Two French Fusil Kits

[PathfinderNC]

I have two French Fusil kits that I have in the shop now. One is from Pecatonica River (with a Maple stock) that I have started working on, and the other is from Clay Smith Guns (Walnut stock). Both look to me to be really good quality components and will be a challenge but fun to build.
Both Clay and Pecatonica soldered the front sights on as well as the barrel lugs for a very reasonable cost.
I thought both are "Fusil de Chasse" style, but there are a variety of differences in them that I have noticed:
Stocks: The Pecatonica River stock has more of a drop in the butt (about an inch at the toe), and the lines seem more appealing to me. The Clay Smith has an almost straight belly where the Pecatonica has more of a graceful sweep downward, both on the comb and belly. Clay told me that this stock is not made "in-house" but by another company for him. (In the picture of the kits, I had already installed the Pecatonica butt plate)
Locks: Quite different locks, but both are unbridaled. The one from Pecatonica is an L&R lock, and the one from Clay Smith is from the Mould and Gun Shop. It looks like a Davis lock and looks a bit more Germanic (?) and bigger.
Barrels: Both are .62 caliber/20 Gauge and Octagon-to-round with a 'wedding band'. The Pecatonica is a Colerain barrel and the Clay Smith one comes from the Mould and Gun Shop. The Clay Smith barrel has additional fluting toward the band, is an inch shorter and tapered. It seem a good bit lighter than the Colerain.
I have begun working on the Pecatonica River Fusil and it is a really nice build without any major issues so far. The barrel channel and lock mortise lign-up about perfectly. Also the ramrod hole is well drilled and doesn't intersect the forward lock screw (something most of my Pecatonica rifles do). There are a few challenges that I came across (suc as the trigger assembly) but they worked out fine after spending a lot of time deciding how to approach the job and measuring carefully.
It will be interesting to compare when both kits are done. I bet both will look and shoot great. As far as a "historical reproduction" of a French Fusil de Chasse, with the stock profiles and accompanying parts, I will let those with a better knowledge make that determination.

 

[Hatchet-Jack]

Interesting comparison. Thanks for doing this. The M&GS lock is a Larry Zornes lock.

https://www.muzzleloaderbuilderssup...1093408.9789&product=Locks&user4=Larry Zornes

 

[excess650]

How much were the "kits"?

 

[PathfinderNC]

How much were the "kits"?

Including shipping, The Pecatonica was about $880 and the Clay Smith about $1225.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

What wood is the Pecatonica River stock? I like the shape much better, but it really should be walnut or a fruit tree wood, not maple. Maple would only have been used if re-stocked once 'over here'..

I presume the barrel lengths are 42"?

 

[PathfinderNC]

What wood is the Pecatonica River stock? I like the shape much better, but it really should be walnut or a fruit tree wood, not maple. Maple would only have been used if re-stocked once 'over here'..

I presume the barrel lengths are 42"?

The Pecatonica stock is curly maple (I had just requested plain maple, but it’s sweet). When we talked about wood for stocks, Clay Smith (who was a gunsmith at Colonial Williamsburg) told me (and wrote in his website) that Fusil de Chases guns were indeed stocked in Maple:

"All of the originals I have seen were stocked in a light colored hardwood including beech and maple and stained. Large quantities of wood were exported to Europe from America during the 18th century since good hardwoods were becoming scarce in Europe. To be more correct, this gun should be stocked in plain beech or maple but walnut is available as well."
https://claysmithguns.com/Fusil-De-Chasse.htm

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

... he has in fact handled original Fusil de Chas guns all stocked in Maple. I would defer to Clay’s experience and assessment rather than discount it.

Maybe ... but others who own real Tulles and are recognized experts in French arms believe otherwise, so we will just have to agree to disagree there ...

Nice kits! Have fun with the build!

 

[2 shots]

i would take pecatonica kit with the clay smith barrel. lighter is nice.

 

[plmeek]

Those are nice kits. The one you got from Clay Smith is better than the Pecatonica, but then that is also reflected in the price for each.

I see that Clay Smith has a French Tulle Trade Gun Kit advertised on his website, but that isn't what he sent you. What you got is a Mold & Gun Shop (owned by Larry Zornes) Type D French Trade Gun kit. The Type D is an earlier pattern than the Fusil de Chasse.

