Rifle Period Question

[tg]

Anyone have any source material showing post 1820 Jaegar rifles American or Euro made?

 

[Rod Lassey]

Couple of things---

First, George Droulliard was killed in 1810, not 1809---shortly after Andrew Henry and Pierre Menard established their fort at the Three forks of the Missouri. By the way, this last September Three Forks, MT, hosted a very informative and well done fur trade symposium, with the efforts of the St. Louis Missouri Fur Co. as the main subject.

Second, what you carried would have alot to do with what you did, your station in life, what you could afford, and what you were hunting. For example, here's a couple of excerpts regarding the use of the NW gun:

"They generally put five or six bullets in their mouth, and when they fire they pour a charge of powder into the left hand from the powder horn which hangs over the right shoulder, throw it into the barrel, which is hastily struck on the saddle to shake down the powder so as to pass into the pan to prime it, then throw in a bullet wet with saliva of the mouth which causes it to adhere to the powder and prevents it falling out when the muzzle is depressed to fire. In this manner these gentlemen fired from 12 to 14 times each in riding about a mile. but without ball. It will be readily seen that a percussion gun cannot be fired with the same facility on account of the inconvenience of putting on the caps."
---Edward Harris, Ft. Union, 1843

"When running buffaloes the hunters do not use rifle-patches but take along several balls in their mouth; the projectile thus moistened sticks to the powder when put into the gun. In the first place, on buffalo hunts, they do not carry rifles, for the reason that they think the care required takes too much time unnecessarily when shooting at close range and, furthermore, they find rifle balls too small. The hunter chases buffalo at full gallop, discharges his gun, and reloads without slackening speed. To accomplish this he holds the weapon close within the bend of his left arm and, taking the powder horn with his right hand, draws out with his teeth the stopper, which is fastened to the horn to prevent its being lost, shakes the requisite amount of powder into his left palm, and again closes the powder horn. Then he grasps the gun with his right hand, holding it in a vertical position, pours the powder down the barrel, and gives the gun a sidelong thrust with the left hand, in order to shake the powder well through the priming hole into the touchpan (hunters at this place discard percussion caps as not practical).
Now he takes a bullet from his mouth and with his left hand puts it into the barrel, where, having been moistened by spittle, it adheres to the powder. He dares never to hold his weapon horizontal, that is, in position taken when firing, for fear that the ball may stick fast in its course, allowing sufficient air to intervene between the powder and lead to cause an explosion and splinter the barrel. So long as the ball rolls freely down there is no danger. Hunters approach the buffaloes so closely that they do not aim but, lifting the gun lightly in both hands, point in the direction of the animal's heart and fire. They are very often wounded on the face and hands by the bursting gun barrels, which, especially when the weather is extremely cold, are shattered as easily as glass.
---Rudoph F. Kurz, Ft. Union, 1851

We each possessed a fusil brought to this country expressly for the Indian trade, a light kind of gun which is used only by the hunters on our side of the mountains for running buffalo. However, my companion appeared quite expert with his weapon, and made several very good shots with it.
---Warren A. Ferris, Life in the Rocky Mountains


The mountaineers preferred rifles, to be sure, but the lowly NW gun was used as well.

Rod

 

[Tommy Bruce]

How period correct do you want to be? Pedersoli, for the most part makes a servicable firearm but the furniture on that jaeger is as wrong as two boys kissing. I'm sorry a Bivens style lancaster butt plate just looks like hell on a jaeger rifle. With the dollar in a free fall and the price of italian guns going up, why not spend a little more money and get a historically accurate rifle. I'll agree with some earlier posts, a late Dickert rifle, Lancaster trade rifle or the Northwest trade gun are all fine options. A gun built by an American gunmaker will also hold it's value a lot better than the imports. But if period correctness or value doesn't play into the picture please disregard my post. Not trying to rile anyones feathers, just some observations.

