-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
School Me on Tradeguns
- Thread starter Smokey Plainsman
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Thanks, all. So the Type-G Carolina guns, that’s interesting. So these were still Indian trade guns but more for the east, as opposed to the northwest “serpent” side plate guns?
Amazon is shipping my copy of “For Trade and Treaty” and I can’t wait to read it. Hoping it clears some things up for me. I know next to nothing about smoothbore American-used flintlocks, but have always been drawn to the versatility of a smoothbore for an all-purpose woodsing piece.
Amazon is shipping my copy of “For Trade and Treaty” and I can’t wait to read it. Hoping it clears some things up for me. I know next to nothing about smoothbore American-used flintlocks, but have always been drawn to the versatility of a smoothbore for an all-purpose woodsing piece.
Brokennock
Cannon
The Type-G is more "for the east," mostly because it is earlier. During it's primary period of importation we hadn't advanced very far to the west, yet.
The best thing about them is they have a rear sight, and an interesting unique one at that, mounted further back than most long gun rear sights. And, they are very light and handy. The downside to them is that for some reason they don't seem to be super popular so there aren't a lot of them floating around for sale as not a lot of builders make them.
-Smokey[/QUOTE]
The trade gun, fusil, and fowler, are, in simple terms, different names for the same gun. The styling is somewhat different depending on who made it, but all performed about the same. A fowler may have had a slightly longer barrel for shooting waterfowl at a longer distance, the trade gun was cheaply made and was made in large quantities for trade with the Indians for furs, and fusil is the French word for gun.
The difference between a French fusil de chasse (gun for hunting) and a French fusil fin (fine gun) is basically the furniture. The fusil de chasse generally used iron furniture, and the fusil fin used brass. The fusil fin was a bit fancier and used for trade with chiefs and other important people.
As for versatility, I have a 20 gage fusil fin and I have taken bear, deer, turkey, duck, quail, chukar, squirrel, woodchuck, and rabbit with it. So yes, it can shoot roundball and shot effectively. I personally limit my roundball shots while hunting to 50 +/- yards, and shot to about 25 yards or less.
To me, the choice of which trade gun to get came down to eye appeal and time period I was involved with. The French Fusil Fin fit the time period and location where I am, and I just found the styling/lines of the gun to have much more appeal to me.
Which ever one you chose, you will have a lot of fun with it.
The trade gun, fusil, and fowler, are, in simple terms, different names for the same gun. The styling is somewhat different depending on who made it, but all performed about the same. A fowler may have had a slightly longer barrel for shooting waterfowl at a longer distance, the trade gun was cheaply made and was made in large quantities for trade with the Indians for furs, and fusil is the French word for gun.
The difference between a French fusil de chasse (gun for hunting) and a French fusil fin (fine gun) is basically the furniture. The fusil de chasse generally used iron furniture, and the fusil fin used brass. The fusil fin was a bit fancier and used for trade with chiefs and other important people.
As for versatility, I have a 20 gage fusil fin and I have taken bear, deer, turkey, duck, quail, chukar, squirrel, woodchuck, and rabbit with it. So yes, it can shoot roundball and shot effectively. I personally limit my roundball shots while hunting to 50 +/- yards, and shot to about 25 yards or less.
To me, the choice of which trade gun to get came down to eye appeal and time period I was involved with. The French Fusil Fin fit the time period and location where I am, and I just found the styling/lines of the gun to have much more appeal to me.
Which ever one you chose, you will have a lot of fun with it.
Ben Meyer
40 Cal
My next BP long gun will be a .62cal smoothbore. I'm in no hurry to get one though, being as I have 3 BP rifles already. Then a .36 cal rifle.
The dragon or sea serpent side plate was a preferred style on civilian guns and often guns built for sea service. It became stylized in to the universal ones seen on NWG, but general shape seen earlier. The Dutch, French and English all sent guns to America for its settlers with a ‘dragon’ side plate, although not the final NWG style.
