailing trade arms. Most have detailed pictures. Without digging them out, now that I really think about it, I think you are right.

Thanks, @NorthFork ! This has given me a reason to hit the books. Since my last post, I've looked through several, including The Trade Gun Sketchbook, For Trade and Treaty (pretty carefully for those two), Hamilton's Colonial Frontier Guns and Indian Trade Guns (...but not very thoroughly), and Hanson's The Northwest Gun. I did not see any images or mention of turtle front sights. Charles Hanson said, "The standard fusil front sight was a low iron blade set two or three inches back from the muzzle" (page 40). I was surprised to learn that the Bumford trade gun (early English) has a brass front sight dovetailed in place, and Hamilton described a Type G gun with a "half oval brass blade." I believe the Chief's grade guns often had what is called a "spider" front sight, with four arms spreading out from the blade and inset in the top of the barrel.

So, no turtles... yet. However, I think those of us who have guns with turtle front sights ought to just shoot them and enjoy them. There is no way we will recapture every historic detail.

Funny story... I ordered a Northwest gun from North Star West maybe eight or nine years ago. I found pictures of an original Barnett I liked,and I called Matt and discussed all the details. He built it just like I wanted. It was some time after I received the gun that I discovered I had asked him to make a copy of a of an original Belgian counterfeit of a Barnett! It's a great gun, though. I love it.

Notchy Bob

 

[NorthFork]

Thanks, @NorthFork ! This has given me a reason to hit the books. Since my last post, I've looked through several, including The Trade Gun Sketchbook, For Trade and Treaty (pretty carefully for those two), Hamilton's Colonial Frontier Guns and Indian Trade Guns (...but not very thoroughly), and Hanson's The Northwest Gun. I did not see any images or mention of turtle front sights. Charles Hanson said, "The standard fusil front sight was a low iron blade set two or three inches back from the muzzle" (page 40). I was surprised to learn that the Bumford trade gun (early English) has a brass front sight dovetailed in place, and Hamilton described a Type G gun with a "half oval brass blade." I believe the Chief's grade guns often had what is called a "spider" front sight, with four arms spreading out from the blade and inset in the top of the barrel.

So, no turtles... yet. However, I think those of us who have guns with turtle front sights ought to just shoot them and enjoy them. There is no way we will recapture every historic detail.

Funny story... I ordered a Northwest gun from North Star West maybe eight or nine years ago. I found pictures of an original Barnett I liked,and I called Matt and discussed all the details. He built it just like I wanted. It was some time after I received the gun that I discovered I had asked him to make a copy of a of an original Belgian counterfeit of a Barnett! It's a great gun, though. I love it.

Notchy Bob

Hanson's statement (that's pretty much what he said from what I can remember, it's been a few years!) is what triggered my thoughts. I have his book and many others on trade arms. And like I said, I don't recall seeing a single turtle sight at all. I'll have dig the books out for future reference on this. I personally like turtle and 'spider' sights, but they may not be HC/PC at all. Not that it matters for everyday shooting. Thanks for the conversation on this.

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

i

am too old to have feelers Mike!!! just ask my wife.
assuming you were refering to my fowler, i am without words. praise from so experienced a builder leaves me speechless.

I've never used one of rices dolep barrels but they sure look good too me.

 

[deerstalkert]

I've never used one of rices dolep barrels but they sure look good too me.

i was very pleased with the Rice barrel. the challenge was they swamped the octagonal section from tang to wedding ring. once i figured out how to fit a Kibler colonial lock against the barrel the rest was easy. i turned the rod end from bison horn. showed the fowler to a lady cousin and she had to have it!
it weighs about 5.75 lbs all up.

 

[Fitzhugh Williams]

I think one reason may be that they use a single barrel profile to accommodate multiple bore sizes. Matt Denison of the now defunct North Star West made a point of the fact that his barrels were profiled specifically for each bore size.

R.E. Davis used to sell a Type D French fusil kit with a properly profiled barrel. Proper length too.., 46” if I remember correctly.*

Thick barrels don’t annoy me as much as “turtle” front sights.

Notchy Bob

*LATE EDIT: The R.E. Davis kit is still shown on their website, but I don't know if it is still actually available or not. It has a 48" barrel, not 46", so I got that detail wrong, but it is evidently copied directly from an original. I don't know if the barrel is available separately or not. Check it out here: R.E. Davis French "Fine Fusil" Kit

I bought the Fusil Fin kit years ago, but found it to be a heavy gun. The barrel of the original that it is based on is 51" instead of 48" (because it is 4 French feet (pieds) instead of US feet). It is a nice enough gun, but just too heavy for an old guy. I feel that with a properly profiled barrel it would be a pleasure to carry and shoot.

Also, I bought a Rifle Shoppe kit of a fusil fin de chasse and wanted a thinner, longer barrel. It came with a 44" Colerain. I replaced it with a 46" Longhammock which is a little slimmer. I had to "shrink" the barrel channel a little by the "steam in the shower" method, but it worked well enough. And I had to lengthen the stock a little too. But it ended up being a very nice gin and one which I enjoy carrying and shooting.

