trade gun

[Mike Brooks]

Yep I've read the same about the indians wanting guns more like the french guns. But, the actuall complauint about the english guns seemed to be, too big in the bore, too heavy , to square and too much wood, and too straight stocked. In other words, unusable pieces of manure! :haha: The english got those problems sorted outin short order, although these complaints did reoccure from time to time as quality contriol evidently slid every now and then.

 

[Donny]

Mike, you say slim, and I hear "slim" from many who have fondled originals, just how slim?? I have not handled any olde fowlers, could you give some diminsions for reference?. I use Hanson's sketchbook to go by. Would these guns have the slimmness like what you are seeing??

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Do you have a copy of Tom Grinslade's book on fowlers? If so, check out the trade gun in figure 17, page 31. It's amazing how slender (and elegant) some of these guns are.

 

[Okwaho]

Mike,
From what I've read about trade guns, the early english trade guns were stocked to more closely resemble the French trade guns--hence curved lower butt etc. Supposedly the indians preferred the French gun. So the English design was an attempt to compete with the French. After the F&I was when France was all but ejected from the colonies the English began making trade guns from old service muskets and eventually the guns began to have a decidedly more English design similar to what one would expect on an English military arm or fowler of the late 18th century.

That is true only in one case, that being the "O'Conner" gun, which is copied by Caywood. All other british trade guns are distinctly british in archetecture and style and bare no resemblence to french guns.

Some random thoughts:
First, I am in agreement with Mike in his line of posts.
Second I cannot find any proof of the English making trade guns from old service muskets either long or short land pattern. This is another myth, Indians were well known to prefer light weight guns and the cheap English fowlers met that requirement very well.

Now for a bombshell! I will play devil's advocate and pose this question; Hamilton and later Caywood referred to the Roman nosed English gun by R.{Richard ?} Wilson as "An 18th Century Chief's Grade gun"{Hamilton 1980,PP.73,78-79}. I assume this was based on the beading of the stock.The butt piece tang is outlined in white beads,the lock side of the butt has what appears to be "G G 6" in white beads and the opposite side has the number "1777".While the butt piece tang outlining in beads suggests Indian decoration, I seriously question an Indian using Roman numerals and English letters as decoration for his gun.The extreme rarity of this gun,although I recall Dave Lemaster mentioning that he had seen another in a private collection, belies the title of trade gun.If even only a nominal number of these particular guns were made for the Indian trade,then I submit there would be more of them in collections or found archaealogically.I cannot affirm or deny Indian ownership at some time but I would strongly suggest that the complete gun illustrated by Hamilton was a White man's gun perhaps owned by a trader or other white man. Certainly I submit that the pattern of beading is non-Indian. In short I would pose this question; If not for the beads what details or features justify referring to this gun as "An 18th Century Chief's Grade Trade "Fusil"
As Always,I welcome responsible conflicting opinion based on solid documentation.Agree or disagree, let's seek the truth here.
Tom Patton

 

[tg]

The only connection I could offer is that there have been several very similar buttplates found and they have (I believe) been attributed to trade guns....but then comes the question of what about the use of that buttplate makes it an Indian trade gun, interesting...

 

[Wes/Tex]

Thanks for the thoughts, I certainly appreciate it. I didn't mean to knock NSW's products in general but I just couldn't find any of the listed dug guns in the various books and other sources that actually duplicated the "Early English" version. The butt plate is similar to those shown by Hamilton, Hanson & others but just isn't the same. I think the deletion of the "sitting fox" markings wouod do a lot to make the gun more like the originals. The "serpent" side plate appeared in many versions and I really didn't hae a problem with it. Raised or flat, it appears realistic to the period.

I shouid preface my comments by stating that my comments are from a full sized blueprint of the gun and not an actual piece since I've never had the chance to look one over in-the-flesh, as it were. Their "chief's gun" is definitely a late piece with an Enfield look to the lock. I suppose I should have said that a gun of that era would be a plus to the shooting game, just couldn't tie this one down as being such. Thanks again.

 

[Mike Brooks]

If not for the beads what details or features justify referring to this gun as "An 18th Century Chief's Grade Trade "Fusil"

The beads don't mean Jack manure to me. No way to tell who put them there or when they were put there, could have been 50 years after the gun was built. No way to tell. They are interesting, and add a certain charm to the gun.
"Chief's Grade" is the term that needs justification here. The only thing that makes this different in quality from a standard NW gun is the buttplate, which immulates a french "type D". Otherwise the hardware is identical to the standard NW gun.
The term "Chiefs gun" was used in the 18th century, I've read it many times in old HBC documents. Problem is they never go into detail about what makes a gun a "Chief's gun".
In my opinion, the addition of a french styled engraved buttplate on a english trade gun doesn't make it a "Chief's gun".

