Traditional Muzzleloading Association

Shooting Traditional Firearms and Weapons => General Interest => Topic started by: sse on April 10, 2009, 09:43:32 AM

Title: Smoothbore Options for Mountain Man
Post by: sse on April 10, 2009, 09:43:32 AM

There's the NW trade gun.  What about fowlers, fusil or other trade guns?  Any ideas appreciated.

Title:
Post by: rollingb on April 10, 2009, 09:51:23 AM

SSE,... I think any of the guns you mentioned, would have been found in the fur fields,... if I remember correctly, Osborne Russell even carried a double barrel smoothie.

Title:
Post by: Kermit on April 10, 2009, 11:27:22 AM

Or "smooth-rifles" even? Not if you want to enter events that forbid rear sights though.

Title:
Post by: Minnesota Mike on April 10, 2009, 11:57:04 AM

Yup. Ran into that last week at southeastern rendezvous. Shoot was for "smoothbore" and a shooter showed up with a 'smoothbore rifle' - which is what they call a smokepole if there is a rear sight on it.

Bottom line on the trappers is that they carried pretty much anything they could afford when they headed up into them thar hills.

r/
MM

Title:
Post by: Mitch on April 10, 2009, 01:26:18 PM

smoothrifle is firelock of RIFLE design with a smooth barrel....not just because of a rear sight...if you've ever been the MoFT in Chadron, you'll see lots of "trade guns" with rear sights-but they arent' smoothrifles...the whole "no rear sights on smoothbores/tradeguns" is an NMLRA "thing" and has no real bearing on historical fact

Title:
Post by: rollingb on April 10, 2009, 01:34:09 PM

Quote from: "Mitch"

smoothrifle is firelock of RIFLE design with a smooth barrel....not just because of a rear sight...if you've ever been the MoFT in Chadron, you'll see lots of "trade guns" with rear sights-but they arent' smoothrifles...the whole "no rear sights on smoothbores/tradeguns" is an NMLRA "thing" and has no real bearing on historical fact

Over the years, I have came to that same exact conclusion.

Title:
Post by: Puffer on April 10, 2009, 01:40:11 PM

I personally like the "English" Fowlers. Mine is a Pedersoli "Mortimer.

Yes they were out here in the fur trade.  See Hanson's book -"The Hawken Rifle: ITS PLACE IN HISTORY" Capt. 11 - THE GUN TRADE OF ST. LOUIS. You will see quite a # of these being sold in the 1830s.

Puffer

Title:
Post by: No Rod on April 10, 2009, 03:35:33 PM

Quote from: "Mitch"

smoothrifle is firelock of RIFLE design with a smooth barrel....not just because of a rear sight...if you've ever been the MoFT in Chadron, you'll see lots of "trade guns" with rear sights-but they arent' smoothrifles...the whole "no rear sights on smoothbores/tradeguns" is an NMLRA "thing" and has no real bearing on historical fact

they had to do something to keep the trade gun shooters from winning all the matches!  

Title:
Post by: mario on April 10, 2009, 05:25:55 PM

The best for the "plain, everyday and common" vote would be a NW gun, IMHO.

It's what I carried in my MM days...long ago.

Mario

Title:
Post by: Kermit on April 10, 2009, 08:12:58 PM

I suspect we today have MANY more categories and subcategories of longarms than were ever mentioned in discussions round a fire on the plains, in the forest, or in a tavern a couple of centuries back. I can't begin to keep even the Pennsylvania schools straight in my head. Some of you can, but my supply of little gray cells is a little challenged.

Title:
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on April 10, 2009, 09:49:21 PM

I go along with the others here. I feel that the MM carried the best arms they could afford .The rear sight rule is just that, a rule. has nothing to do with historical accy.

Title:
Post by: sse on April 11, 2009, 10:32:16 AM

Quote

I personally like the "English" Fowlers. Mine is a Pedersoli "Mortimer

Puff - I also hear a lot of people talk down the English fowler as not being as artistically appealing as the fusil...

Title:
Post by: Longhunter on April 11, 2009, 10:56:42 AM

Quote

Puff - I also hear a lot of people talk down the English fowler as not being as artistically appealing as the fusil...

not being as artistically appealing ? Is that a fancy phrase for sayin my English Fowler is ugly?...Them's fightin words.. :lol:

Title:
Post by: jbullard1 on April 11, 2009, 01:07:19 PM

What exactly is an English Fowler
I thought I had one: Maybe mine is an English shotgun
Confused Jerry  

Title:
Post by: Kermit on April 11, 2009, 01:48:42 PM

Jerry! Is it English? Is it a gun? Do you shoot shot? Well, then...

But, do you hunt fowl? Now then...

All semantics, all regional, all mule muffins. Call it Sally or Betsy or Slim. Maybe that's why guns get names.

Title:
Post by: jbullard1 on April 11, 2009, 02:16:17 PM

Quote from: "Kermit"

Jerry! Is it English? Is it a gun? Do you shoot shot? Well, then...

But, do you hunt fowl? Now then...

..................................................................

No BraveHeart isn't English Its made in the USA from an English Shotgun preform stock from Pecatonica.  :shake

I would like to see a pic of a true English Fowler

Title:
Post by: Kermit on April 11, 2009, 07:59:35 PM

So, then we need a pic of a gun made in England and used to hunt fowl.