The Mold & Gun Shop offers three patterns of French trade guns: (1) the Type C, (2) the Type D, and (3) a French "Tulle" aka Fusil de Chasse. A good book to better understand the differences in each of these guns is Colonial Frontier Guns by T. M. Hamilton. A better book is The French Trade Gun in North America 1662-1759 by Kevin Gladysz but it is out of print and hard to find at a reasonable price.

The Mold & Gun Shop doesn't have a website, but Zornes advertises in Muzzle Blasts, and you can mail or call for a small catalog showing all the good stuff he offers.

If you compare the trigger guard, the sideplate, and the butt plate extension (comb) between the Pecatonica and the Clay Smith kits you will see the difference. This also explains the difference in the stock shapes. And you noted the difference in the locks.

The L&R lock is actually an English pattern trade gun lock. It has a round bottomed pan. The French locks generally had a faceted pan similar to German locks. The Germans copied the French.

There are some surviving French trade guns with maple stocks, but most experts in the literature believe those guns were re-stocked in America and not originally made that way in France. Therefore, the Pecatonica kit with the maple stock is historically correct in context.

 

[PathfinderNC]

Those are nice kits. The one you got from Clay Smith is better than the Pecatonica, but then that is also reflected in the price for each.

I see that Clay Smith has a French Tulle Trade Gun Kit advertised on his website, but that isn't what he sent you. What you got is a Mold & Gun Shop (owned by Larry Zornes) Type D French Trade Gun kit. The Type D is an earlier pattern than the Fusil de Chasse.

The Mold & Gun Shop offers three patterns of French trade guns: (1) the Type C, (2) the Type D, and (3) a French "Tulle" aka Fusil de Chasse. A good book to better understand the differences in each of these guns is Colonial Frontier Guns by T. M. Hamilton. A better book is The French Trade Gun in North America 1662-1759 by Kevin Gladysz but it is out of print and hard to find at a reasonable price.

The Mold & Gun Shop doesn't have a website, but Zornes advertises in Muzzle Blasts, and you can mail or call for a small catalog showing all the good stuff he offers.

If you compare the trigger guard, the sideplate, and the butt plate extension (comb) between the Pecatonica and the Clay Smith kits you will see the difference. This also explains the difference in the stock shapes. And you noted the difference in the locks.

The L&R lock is actually an English pattern trade gun lock. It has a round bottomed pan. The French locks generally had a faceted pan similar to German locks. The Germans copied the French.

There are some surviving French trade guns with maple stocks, but most experts in the literature believe those guns were re-stocked in America and not originally made that way in France. Therefore, the Pecatonica kit with the maple stock is historically correct in context.

Thanks for that information. Clay had said that the Fusil type D was available and we went with that choice. I now understand why the stock pattern is not the same as the “Fusil de Chasse”. That why Clay referred it to the “French Trade Gun” when I called to let him know when it safely arrived.
I appreciate your clear explanation and taking the time to share your knowledge here.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

A good book to better understand the differences in each of these guns is Colonial Frontier Guns by T. M. Hamilton. A better book is The French Trade Gun in North America 1662-1759 by Kevin Gladysz.

Personally, I found that book sadly lacking of any good information related to guns from the Tulle Armory. It’s intent and content was 99.9% of ‘cheaper’ trade muskets from St. Entienne and the other French armories. Then - as today - if you want quality … ‘show me the money’.

Remember there is that famous quote from the Indians, and I paraphrase, that … “They only want the guns from TVLLE, as the other ones are not satisfactory”.

There are some surviving French trade guns with maple stocks, but most experts in the literature believe those guns were re-stocked in America and not originally made that way in France.

I agree … as based upon the word of 3 expert French Arms people I know, Whom I had consulted in my build. They also had consulted when Cowans Auction sold the ‘alleged’ Hannah Dustin musket that was wearing a barrel made 60 years later than the Deerfield raid, and consulted on the Minuteman Matchlock that has also been proved to be a fake/forgery.

You know … it also makes me somewhat upset that people sell kits that they either don’t detail or inform the Buyer of the historical differences … or that they just don’t care. I would much prefer they have the integrity to offer an ‘upgrade package’ that would make it truly be non-farby.