You have to look close to tell a Carolina gun from a general fowling gun held by a colonial settler at that time.
A Dutch light musket, was sent to colonies all over the Americas. The ‘Buccaneer’ style was not far removed from ‘Hudson valley fowler’.
All of our known TFCs were guns in use up to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. A colonist in 1776 could well have a dog lock musket/ fowler. A Connecticut family moving to Ohio in the 1790s or 1800s could well have F&I era gun.
America would be the land of rifles, but a family that came to the Americas in 1700 and moved west in the Federal period may well have bought their first rifle after moving west, dad, gramps and grand gramps all owning an earlier gun.
You have to look close to tell a Carolina gun from a general fowling gun held by a colonial settler at that time.
A Dutch light musket, was sent to colonies all over the Americas. The ‘Buccaneer’ style was not far removed from ‘Hudson valley fowler’.
All of our known TFCs were guns in use up to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. A colonist in 1776 could well have a dog lock musket/ fowler. A Connecticut family moving to Ohio in the 1790s or 1800s could well have F&I era gun.
America would be the land of rifles, but a family that came to the Americas in 1700 and moved west in the Federal period may well have bought their first rifle after moving west, dad, gramps and grand gramps all owning an earlier gun.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,268
Interesting to note, in the day of trading the native Americans actually had more up to date rifles than the white man and more of them. They were actually richer than most white men.
Really? Neat!
So I’ve a question. I’ve read that smoothbore were popular for Indians and whites before the revolutionary, and after that, rifles became most popular with whites.
BUT, what about when it came time to hunt the ducks and birds? Basically, what did the whites use for a “shotgun” in them days?
Gunsmith. To be sold by John Pim of Boston, Gunsmith, at the Sign of the Cross Guns, in Anne-Street near the Draw Bridge, at very Reasonable Rates, sundry sorts of choice Arms lately arrived from London, viz. Handy Muskets, Buccaneer-Guns, Fowling pieces, Hunting Guns, Carabines, several sorts of Pistols, Brass and Iron, fashionable Swords, &c.—Boston News-Letter, July 4-11, 1720.
Gunsmith. Newly imported, and sold by Samuel Miller, Gunsmith, at the Sign of the cross Guns near the Draw-Bridge, Boston: Neat Fire Arms of all sorts, Pistols, Swords, Hangers, Cutlasses, Flasks for Horsemen, Firelocks, &c.—Boston Gazette, May 11, 1742.
Last edited:
Shotguns.
They called them fowling pieces. Doubles go back to early sixteenth century, but uncommon even with the wealthy before the 1790s.
Deer populations were driven off or eaten pretty quick by settlers.
Nesmuk (Sears) makes reference to fine woods to camp in with plenty of deer for dinner, then deer being rare just twenty years later, as farmers took over the area.
But small game remained common near farms. Bunnies and birds were still going in to the pot. There was a lot of market for a smoothie, and records show lots of shot being used.
We are remembered as a nation of rifleman, but the reason for the creation of the NRA was to teach shooting skills to a public with low shooting skills.
We can write books on rifles in America. Filling volumes with 1750 to 1780, or Leman rifles or Henry. However the gun most likely to be in an Americans hands was a smoothie.
As said above Indians were getting rifles sometimes when nearby whites were still shooting smoothies, as they had not yet the means to get a rifle. There was never a time when Indians weren’t buying smoothies as much as they could. And they were not just dumb consumers. Indians drove trade very hard. More then one trader went broke by selling stuff indians didn’t want, they were very demanding. They got what they wanted not what sellers were selling.
They called them fowling pieces. Doubles go back to early sixteenth century, but uncommon even with the wealthy before the 1790s.
Deer populations were driven off or eaten pretty quick by settlers.
Nesmuk (Sears) makes reference to fine woods to camp in with plenty of deer for dinner, then deer being rare just twenty years later, as farmers took over the area.
But small game remained common near farms. Bunnies and birds were still going in to the pot. There was a lot of market for a smoothie, and records show lots of shot being used.