 

[BigSkyRambler]

Well, I already have a Jack Garner iron mounted (I Know) Virginia rifle that seems to fit the bill, but I am always thinking out of the box. So any rifle that existed anywhere on the planet during that period is "period correct" for the early fur trade.

 

[Ken Cormier]

A Jaegar rifle in the west. I would think that a gun would be used as long as possible until the parts were no longer repairable. Passed down from Father to son as long as it was usable. Also a short barrel would be easyer on horse back just my new 02

 

[Tommy Bruce]

Again,
It just depends on how correct you want to be. I'm not advocating for either side but just because it existed doesn't mean it was used. For example, a finely crafted fowling piece made for an English lord in highly unlikely to be found in the hands of a mountain man headed to the rockies. But I think i'm starting to get off track here from the origional thread so I'll leave it be.

 

[KHickam]

A Jaegar rifle in the west. I would think that a gun would be used as long as possible until the parts were no longer repairable. Passed down from Father to son as long as it was usable. Also a short barrel would be easyer on horse back just my new 02

Really? :hmm:

[/img]

[/img]

These were both taken in the Upper Missouri drainage near the Grand River and less than a days ride from Ft Manuel Lisa. :idunno:

 

[rich pierce]

Logic does not predict history. It may seem reasonable that a "jaeger" would be a good fur trade era rifle but that does not mean any were ever used there. We can try to reason away why they were not, or why they should have been, but all that is blowing smoke.

 

[Dphar]

And Potts was killed earlier than Drouillard and Coulter (Colter sp?) lived beyond Drouillard - the basic premise of the post was true - they were in around the Rocky Mountains within a year or two of returning with the Corps of Discovery.

Leading expeditions into the area of the Upper Missouri and the Rocky Mountains.

Big Sky Rambler - I can vaguely remember something to the effect that Coulter (Colter) did purchase his rifle from the expedition, but can't give a citation on it.

Even so that just reinforces my premise - that a Lancaster style rifle around 50 cal would have been present/perhaps common in the early fur trade along the Upper Missouri in the time frame the poster was asking about.

1792/94 expedition rifles were made by Deringer, Dickert, Gumpf and a few others - were brass mounted lancaster style rifles in 49 cal if I recall correctly

My own rifle (which I am developing a character in Upper Missouri ca 1810-13) is a brass mounted, plain maple stocked, with sliding wood patchbox with a swamped 50 cal barrel (actually a 49 cal) and I feel very comfortable that this would be a possible rifle to be carried by a trapper in that region, place and time. Except it is left handed.

Its obvious that there were a lot of Kentuckys in the west. The various Henry rifles "Scroll guard rifle etc" were simply Kentuckies of 45 to 56 caliber from the orders placed and the surviving rifles. Usually iron mounted but these came later.
So for an early westerner a 44-50 caliber longrifle mounted in brass is perfect.

1792/94 Expedition rifles....
Nobody knows what the L&C expedition rifles were.
But given the quality of the 1792(from what I have been told) I doubt this is what they were. These were basically made by the lowest bidder and likely is why the subsequent rifles and muskets were made at Gov't armories.
I would tend toward the Armory making new "short rifles" for Lewis, they had to make extra locks & parts anyway. He had a piece of paper allowing him to order anything he wanted and there were 15 more 1803s on the books than they were authorized to make. Lewis took 15 rifles.
Yeah the order for the 1803 was placed AFTER Lewis left. BUT these guns were not made from drawings, Dearborne HAD to have a prototype in hand when he wrote down the changes he wanted. This is how things were done at the time.
While nobody knows and some folks have a financial stake in the 1792 "L&C Expedtion Rifle" the prototype 1803 is just as likely. I could not fault a re-enactor with a shortened and relocked 1792 or with a 1803 type. There is no documentation for either.
Remember the 1792s virtually all had their locks replaced with locks nearly identical to the 1803. Lewis had been in service with a unit armed with the 1792 and my have not liked it much.
Also Lewis KNEW what lay ahead as far as the Falls of the Missouri. Whites had been there, the Yellowstone River was named by the French afterall and was known long before L&C arrived a the mouth. With is in mind its entirely possible that Lewis saw the prototype(s) and ordered 15 built in 54. Add to this that 2 of the short rifle burst up the barrel from the breech some distance and that this was a chronic problem with the 1/2 oct 1803 but not with the contract guns so far as I know. The two rifles were cut off and returned to serviceability, one was traded to an Indian Chief.