And I cannot agree more, the barrel should … , no … MUST be light, LiGhT, LIGHT and with a fully tapered breech section! Alas, whilst not a true French FdC, as also stocked in maple of ‘too short’ a 42” barrel, but the lightest fuzee barrel I know of is by Danny Caywood.

The barrels should also measure between 43 to 44” long, if you read the original contracts from Tulle which exist and are highlighted in the Tulle Musket in New France book by Rusel Bouchard.

 

[PathfinderNC]

Personally, I found that book sadly lacking of any good information related to guns from the Tulle Armory. It’s intent and content was 99.9% of ‘cheaper’ trade muskets from St. Entienne and the other French armories. Then - as today - if you want quality … ‘show me the money’.

Remember there is that famous quote from the Indians, and I paraphrase, that … “They only want the guns from TVLLE, as the other ones are not satisfactory”.


I agree … as based upon the word of 3 expert French Arms people I know, Whom I had consulted in my build. They also had consulted when Cowans Auction sold the ‘alleged’ Hannah Dustin musket that was wearing a barrel made 60 years later than the Deerfield raid, and consulted on the Minuteman Matchlock that has also been proved to be a fake/forgery.

You know … it also makes me somewhat upset that people sell kits that they either don’t detail or inform the Buyer of the historical differences … or that they just don’t care. I would much prefer they have the integrity to offer an ‘upgrade package’ that would make it truly be non-farby.

And I cannot agree more, the barrel should … , no … MUST be light, LiGhT, LIGHT and with a fully tapered breech section! Alas, whilst not a true French FdC, as also stocked in maple of ‘too short’ a 42” barrel, but the lightest fuzee barrel I know of is by Danny Caywood.

The barrels should also measure between 43 to 44” long, if you read the original contracts from Tulle which exist and are highlighted in the Tulle Musket in New France book by Rusel Bouchard.

That’s good information. Not really knowing anything about these guns, I am getting a better picture of their histories.
it’s funny that these two and my latest kit build (a Dragoon pistol) are French guns. I guess I am drawn to them.

 

[plmeek]

You know … it also makes me somewhat upset that people sell kits that they either don’t detail or inform the Buyer of the historical differences … or that they just don’t care. I would much prefer they have the integrity to offer an ‘upgrade package’ that would make it truly be non-farby.

I agree with you. Most people/companies that sell kits and some professional gun makers don't know that much history about the guns. That or they stretch the history for marketing purposes. Some collectors do the same thing when they write about guns in their collection. Some collectors/writers like the "romance" behind the guns more than the history and/or the facts.

The fusil de chasse is a good example. The style of gun that many collectors/writers refer to and most companies sell kits for may not be an actual Indian trade gun or was late to the scene. I'm talking about the pattern with this style of hardware:

T. M. Hamilton in Colonial Frontier Guns (1987) on pages 39 and 47 points out that there are more complete surviving guns of this pattern than there are fragments in the archeological record. He thought that really odd considering how often the term "fusil de chasse" is found in the documents in the French archives. Hamilton speculated, "It seems that the hunting guns were not for trade but primarily for arming the Indian partisans." (Hamilton, 1987. 39)

James A. Hanson in Firearms of the Fur Trade (2011), page 90, offers another explanation for the small number of fusil de chasse fragments in the archeological record that's not inconsistent with Hamilton but with a different twist.

A third type of French gun, the fusil de chasse or "hunting gun," was apparently an arm intended for use by the militia of New France, but in trade gun bore instead of the larger military musket bore...

Several fusil de chasse have been found in the walls of cabins and barns in Quebec, apparently hidden there after the failed 1857 Patriotes rebellion against British rule. These discoveries bolster the point that the fusil de chasse were intended primarily for the militia of New France, rather than as items for [Indian] trade.

Another possibility is that the use of the term, fusil de chasse, in the period documents was not for a set pattern, but used as a general term such as "shot gun" today. After all, it does mean "hunting gun" in literal translation. Earlier versions of fusil de chasse may have had different hardware than that pictured above. Therefore, what is often called a fusil de chasse today by kit makers and collectors may simply be the last version of hunting gun to have been imported in the decade or so before the French lost New France.

 

[PathfinderNC]

Aren't some, of varying styles, simply referred to as "French Trade Guns" also?