We are remembered as a nation of rifleman, but the reason for the creation of the NRA was to teach shooting skills to a public with low shooting skills.
We can write books on rifles in America. Filling volumes with 1750 to 1780, or Leman rifles or Henry. However the gun most likely to be in an Americans hands was a smoothie.
As said above Indians were getting rifles sometimes when nearby whites were still shooting smoothies, as they had not yet the means to get a rifle. There was never a time when Indians weren’t buying smoothies as much as they could. And they were not just dumb consumers. Indians drove trade very hard. More then one trader went broke by selling stuff indians didn’t want, they were very demanding. They got what they wanted not what sellers were selling.
Awesome, thanks! So American fowling pieces? Then there were the French fusils, and then of course the Indian trade guns?
As I’m sure you can tell, I am a moron when it comes to the smoothies. About the only smoothies I know about are the ones from the Dairy Queen down the street LOL.
Capt. Jas.
58 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 3,049
- Reaction score
- 1,352
Smokey, you are getting a plethora of information here. Some is spot on, some is conjecture and some is not quite correct. I would suggest the reason for this is overlap of features as mentioned and the fact that it takes quite a bit of time in research to gain an understanding of gun trade, their production and products.
For example.... an English fusee proper would be intended for shooting balls, be smoothbored with a cylinder bore and could look exactly like a fowling piece proper which would be intended for shooting shot and chances are good the bore would be roughened or relieved at the breech and relieved in the muzzle.
Either could and many did see use shooting that for which it was not intended.
A "fowling piece" ("fowler" was the guy behind the gun) could have for example a 38" barrel and be designed for rough shooting for partridge or it could be large bored and have a six foot barrel for waterfowling. There is just no short answer : )
For example.... an English fusee proper would be intended for shooting balls, be smoothbored with a cylinder bore and could look exactly like a fowling piece proper which would be intended for shooting shot and chances are good the bore would be roughened or relieved at the breech and relieved in the muzzle.
Either could and many did see use shooting that for which it was not intended.
A "fowling piece" ("fowler" was the guy behind the gun) could have for example a 38" barrel and be designed for rough shooting for partridge or it could be large bored and have a six foot barrel for waterfowling. There is just no short answer : )
So I’ve got a book coming on Indian trade guns, in an effort to help understand them.
But what about American smoothbores? Any books on those?
But what about American smoothbores? Any books on those?
William greener Wrote a treatise in 1858 describing what pieces of junk were traded to Indians.
"The use and introduction of what is called “charcoal-iron,” is one of the shams reared and supported by the hotbed of competition and deception combined: a wish to foist on the purchaser a counterfeit for the real metal. I would not give shop-room to the best barrels ever made from such a compound. I hate a scoundrel and a hypocrite; this iron exemplifies the qualities of both.
This worthless compound consists principally of cuttings of sheet iron; of which there is an endless supply in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, from punchings and from one inferior metal and another. After properly cleaning, a quantity is put into a charcoal furnace and melted, cast into a pig, then forged down to a bar, and rolled into rods corresponding with the size of stub twist, which it is intended to represent. The action of the charcoal communicates to it a portion of carbon, which, when stained in a certain way, gives an appearance much resembling that beautiful metal just mentioned (stub-Damascus); but if every means imagined by the inventive faculty of man were employed upon it, it could not be made into really good iron. An iron which is technically termed “weak,” can never be made a strong bodied iron, or an “iron suitable to make steel,” to repeat a former quotation. The original iron from which these scraps generally come, is required to be “weak” iron, for the facility with[175] which it can be rolled into plates; a strong fibrous iron is not necessary.
Its greatest strength appears to be as follows: 7-16ths of an inch broad, and 5-16ths thick, solid contents 1·40635 inches, will bear a weight of 10,080 pounds; so that if my calculations are correct, it will bear only a pressure of 4,526 pounds in the tube. The loss of strength by heating or softening, being full 10 per cent.