I was also thinking about lightening the Longhammock barrel a little more by drilling it out to .65 cal from .62, partly because the original was .65 cal. That would be great except when buying gun tools and round balls. I have a similar gun in .66 cal and I have trouble finding them for it. For .62 cal, anything and everything is available.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

I've never used one of rices dolep barrels but they sure look good too me.

Mike, These are really nice barrels. If I remember correctly a customer drew up the measurements from a picture of a Dolep gun. The Rice barrel has super nice lines for a trade type gun and is very light but in my opinion needs a much bigger breech for replicating a Dolep style sporting gun.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Here are two identical Colerain barrels off their 42", 12 ga. Griffin Spanish barrel profile.
One is stock and the other has had the muzzle relieved inside like many of the original guns were done. The Griffin profile is a pretty good option if one gets the maximum bore size for the outside measurements ( 16 in "C" and 12 in "D")

 

[Fitzhugh Williams]

d

 

[Notchy Bob]

I bought the Fusil Fin kit years ago, but found it to be a heavy gun. The barrel of the original that it is based on is 51" instead of 48" (because it is 4 French feet (pieds) instead of US feet). It is a nice enough gun, but just too heavy for an old guy. I feel that with a properly profiled barrel it would be a pleasure to carry and shoot.

Also, I bought a Rifle Shoppe kit of a fusil fin de chasse and wanted a thinner, longer barrel. It came with a 44" Colerain. I replaced it with a 46" Longhammock which is a little slimmer. I had to "shrink" the barrel channel a little by the "steam in the shower" method, but it worked well enough. And I had to lengthen the stock a little too. But it ended up being a very nice gin and one which I enjoy carrying and shooting.

I was also thinking about lightening the Longhammock barrel a little more by drilling it out to .65 cal from .62, partly because the original was .65 cal. That would be great except when buying gun tools and round balls. I have a similar gun in .66 cal and I have trouble finding them for it. For .62 cal, anything and everything is available.

Thank you, @Fitzhugh Williams , for the correct information regarding the Davis fusil fin kit. Good to hear from someone who has actually assembled one!

Notchy Bob

 

[Comfortably_Numb]

I built a Davis fusil fins kit some time ago. It went over 8lbs. Not because of the length, but because there wasn't enough taper in the profile. I think my original French barrel is 1 3/16 at the breech
Most of the taper happens in the first 9 to 10 inches. There is no flare at the muzzle.

 

[Rob M.]

Yep , originals were d@mn light . They make mine seem heavy ... This one went to PA , it had a 38" barrel and was just under 5 1/2 pds.

 

[Rob M.]

Hey you!

One thing that kind of miffs me is today most (nearly all) trade gun and fowler repros use barrels that are far thicker than the originals.

On English trade guns, the barrels are thin and very lightweight. The Indians wanted lightweight guns and the originals were in the 4.5-5.5lbs range.

Just look at pictures of the muzzles on originals if you don’t believe me. They’re out there.

Instead, today we’ve got thick and heavy barrels that give us guns in the 7-9lbs range on average.

Why is this? You’d think with todays advanced in metallurgy it could be easily done. Even the barrels on modern unmentionable shotguns are often very thin.

Here’s the muzzle of an original early Northwest trade gun (top) compared to my repro with a Colerain barrel on bottom:

View attachment 237263
View attachment 237264

It’s a huge difference. My barrel must be 2-3 times heavier than an original.

So is it just liability? Or lack of attention to detail from out barrel makers of today? Or something else?

Thanks!

Its a liability thing ... Ive spoke with a couple makers . Folks do really dumb things and then try to blame it on the manufacturer . I love a thin light weight barrel ! Makes for a great and authentic trade gun !! I'm building a Fusil now and the Oct. section is not tapered at all . Thats B.S. Oh well , what are ya gonna do . I like Larry Zornes barrels , they are a tad too heavy but not as bad as other brands , esp. Colerain !! Lordy !! but that muzzle has thin walls and the barrel is tapered . D@mn accurate barrels too !

 

[Rudyard]

It would a battle to turnout a 4 &1/2 pound gun .But agree todays barrel are on the stout side & NO doubt its more a liability thing .The old' North Star' used to turn out a light barrel non I used failed UK proof .But like most US guns the makers have to counter 'magnunitus' in the customers, So tend to be heavy by my notions whereas in UK once a gun passes proof the maker is off the hook.

Shades of'
"Whenever patients come to me ", " I Physics, Bleeds ,an Sweats em", " If after that they choose to die ? What's that the me ? " . I Lettsome (MD) (Found that in an old Victorian medical book in Kathmandu . always strook me amusing as was no doubt the writer's intent .
Regards Rudyard

 

[bud in pa]

How about if a maximum load is stamped on the barrel ? could that relieve some liability?

 

[roedgecomb]

Hey you!

One thing that kind of miffs me is today most (nearly all) trade gun and fowler repros use barrels that are far thicker than the originals.

On English trade guns, the barrels are thin and very lightweight. The Indians wanted lightweight guns and the originals were in the 4.5-5.5lbs range.