The expeditions were short, the armory made 15 more of the 1803 than authorized and 2 of the barrels burst in the manner typical of the 1803.
This is fairly good evidence. Lewis specifies nothing SFAIK to show the rifles were made at HF or reworked there as 1792s would have been.

Its a huge irritating question mark.

Dan

 

[BigSkyRambler]

In an unrelated area, a well known idiot once said something to the effect of "Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence." And while in that instance the actions based on that premise are unconscionable, I think any fur trade era reenactor would be well within bounds to carry any firearm that was available, servicable, reliable, etc. As not all trappers, explorers, etc. were outfitted by the companies buying large orders of rifles, it seems not only possible, but even probable that you could see virtually anything of the period being carried into the West. This is all just food for thought.

 

[hoochiepapa]

Man! I hate this! I can't remember where I read it, but either Isaac Haines or Jacob Dickert made the rifles for Lewis and Clark, They were, if I can remember right, .52 caliber and 38" long in the barrel. This article had a copy of the order from Meriwether Lewis, and it had the list of everything they needed for the ex.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Sorry, but those stories are not correct. The guns were made at Harper's Ferry Armory for the L&C expedition. This is fairly well documented by the report of the Expedition which is now in print again.

 

[Dphar]

In an unrelated area, a well known idiot once said something to the effect of "Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence." And while in that instance the actions based on that premise are unconscionable, I think any fur trade era reenactor would be well within bounds to carry any firearm that was available, servicable, reliable, etc. As not all trappers, explorers, etc. were outfitted by the companies buying large orders of rifles, it seems not only possible, but even probable that you could see virtually anything of the period being carried into the West. This is all just food for thought.

I would agree. To a point.

While L&C had muskets and at least one "elegant" fusil (lost at Great Falls in the flash flood) along on the trip it was the rifle that kept them in meat.
A rifle is a near necessity in the west all comments on how useful the smoothbore is not withstanding. The west is not the east. Nor is it the great lakes region where a SB with small shot can be used on waterfowl year round.
Defending oneself with a SB out on the prairie is problematical. It was necessary to keep the natives out of BOW range and FUSEE range. The natives, for example, used bows as indirect fire weapons on Custer, he was in a bad spot and they could approach out of line of fire and lob arrows like mortar shells. So if it was necessary to stand and fight they tried to do it on a flat plain where the rifle was at its best.
The range is also lacking for hunting. I have a friend who had "access" to an original Hawken a really used in the west mountain rifle. He states that it was apparently sighted for about 180 yards.
This is based on his shooting the rifle about 30 year ago and coming the the conclusion it was sighted for what today would be an impossibly long range. (I had commented on the high rear, low front sights and the tapered barrel indicating the rifle was sighted for 150 plus and he said "funny you should mention that")
Why? Because, apparently the original owner was an actual Mtn Man who lived his entire active life in the west, sighted it this way because he felt it was necessary or it served him best.
The rifle is effective on man sized targets to 200 yards or perhaps a more with a very good possibility of a hit. A trade gun? At best 1/2 that and likely less.
So while its really cool to have some fowler or trade gun at a rendezvous or part of someones "persona" people need to ask themselves if my life REALLY, REALLY depended on it what would I use from the circa 1800-1840 inventory of arms in Wyoming or Montana or Nebraska? For those who have never been there a lot of it still looks like this (barring the fields of wheat and corn etc).