This converted iron, however, will not endure the test of browning by smoke, or, more properly, flame; as the oxygen invariably destroys the appearance of steel in twelve hours after its application. By the old method of staining, it would be as impossible for any man, who was not a judge, to point out the real from the counterfeit, as to discern a copy executed by a clever artist from an original painting by one of the old masters.
But deception is ever fertile in expedients, and an ingenious invention was soon found out to imitate the advantage possessed by the “smoke brown,” which they obtain by first browning or staining the barrels very dark. A weak solution of muriatic acid, or spirits of salt, is applied very lightly with a sponge, and the colour is extracted from those portions of the iron left more prominent, by the excessive pickling they are subjected to before staining; they are then immediately dried, scalded with hot water, and the stain is complete; it is a most ingenious imitation.
I have already stated that this iron is very much[176] used in consequence of its cheapness; its cost being only fourpence per pound, while stub twist costs fivepence. It is also easily worked, being considerably softer than any of the above-described kinds of iron.
It may be asked, why so much inferior iron is used, when the difference in the price between the good and the bad is only a penny per pound? The reason is this:—If a barrel filer receive an order for a pair of barrels, he (having probably deceived his customer before, or, at any rate, knowing that he can deceive him without running any risk of detection) sends to the welder sufficient charcoal-iron to forge these barrels. Should the quantity amount to ten pounds, he, of course, saves tenpence. The welder receives two shillings less for welding this description of iron, than for welding stub-twist; so that here is already a saving of 2s. 10d. At the boring-mill, and the grinding-mill, the charge is also proportionate: the wages of the journeymen are less; so that by imposing on his customer one pair of barrels manufactured of this sort of iron instead of the real stub-twist, he pockets a clear gain of above 9s.; and should he manufacture one hundred pair of such barrels in the year, it would make at the end no small item in the year’s account of profit.
Thus it is with all description of barrels. The charge for making, by each workman, in the various stages of the manufacture, is according to the quality of each pair of barrels. The saving, then, to the[177] man who makes one hundred pairs of barrels in the year, though it be but a farthing in the pound of iron, amounts to a considerable sum. This fraudulent gain of more than 5s. on a pair of pretended stub barrels, is what is called in Birmingham, “doing the natives,” and is a reward for ingenious knavery.
When orders are given by what are called general factors, who very kindly supply their country friends at a moderate commission of 40 to 50 per cent., these gentry take care to lap up the cream; for we know from facts that the barrel filer has sometimes scarcely five per cent. for his trouble of overlooking. One consequence naturally results from this, that every species of deception will be resorted to, in order to indemnify workpeople for their labour and trouble. At the present time, I have no doubt that there are hundreds of guns made in Birmingham, the barrels of which, in some instances, never enter the proof house: as eightpence per barrel, the cost of proof, is a great temptation! Besides, a great number of barrels declared “wasters”—such as repeatedly bulged in the proof, are full of flaws, have holes in the sides, or some other fault sufficient to condemn them in the eyes of a moderately conscientious barrel-maker—are bought by men who live by this species of fraud; and are repaired with great neatness, by putting in pieces artfully, beating down swellings or bulges. Then the proof-mark “of doubtful identity;” and, last of all,—mark!—they fit them up, and send them to the engraver to have the name of some living or defunct London gun-maker of[178] respectability engraved upon them, and palm them off upon some dealer as a good article.
I commend to the reader the advice of “Edward Davies,” a gentleman who wrote in 1619; who says “He that loves the safetie of his own person, and delighteth in the goodness and beautie of a piece, let him always make choice of one that is double breeched; and if possible, a Mylan piece, for they be of tough and perfect temper, light, square, and bigge of breech, and very strong where the powder doth lie, and where the violent force of the fire doth consist, and notwithstanding thinne at the end. Our English pieces approach very neare unto them in beautie and goodness, (their heaviness only excepted) so that they be made of purpose, and not one of these common sale pieces, with round barrels, whereunto a beaten souldier will have great respect, and choose rather to pay double money for a good piece, than to spare his purse and endanger himself.” Truly, the fraternity have always, we find, been of doubtful honesty: always making “sale pieces.”