Just look at pictures of the muzzles on originals if you don’t believe me. They’re out there.

Instead, today we’ve got thick and heavy barrels that give us guns in the 7-9lbs range on average.

Why is this? You’d think with todays advanced in metallurgy it could be easily done. Even the barrels on modern unmentionable shotguns are often very thin.

Here’s the muzzle of an original early Northwest trade gun (top) compared to my repro with a Colerain barrel on bottom:

View attachment 237263
View attachment 237264

It’s a huge difference. My barrel must be 2-3 times heavier than an original.

So is it just liability? Or lack of attention to detail from out barrel makers of today? Or something else?

Thanks!

 

[PathfinderNC]

I made a Type G Fusil from the Mold and Gun Shop and the 20 gauge barrel was quite thin, though just 40.5 inches IIRC. It's the one on the right; the Colerain barrel on the left. Very lovely gun.

 

[Hiverano]

Hey you!

One thing that kind of miffs me is today most (nearly all) trade gun and fowler repros use barrels that are far thicker than the originals.

On English trade guns, the barrels are thin and very lightweight. The Indians wanted lightweight guns and the originals were in the 4.5-5.5lbs range.

Just look at pictures of the muzzles on originals if you don’t believe me. They’re out there.

Instead, today we’ve got thick and heavy barrels that give us guns in the 7-9lbs range on average.

Why is this? You’d think with todays advanced in metallurgy it could be easily done. Even the barrels on modern unmentionable shotguns are often very thin.

Here’s the muzzle of an original early Northwest trade gun (top) compared to my repro with a Colerain barrel on bottom:

View attachment 237263
View attachment 237264

It’s a huge difference. My barrel must be 2-3 times heavier than an original.

So is it just liability? Or lack of attention to detail from out barrel makers of today? Or something else?

Thanks!

You said it Smokey: "it's liability - not lack of attention.

When at GRRW and GRRW.CA we would get this question on every smoothbore build, "THIN BARREL" - like the customers we would like to see safe thin wall smoothbore barrels. The barrel makers in general have the same answer and would rather provide a thicker barrel for safety reasons.

My family has collected antiques including firearms for over 150 years in our two antique shops in Philadelphia and Gettysburg PA area.

By the time these old smoothbore guns were discovered the walls on some of the barrels had gotten really thin from the moisture in the Eastern states.

My father and myself have owned many original NW Trade guns over the years, we traded a few with Charley Hanson and Curly G. on a yearly bases. Toys are toys as your finding out ...

Safety is always on everyone's mind ,,,

 

[Hiverano]

Got wondering about my NW Tradegun . This is a North Star from the late 70's 12 gage. the barrel thickness is .046.

It would be nice to get them this thin and made of high quality steel. Nice picture.

 

[Rudyard]

Thanks, @NorthFork ! This has given me a reason to hit the books. Since my last post, I've looked through several, including The Trade Gun Sketchbook, For Trade and Treaty (pretty carefully for those two), Hamilton's Colonial Frontier Guns and Indian Trade Guns (...but not very thoroughly), and Hanson's The Northwest Gun. I did not see any images or mention of turtle front sights. Charles Hanson said, "The standard fusil front sight was a low iron blade set two or three inches back from the muzzle" (page 40). I was surprised to learn that the Bumford trade gun (early English) has a brass front sight dovetailed in place, and Hamilton described a Type G gun with a "half oval brass blade." I believe the Chief's grade guns often had what is called a "spider" front sight, with four arms spreading out from the blade and inset in the top of the barrel.

So, no turtles... yet. However, I think those of us who have guns with turtle front sights ought to just shoot them and enjoy them. There is no way we will recapture every historic detail.

Funny story... I ordered a Northwest gun from North Star West maybe eight or nine years ago. I found pictures of an original Barnett I liked,and I called Matt and discussed all the details. He built it just like I wanted. It was some time after I received the gun that I discovered I had asked him to make a copy of a of an original Belgian counterfeit of a Barnett! It's a great gun, though. I love it.

Notchy Bob

The Sat on the barel Trutle seems hoky to me some sights where of silver set flush into the barrel with just the barley corn protruding .I made three ' Chiefs ' grades and did it that way if I used solder not silver .These spider sights are not rare on old flint guns . Never saw any ' Turkle 'sorts, I think them modern.
Rudyard

 

[Hiverano]

The Sat on the barel Trutle seems hoky to me some sights where of silver set flush into the barrel with just the barley corn protruding .I made three ' Chiefs ' grades and did it that way if I used solder not silver .These spider sights are not rare on old flint guns . Never saw any ' Turkle 'sorts, I think them modern.
Rudyard

In 70 years of looking at antique firearms I can only remember a few with the turtle front sight they were either on late Chief's or NW guns (not many as I recall). Just a few but like said on later smoothbores ...

One was on a Leman NW trade gun, Hanson figured it was in the 1850-60 era. I post pictures of this copy made by Doc White.

H.E. Leman NW Trade Gun built by Doc White
GRRW.CA H.E. Leman North West Trade Gun
[GRRW.CA #NW01 DGW].


1st Shot


Fine Tuning


Making Adjustments

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​