 

[PathfinderNC]

I am closing in on the finish line for the Pecatonica Fusil de Chasse I've been working on. It weighs almost 7 pounds, though with the heavy Colerain barrel it's not surprising. I have slimmed the stock to about where I want it but will finish sanding and scraping a little bit more off.
Have to say, it points well and has a wonderful light trigger pull and quick lock.
I will post some pics on the morrow.

 

[plmeek]

Aren't some, of varying styles, simply referred to as "French Trade Guns" also?

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, so I'll try answering it in two ways.

I'm uncertain as to who you are talking about. If you mean modern day collectors, writers, builders, marketers, and/or hobbyists like ourselves, then yes, "French Trade Guns" is a term used in a general sense that would include varying styles. Just like some use the term "English trade guns" to include Type G, Northwest, Chief's, and others. It can be a generic term.

If you are asking about how the guns were referred to in the 18th century, the answer is not normally. Documents from the French archives include correspondence, orders, invoices, ship's bill of lading, warehouse inventories, and such. In these documents, French guns are often referred to with descriptive terms indicating their use or purpose.

Kevin Gladysz in The French Trade Gun in North America 1662-1759 on page 76 provides a breakdown of these terms.

So there were guns referred to as fusils de traite in French that literally meant "trade gun" in English. But these guns had a specific purpose and were only one of several other types that were traded to Indians.

In Gladysz's list above for his second broad category, the terms listed a) trough e) are listed in order of generally increasing cost with the fusils de traite as the lowest cost and the fusils de maître the highest cost.

Gladysz provided some detail breakdown on various types of guns and their value by year from merchant records and inventories of King's warehouses in Table 6 and Table 7 of his book. These tables are too big and complicated to illustrate here, so I will summarize some of the data to give a feel for the price differences in the years 1746, 1747, and 1748. These are all guns from Saint-Etienne.

• fusils de traite priced at 12 livre and 5 sol
• fusils à l'ancre priced at 15 livre and 10 sol
• fusils de chasse priced at 20 livre
• fusils fins priced at 47 livre

Even within these subcategories, there were different levels of price for such things as better quality locks, better quality barrels, thumb pieces, iron versus brass mounts, and engraving.

You may occassionally see a supplier or gun maker calling a French Type C trade gun kit or complete gun as a fusil de façon and a Type D as a fusil fin. This is pure marketing BS.

The archeological record as discussed by Hamilton in Colonial Frontier Guns has the French Type C and the Type D separated by time as best they can date most archeological sites. Hamilton dates the Type C artifacts from about 1680 to about 1730. Similarly, he dates the Type D between 1730 - 1765.

Gladysz takes a different and interesting approach that compares the decorative features that certain French gun makers published in pattern albums in the latter half of the 17th century and first half of the 18th century. These pattern albums document the changing fashions in French gun decoration. Gladysz also shows examples on signed and dated guns in European and American collections and compares them to fragments from the archeological record.

Gladysz was able to break the timeline in more detail than Hamilton did and identified four stages from 1699 to 1760. He was able to do a pretty good job of matching his design stages with the likely dates of artifacts from several archeological sites.

While Gladysz does not use Hamilton's typology or terms, his results are consistent with Hamilton's in that the decorations on the Type C trade gun are earlier than the Type D trade gun. It's also clear from Gladysz's examples that differences in quality and elaboration of design in most of the stages show that the terms fusil demi-fin, fusil fin, fusil demi-façon, and fusil de façon was likely used in most if not all stages rather than the name of a specific pattern gun.

This actually has a direct corollary to terms used in English and American documents. British government documents often use terms such as "common", "fine", and "best" when referring to gun orders. In some instances, they are referring specifically to the Northwest trade gun when the term "common" is used, but most often they are simply distinguishing different levels of quality, decoration, and of course, price in the guns they are ordering.

 

[PathfinderNC]

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, so I'll try answering it in two ways.

I'm uncertain as to who you are talking about. If you mean modern day collectors, writers, builders, marketers, and/or hobbyists like ourselves, then yes, "French Trade Guns" is a term used in a general sense that would include varying styles. Just like some use the term "English trade guns" to include Type G, Northwest, Chief's, and others. It can be a generic term.