“Threepenny skelp iron” is made from an inferior quality of scrap to that from which “charcoal iron” is made; but unlike it, there is no pretension of quality. Its inferiority is not denied; it is poor in quality, and suits parties who cannot buy better. The method of preparing is by an air-furnace, forge, tilt and rolling mill, as before described. The greatest strength of a bar 11-16ths broad by 3-16ths thick, containing 1·5468 solid inches, is 7,840 lbs.; or equal to an internal pressure of 3,841 lbs. to the inch of[179] tube. One particular fact attaches to all kinds of inferior iron—the greater the mass acted upon by the rollers the greater the variation of strength. This arises entirely from the increased sponginess of the metal, and its greater expansibility. For instance, a rod 1-16th thicker, is 15 per cent. weaker in proportion; and so on to the greatest extent. But on the other hand, it is capable of recovering a great increase of strength by cold hammering; greater than better iron. A considerable quantity of this iron is sold to engineers, and used in the construction of locomotive and other engines; the price and uniformity of texture in grain fitting it for that purpose.
“Twopenny” or “Wednesbury skelp” is almost too bad to be used in making an article which may endanger the limbs of our fellow creatures, and is now little used, fortunately. It is made of an inferior scrap to the former, in precisely the same manner; and in point of strength is still lower. The bar is generally 1 and 1-16th inches in breadth, by 3-16ths thick, the solid contents 2 inches and 25-64ths, and will bear a weight of 7,840 pounds; consequently the strength will be 2,840 pounds to the inch of tube.
This is a great falling-off in strength; and I would ask any one who values the safety of his hand, if he would like to risk it, by using a gun made of iron possessing so low a degree of strength, as compared to the force of the charge it has to bear? Let him recollect that the force of the charge may be increased[180] by a variety of circumstances. The pressure of a certain quantity of powder, on which a certain weight of shot is placed, is so many pounds to the inch; and if you double that weight of shot, you nearly double the pressure. In estimating the force of pressure, the opposing friction is also to be taken into account. If the gun be allowed to get very foul, then friction is increased, and of course a still greater pressure is thrown on the tube of the barrel. All these circumstances being taken into consideration, I repeat, that no barrel is safe, whose power of resistance is not more than double the strength of a charge of sufficient force for general shooting. Every bad gun should be thrown aside as unsafe, or used with the greatest caution. Bad and inferior guns are made from the foregoing material; and not many years have elapsed since it was thought good enough for military arms.
“Sham damn skelp” is made from the most inferior scrap. I should not have mentioned this description of iron had I not seen hundreds of barrels made of it, all which are utterly unfitted for the use of any person who cares at all for his safety. I have met with them frequently under the dignified name of twisted barrels. Guns that are fitted up at from ten to twelve shillings each are not of course patent breeched, but are made to appear so by staining them generally blue, and by having a couple of bands to imitate platina, across the squares. A projecting part is welded on to the side, into which the nipple is inserted, and the lock joints neatly under it. Many of them are good imitations;[181] but only take the barrel out of the stock and the deception is instantly apparent, as it is rarely carried further than the outside. The beautiful way in which the barrels are painted to imitate fine twist, catches the eye of the simple countryman, who is generally the dupe of this artifice; and the persuasive eloquence of the itinerant hardwareman, seldom fails to extract from the pocket of his unsuspecting purchaser sometimes thirty or forty shillings of his earnings for what the modest trader rarely pays above fifteen shillings. Many are the anathemas vented, when the deception is found out by some one more knowing than the dupe, who not unfrequently purchases his experience at the expense of a finger or a hand. It is astonishing what a quantity of this rubbish is disposed of by hawkers who infest market towns and villages with guns for sale.