 

[Okwaho]

Agreed and to further muddy the waters,see the following cite:

"In the records of wills and estate inventories for York County,Virginia,covering the period from 1732 to 1740,there is the inventory of the contents of a store run by one Thomas Hancock. Included among the shooting supplies were '40 Carolina guns'valued at 22 pounds 10 shillings for the lot {Gill,1974,P.14}"[Gill,Harold B.Jr.,"The Gunsmith in Colonial Virginia",1974]

"18th Century English Trade Guns in the South ,or The Carolina Gun, it's Time and Place in History" by Lee Burke, unpublished paper,1965.
So again we have a question raised as to what actually constituted an English "Trade Gun" in the 18th century?
Tom Patton

 

[dlemaster]

Mike, Okwaho
I'm sure you both know that I agree with your assessments of the so called Chief's Gun.

Tom, as I recall Hamilton illustrated a couple of butt plates or remnants of them and they came from sites dating from the close of the F&I War to about 1780 or so and that was the basis for his date assignments.
I do like your idea that they may actually have been white owned or available to those who could afford them. That would explain the scarcity. They certianly don't appear in the numbers you would expect if they were a common trade item.

The gun I was able to view and measure in a private collection was nearly identical to the O'Conner gun illustrated on pg.78 of "Colonial Frontier Guns". The most outstanding differences were; 1) the gun in the private collection still has its one piece stock as opposed to the two piece of the O'Conner gun; 2) The barrel measurement across the breech of the privatly owned gun was 1 1/8" while Hamilton says the O'Conner gun has a breech measurement of 1 3/8".
Although I think the 1 3/8" may be a misprint.
After copying the gun with a 1 1/8" breech, a gun made with a 1 3/8" breech would be very difficult to make and keep it as slim and light as the originals were.

I would add that anyone looking to get an early English trade gun could do much worse than the so called "Type G" and Mike Brooks offers a very accurate and nice kit.
Just my .02cts

Regards, Dave

 

[tg]

Has Mike showed any pics of his finished kit yet? if you are out there Mike, what did you use for a "pattern" for type "G" kit

 

[dlemaster]

I saw some pictures of one of Mike's completed guns, it may have been on his web site.
If I ever do another trade gun that will be the one I want.

Regards, Dave

 

.... to play devil's advocate--just how does rarity in itself argue against the so-called "Chiefs gun"? How many chiefs were there? We know for a fact that many thousands of trade guns were imported from France, England, etc...yet except for archeologically recovered pieces, very very few survive. How many "chiefs" grade guns would have been made? what was the proportion of chiefs to "regular" NDNs? Even given that the Europeans tended to elevate certain NDNs to "chief" status to gain favor and influence, the relative numbers of 'Chiefs' must have been low--thus relatively few "Chiefs guns", thus very few survived...just for the sake of argument. The Carolina guns have long intrigued me--so many imported, so few survived. I think Pete Alexander illustrated a couple in a Muzzleloader Mag article a couple years ago.

 

[Trot]

I would be interested in more info on Mike's type G kit too.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I saw some pictures of one of Mike's completed guns, it may have been on his web site.
If I ever do another trade gun that will be the one I want.

Regards, Dave

The photos of the type G on my photobucket site are actually of a type G by Jack Brooks. As a coincidence, I just got the fist type G stocks back from Mark Weader yesterday. It'll be another month before I have anything available. I'm doing two barrel lengths, 48" and 42". The 48" is a getz barrel and tough to get, so I had to regroup and run another master patern for a more available 42" barrel too.
This should be an interesting kit, The trigger guard and buttplate are made from sheet brass and will be a "you bend 'um" situation. Pretty easy actually. Should be a pretty easy gun to assemble, nor more difficult than a NW gun.

 

[Mike Brooks]

.... to play devil's advocate--just how does rarity in itself argue against the so-called "Chiefs gun"? How many chiefs were there? We know for a fact that many thousands of trade guns were imported from France, England, etc...yet except for archeologically recovered pieces, very very few survive. How many "chiefs" grade guns would have been made? what was the proportion of chiefs to "regular" NDNs? Even given that the Europeans tended to elevate certain NDNs to "chief" status to gain favor and influence, the relative numbers of 'Chiefs' must have been low--thus relatively few "Chiefs guns", thus very few survived...just for the sake of argument. The Carolina guns have long intrigued me--so many imported, so few survived. I think Pete Alexander illustrated a couple in a Muzzleloader Mag article a couple years ago.

Well, There is occasional reference to "chief's guns" in the old records. Just how they differ isn't clear. I would imagine some fancy glitz of some kind or other was added, plus probably a higher quality lock and barrel. From the old record s they don't seem to have been made in any great numbers, fairly small actually.