If you are asking about how the guns were referred to in the 18th century, the answer is not normally. Documents from the French archives include correspondence, orders, invoices, ship's bill of lading, warehouse inventories, and such. In these documents, French guns are often referred to with descriptive terms indicating their use or purpose.

Kevin Gladysz in The French Trade Gun in North America 1662-1759 on page 76 provides a breakdown of these terms.
View attachment 123379

So there were guns referred to as fusils de traite in French that literally meant "trade gun" in English. But these guns had a specific purpose and were only one of several other types that were traded to Indians.

In Gladysz's list above for his second broad category, the terms listed a) trough e) are listed in order of generally increasing cost with the fusils de traite as the lowest cost and the fusils de maître the highest cost.

Gladysz provided some detail breakdown on various types of guns and their value by year from merchant records and inventories of King's warehouses in Table 6 and Table 7 of his book. These tables are too big and complicated to illustrate here, so I will summarize some of the data to give a feel for the price differences in the years 1746, 1747, and 1748. These are all guns from Saint-Etienne.

• fusils de traite priced at 12 livre and 5 sol
• fusils à l'ancre priced at 15 livre and 10 sol
• fusils de chasse priced at 20 livre
• fusils fins priced at 47 livre

Even within these subcategories, there were different levels of price for such things as better quality locks, better quality barrels, thumb pieces, iron versus brass mounts, and engraving.

You may occassionally see a supplier or gun maker calling a French Type C trade gun kit or complete gun as a fusil de façon and a Type D as a fusil fin. This is pure marketing BS.

The archeological record as discussed by Hamilton in Colonial Frontier Guns has the French Type C and the Type D separated by time as best they can date most archeological sites. Hamilton dates the Type C artifacts from about 1680 to about 1730. Similarly, he dates the Type D between 1730 - 1765.

Gladysz takes a different and interesting approach that compares the decorative features that certain French gun makers published in pattern albums in the latter half of the 17th century and first half of the 18th century. These pattern albums document the changing fashions in French gun decoration. Gladysz also shows examples on signed and dated guns in European and American collections and compares them to fragments from the archeological record.

Gladysz was able to break the timeline in more detail than Hamilton did and identified four stages from 1699 to 1760. He was able to do a pretty good job of matching his design stages with the likely dates of artifacts from several archeological sites.

While Gladysz does not use Hamilton's typology or terms, his results are consistent with Hamilton's in that the decorations on the Type C trade gun are earlier than the Type D trade gun. It's also clear from Gladysz's examples that differences in quality and elaboration of design in most of the stages show that the terms fusil demi-fin, fusil fin, fusil demi-façon, and fusil de façon was likely used in most if not all stages rather than the name of a specific pattern gun.

This actually has a direct corollary to terms used in English and American documents. British government documents often use terms such as "common", "fine", and "best" when referring to gun orders. In some instances, they are referring specifically to the Northwest trade gun when the term "common" is used, but most often they are simply distinguishing different levels of quality, decoration, and of course, price in the guns they are ordering.

Thanks! Thats very interesting and a clear overview. I appreciate you sharing your time and research on this topic!

 

[oldwood]

Curious..........what are the Cal. or Ga. of your barrels?.I just finished a 16 Ga. on a Kit Ravenshear pattern from a Tower of London gun muse original. I used the French parts I had on hand , 'cause Kit R. has been dead for years , and can't ask him. Mold and Gun Locks are good stuff. Have used many. ......oldwood

 

[PathfinderNC]

Curious..........what are the Cal. or Ga. of your barrels?.I just finished a 16 Ga. on a Kit Ravenshear pattern from a Tower of London gun muse original. I used the French parts I had on hand , 'cause Kit R. has been dead for years , and can't ask him. Mold and Gun Locks are good stuff. Have used many. ......oldwood

Would love to see how yours came out!
Both the barrels I have are 20 gauge/62 cal. The Colerain from Pecatonica is 42" and thicker. The barrel from Mold and Gun Shop is 41" and much thinner.

 

[PathfinderNC]

I have the stock about as thin in the forearm as I want it, which is pretty thin now. The buttstock looks good to me also. I am not sure if I will do any carving around the lock mortises and tang because it would mean thinning the wrist and I think I like it to be strong. The side plate is not inlet yet. It is actually for a Fusil Fin. The one Pecatonica sent me will not fit (it's a little long for the lock).