But the English peasant is not the only dupe of this species of knavery. Thousands of these guns are sent monthly to the United States, to the Brazils, and South America; where they are disposed of, among the poor Indians, in exchange for skins and furs.
They are all understood to be “proved.” How many are so who can tell; but that some of them are not, there can be no doubt."
"The use and introduction of what is called “charcoal-iron,” is one of the shams reared and supported by the hotbed of competition and deception combined: a wish to foist on the purchaser a counterfeit for the real metal. I would not give shop-room to the best barrels ever made from such a compound. I hate a scoundrel and a hypocrite; this iron exemplifies the qualities of both.
This worthless compound consists principally of cuttings of sheet iron; of which there is an endless supply in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, from punchings and from one inferior metal and another. After properly cleaning, a quantity is put into a charcoal furnace and melted, cast into a pig, then forged down to a bar, and rolled into rods corresponding with the size of stub twist, which it is intended to represent. The action of the charcoal communicates to it a portion of carbon, which, when stained in a certain way, gives an appearance much resembling that beautiful metal just mentioned (stub-Damascus); but if every means imagined by the inventive faculty of man were employed upon it, it could not be made into really good iron. An iron which is technically termed “weak,” can never be made a strong bodied iron, or an “iron suitable to make steel,” to repeat a former quotation. The original iron from which these scraps generally come, is required to be “weak” iron, for the facility with[175] which it can be rolled into plates; a strong fibrous iron is not necessary.
Its greatest strength appears to be as follows: 7-16ths of an inch broad, and 5-16ths thick, solid contents 1·40635 inches, will bear a weight of 10,080 pounds; so that if my calculations are correct, it will bear only a pressure of 4,526 pounds in the tube. The loss of strength by heating or softening, being full 10 per cent.
This converted iron, however, will not endure the test of browning by smoke, or, more properly, flame; as the oxygen invariably destroys the appearance of steel in twelve hours after its application. By the old method of staining, it would be as impossible for any man, who was not a judge, to point out the real from the counterfeit, as to discern a copy executed by a clever artist from an original painting by one of the old masters.
But deception is ever fertile in expedients, and an ingenious invention was soon found out to imitate the advantage possessed by the “smoke brown,” which they obtain by first browning or staining the barrels very dark. A weak solution of muriatic acid, or spirits of salt, is applied very lightly with a sponge, and the colour is extracted from those portions of the iron left more prominent, by the excessive pickling they are subjected to before staining; they are then immediately dried, scalded with hot water, and the stain is complete; it is a most ingenious imitation.
I have already stated that this iron is very much[176] used in consequence of its cheapness; its cost being only fourpence per pound, while stub twist costs fivepence. It is also easily worked, being considerably softer than any of the above-described kinds of iron.
It may be asked, why so much inferior iron is used, when the difference in the price between the good and the bad is only a penny per pound? The reason is this:—If a barrel filer receive an order for a pair of barrels, he (having probably deceived his customer before, or, at any rate, knowing that he can deceive him without running any risk of detection) sends to the welder sufficient charcoal-iron to forge these barrels. Should the quantity amount to ten pounds, he, of course, saves tenpence. The welder receives two shillings less for welding this description of iron, than for welding stub-twist; so that here is already a saving of 2s. 10d. At the boring-mill, and the grinding-mill, the charge is also proportionate: the wages of the journeymen are less; so that by imposing on his customer one pair of barrels manufactured of this sort of iron instead of the real stub-twist, he pockets a clear gain of above 9s.; and should he manufacture one hundred pair of such barrels in the year, it would make at the end no small item in the year’s account of profit.
Thus it is with all description of barrels. The charge for making, by each workman, in the various stages of the manufacture, is according to the quality of each pair of barrels. The saving, then, to the[177] man who makes one hundred pairs of barrels in the year, though it be but a farthing in the pound of iron, amounts to a considerable sum. This fraudulent gain of more than 5s. on a pair of pretended stub barrels, is what is called in Birmingham, “doing the natives,” and is a reward for ingenious knavery.