Dan

 

[BigSkyRambler]

I agree with you there, Dan. I prefer rifles myownself. I have just been kicking around for the heck of it what kind of atypical rifle a man might have taken to the West. That is why I mentioned Jaeger (German immigrant) and Mortimer (disgraced English gentleman gone West). Admittedly, this is purely an intellectual exercise, but with the scant documentation on guns of the era, I think it a worthwhile exercise.

 

[rich pierce]

It's clear that "jaeger" rifles in America have been scarce as hen's teeth compared to longrifles except pre-1760, when we know almost nothing of imported or colonial made rifles. And indeed the population in America was so low before 1750 compared to after the Revolutionary War that there were fewer guns total that were needed in earlier eras. It is rare indeed to find a surviving Euro jaeger rifle here that post-dates the Revolutionary War.

That being said, any Revolutionary War era rifle, whether jaeger or a conventional longrifle, would be well out of style and its likely that many made during the Revolutionary War or earlier would be well shot out by the time the western fur trade began to bloom. Thousands of rifles were being made in Lancaster and eastern Pennsylvania in the period in question, and many in Virginia, Tennessee and the Carolinas, and quite a bit is known of them. There are many documented fur trade rifles from the 1780s on. The British trade rifles available in the Great Lakes area were patterned after Lancaster rifles. The general pattern of rifles for the fur trade is a .52-.54 caliber barrel 42-44" long, a stout and reliable flintlock, a Lancaster-styled buttstock, a patchbox that evolved from sliding wooden, to a plain cast brass box, a Lancaster daisy box, to later derived forms. The guns weighed 9-11 pounds and were to survive rough service. This was the norm for documented fur trade rifles. Guesses about the calibers that became favored include a balance between power and economy. Lengths copied prevailing styles, and may reflect a desire for a long sighting radius and getting the most out of the powder charge. Weights reflect prevailing styles with perhaps a built in extra strength.

The only fur trade rifles of very heavy caliber that are known belonged to special folks such as Ashley or Sir William Drummond Stewart. The Indian fusee large bore design may have been intended to make them go broke on lead and powder used to limited effect against whites. Just a cynical supposition.

 

[Ken Cormier]

Hi didn't mead to start a peeing contest. But yes an experinced hand could use a long gun. What I meant was for some a short barrel weapon.COULD be easy to use a horse back. But that is like saying ALL mountain men used Hawkins. Also nice looking animal.

 

[Rod Lassey]

Just something to think about, but a rifle using parts from an older gun (jaeger if you want) and rebuilt into a more modern gun may well be plausible. New wood, longer barrel, old lock and furniture, etc. Guns were frequently rebuilt, especially with heavy use.

I won't get into the smoothbore/rifle debate---suffice it to say that there's plenty of documentation for both in the fur trade, either would be a good choice for the reenactor. I've used both, with about equal results. The area I live in (western North Dakota) looks alot like Dan's pics, but without those big hills in the background--North Dakota's been very sucessful with our mountain removal project :grin:


Rod

 

[BigSkyRambler]

I guess I was thinking along these lines.
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/251462/

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

A Jaeger in the "far west"? Not likely in the period under discussion but possible I guess. One thing that has not been mentioned? Not all German Jaegers were "short", a 38" - 40" barrel was not unheard of or even uncommon. And not all were large caliber guns either.

Also, keep in mind that a man headed west and knowing that dangerous game and hostile foes would want the best possible weapon to accompany him, a well worn family heirloom was not necessarily the best or wisest choice to carry in harms way along with a good blanket and a sharp, well made knife. A new firearm was very possibly the wisest investment he could make. Just sayin'....

 

[Rod Lassey]

Well, the rifle you illustrate has been converted to percussion, showing that it was still in use into that era, so I guess anything's possible. But, be aware it would really be an anomaly, and I have not seen anything to document such a rifle in the western fur trade.


Rod