When orders are given by what are called general factors, who very kindly supply their country friends at a moderate commission of 40 to 50 per cent., these gentry take care to lap up the cream; for we know from facts that the barrel filer has sometimes scarcely five per cent. for his trouble of overlooking. One consequence naturally results from this, that every species of deception will be resorted to, in order to indemnify workpeople for their labour and trouble. At the present time, I have no doubt that there are hundreds of guns made in Birmingham, the barrels of which, in some instances, never enter the proof house: as eightpence per barrel, the cost of proof, is a great temptation! Besides, a great number of barrels declared “wasters”—such as repeatedly bulged in the proof, are full of flaws, have holes in the sides, or some other fault sufficient to condemn them in the eyes of a moderately conscientious barrel-maker—are bought by men who live by this species of fraud; and are repaired with great neatness, by putting in pieces artfully, beating down swellings or bulges. Then the proof-mark “of doubtful identity;” and, last of all,—mark!—they fit them up, and send them to the engraver to have the name of some living or defunct London gun-maker of[178] respectability engraved upon them, and palm them off upon some dealer as a good article.
I commend to the reader the advice of “Edward Davies,” a gentleman who wrote in 1619; who says “He that loves the safetie of his own person, and delighteth in the goodness and beautie of a piece, let him always make choice of one that is double breeched; and if possible, a Mylan piece, for they be of tough and perfect temper, light, square, and bigge of breech, and very strong where the powder doth lie, and where the violent force of the fire doth consist, and notwithstanding thinne at the end. Our English pieces approach very neare unto them in beautie and goodness, (their heaviness only excepted) so that they be made of purpose, and not one of these common sale pieces, with round barrels, whereunto a beaten souldier will have great respect, and choose rather to pay double money for a good piece, than to spare his purse and endanger himself.” Truly, the fraternity have always, we find, been of doubtful honesty: always making “sale pieces.”
“Threepenny skelp iron” is made from an inferior quality of scrap to that from which “charcoal iron” is made; but unlike it, there is no pretension of quality. Its inferiority is not denied; it is poor in quality, and suits parties who cannot buy better. The method of preparing is by an air-furnace, forge, tilt and rolling mill, as before described. The greatest strength of a bar 11-16ths broad by 3-16ths thick, containing 1·5468 solid inches, is 7,840 lbs.; or equal to an internal pressure of 3,841 lbs. to the inch of[179] tube. One particular fact attaches to all kinds of inferior iron—the greater the mass acted upon by the rollers the greater the variation of strength. This arises entirely from the increased sponginess of the metal, and its greater expansibility. For instance, a rod 1-16th thicker, is 15 per cent. weaker in proportion; and so on to the greatest extent. But on the other hand, it is capable of recovering a great increase of strength by cold hammering; greater than better iron. A considerable quantity of this iron is sold to engineers, and used in the construction of locomotive and other engines; the price and uniformity of texture in grain fitting it for that purpose.
“Twopenny” or “Wednesbury skelp” is almost too bad to be used in making an article which may endanger the limbs of our fellow creatures, and is now little used, fortunately. It is made of an inferior scrap to the former, in precisely the same manner; and in point of strength is still lower. The bar is generally 1 and 1-16th inches in breadth, by 3-16ths thick, the solid contents 2 inches and 25-64ths, and will bear a weight of 7,840 pounds; consequently the strength will be 2,840 pounds to the inch of tube.
This is a great falling-off in strength; and I would ask any one who values the safety of his hand, if he would like to risk it, by using a gun made of iron possessing so low a degree of strength, as compared to the force of the charge it has to bear? Let him recollect that the force of the charge may be increased[180] by a variety of circumstances. The pressure of a certain quantity of powder, on which a certain weight of shot is placed, is so many pounds to the inch; and if you double that weight of shot, you nearly double the pressure. In estimating the force of pressure, the opposing friction is also to be taken into account. If the gun be allowed to get very foul, then friction is increased, and of course a still greater pressure is thrown on the tube of the barrel. All these circumstances being taken into consideration, I repeat, that no barrel is safe, whose power of resistance is not more than double the strength of a charge of sufficient force for general shooting. Every bad gun should be thrown aside as unsafe, or used with the greatest caution. Bad and inferior guns are made from the foregoing material; and not many years have elapsed since it was thought good enough for military arms.
“Sham damn skelp” is made from the most inferior scrap. I should not have mentioned this description of iron had I not seen hundreds of barrels made of it, all which are utterly unfitted for the use of any person who cares at all for his safety. I have met with them frequently under the dignified name of twisted barrels. Guns that are fitted up at from ten to twelve shillings each are not of course patent breeched, but are made to appear so by staining them generally blue, and by having a couple of bands to imitate platina, across the squares. A projecting part is welded on to the side, into which the nipple is inserted, and the lock joints neatly under it. Many of them are good imitations;[181] but only take the barrel out of the stock and the deception is instantly apparent, as it is rarely carried further than the outside. The beautiful way in which the barrels are painted to imitate fine twist, catches the eye of the simple countryman, who is generally the dupe of this artifice; and the persuasive eloquence of the itinerant hardwareman, seldom fails to extract from the pocket of his unsuspecting purchaser sometimes thirty or forty shillings of his earnings for what the modest trader rarely pays above fifteen shillings. Many are the anathemas vented, when the deception is found out by some one more knowing than the dupe, who not unfrequently purchases his experience at the expense of a finger or a hand. It is astonishing what a quantity of this rubbish is disposed of by hawkers who infest market towns and villages with guns for sale.
But the English peasant is not the only dupe of this species of knavery. Thousands of these guns are sent monthly to the United States, to the Brazils, and South America; where they are disposed of, among the poor Indians, in exchange for skins and furs.
They are all understood to be “proved.” How many are so who can tell; but that some of them are not, there can be no doubt."
Toklo Etee
36 Cl.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2018
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 116
Smokey,
I agree with Capt Jas. Some info spot on and others blurred. The French trade gun market & the English trade gun market are two different animals. Both made guns for the Indian trade....the Eastern fur trade down South was deerskins. Hamilton's Colonial Frontier Guns shows many archeological & extant examples of French & English trade guns.
The Carolina/Type G Trade gun was definitely THE English trade gun of the early to mid 18th century Southeastern Deerskin trade. It was an extremely light slender gun(46" barrel....5 1/2 lbs) While made for the Indian trade, It had quality components in the barrel & lock. Were they cut corners was in a beechwood stock (often painted) brass sheet metal trigger guard, butt plate, serpent side plate, thumb plate & sights(front & rear). While these parts were not cast, (as were French & higher grade English furniture) sheet metal parts that are nailed on sounds crude....these guns were finely crafted.
To quote Capt Jas & as I constantly tell my students...... there is no short answer
I agree with Capt Jas. Some info spot on and others blurred. The French trade gun market & the English trade gun market are two different animals. Both made guns for the Indian trade....the Eastern fur trade down South was deerskins. Hamilton's Colonial Frontier Guns shows many archeological & extant examples of French & English trade guns.
The Carolina/Type G Trade gun was definitely THE English trade gun of the early to mid 18th century Southeastern Deerskin trade. It was an extremely light slender gun(46" barrel....5 1/2 lbs) While made for the Indian trade, It had quality components in the barrel & lock. Were they cut corners was in a beechwood stock (often painted) brass sheet metal trigger guard, butt plate, serpent side plate, thumb plate & sights(front & rear). While these parts were not cast, (as were French & higher grade English furniture) sheet metal parts that are nailed on sounds crude....these guns were finely crafted.
To quote Capt Jas & as I constantly tell my students...... there is no short answer
Attachments
Last edited:
I recommended two books. The second was "Flintlock Fowlers" by Grinslade. It covers fowling pieces by region. It's not that expensive and is an excellent source on the variety of guns offered in the colonial and later periods.