Anyone?

Title:
Post by: cb on April 11, 2009, 08:18:07 PM

Quote from: "Kermit"

So, then we need a pic of a gun made in England and used to hunt fowl.

Anyone?

single barrel, double barrel, time era, flint, percussion????

Title:
Post by: jbullard1 on April 11, 2009, 08:31:39 PM

Quote from: "cb"

Quote from: "Kermit"

So, then we need a pic of a gun made in England and used to hunt fowl.

Anyone?

single barrel, double barrel, time era, flint, percussion????

For me; Flint single barrel

Title:
Post by: tg on April 11, 2009, 10:06:13 PM

I would say that to me the English fowlers of the 18th century were beautiful there was a certain range of quality and degree of carving and engraving like anyother guns of the time, most trdae guns/fusils were just less elegant more cheaply made versions of the fowlers of the period.

Title:
Post by: Longhunter on April 11, 2009, 10:57:26 PM

Here's an interesting site

http://www.thefurtrapper.com/trade_guns.htm (http://www.thefurtrapper.com/trade_guns.htm)

http://www.thefurtrapper.com/rendezvous.htm (http://www.thefurtrapper.com/rendezvous.htm)

Title:
Post by: cb on April 12, 2009, 12:00:45 AM

Quote from: "jbullard1"

Quote from: "cb"

Quote from: "Kermit"

So, then we need a pic of a gun made in England and used to hunt fowl.

Anyone?

single barrel, double barrel, time era, flint, percussion????

For me; Flint single barrel

Check out Mike Brook's site - he makes excellent copies of English fowlers......

Title:
Post by: tg on April 12, 2009, 12:25:16 AM

For the "Mt. Man" period an American made fowler would be more likely the English sent over probably most of the fowlers used untill after the Rev war, a lot of American fowlers used a set of English mounts, Chambers has a Pennsylvania fowler, there are several buiders that make American fowlers such as Early Rustic Arms, TVM and others ,if you want a fowler that  is the way I would go but this would likely be a more expensive piece than the typical trade gun many used and I am not so sure the average Mt Man is going to buy a hight priced imported fowling piece with so many  other options at hand.

Title:
Post by: cb on April 12, 2009, 03:44:15 AM

FWIW - all of the currently available documentation shows that the average aka plain everyday common AMERICAN Mountain Man (including the tribes such as the Delaware and Shawnee who were an important yet little known part of the western fur trade) overwhelmingly chose rifles, except for specialized needs such as running buffalo on horseback or for night guard duty. Otherwise their downright disdain for smoothbores is well cited. Yes the trade lists show a much larger quantity of fusils available, but in most cases they show only what was available and not what was purchased - most in fact went to Indians or non-Americans. On the other hand ALL of the extant journals form the period state emphatically that rifles were the gun of choice for American trappers.
Does this mean that no mtn man carried a smmothbore? Nope as always it depends on who, when, and where - the Metis, French, and Creoles who made up a major portion of the western fur trade manpower generally preferred fusils, but again the vast majority of AMERICANS carried rifles and these were usually supplied by the companies they were employed by or were supplied to those affiliated with a particular company such as the skin trappers - Joe Meek's term for one of the two types of free trapper. Skin trappers were "free" agents who were grubstaked with supplies in exchange for a share of his furs, but who were not directly employed by the company (this is what Ashley's famed 100 young men of 1822 were). This type of free trapper was the majority we know by that name and included men affiliated with the HBC as well as with the Americans. The other type of free trapper, those on their own hook - the free trapper of modern rendezvous fame and fable, did exist, but they never made up more than about 10% of the total men in the field at any one time and were more common in the Colorado and New Mexico areas where run ins with hostiles were far less common than in the northern Rockies where the Blackfoot tribes were such a threat until the late 1830's when smallpox wiped out a large portion of them.
The vast majority of the rifles supplied by the American companies were either brass mounted American/Lancaster pattern flintlocks or the brass mounted English pattern flintlocks.

re: smooth rifles - the extant fur trade records show they saw little if any use in the Rocky Mtn Fur Trade. In fact one letter from American Fur to J Henry states that they unsellable since their customers when given the choice prefer "real" rifles or if they want a smoothbore they choose the much lighter fusil.

Title:
Post by: tg on April 12, 2009, 09:40:33 AM

Good post Chuck, particularly on the smoothrifle on record mentions that the supplier was trying to push the smoothrifles as they were quite popular in the east but his buyerrs were not interested, the rilfe was the top choice as you have said but the smoothbore fusil or fowler or whaever incarnation you choose depending upon the time and place would not be an incorrect choice, I think it is always good to know what was common but not so sure we should fel a need to always travel that path, much would be left out if only the common was accepted.This requires some research but that is half the fun.

Title:
Post by: Longhunter on April 12, 2009, 10:00:21 AM

Thanks Chuck, I always enjoy your input because I know it's  documented and not speculation...   :lol:

Title:
Post by: sse on April 13, 2009, 09:57:24 AM

Quote from: "Longhunter"

Quote

Puff - I also hear a lot of people talk down the English fowler as not being as artistically appealing as the fusil...

not being as artistically appealing ? Is that a fancy phrase for sayin my English Fowler is ugly?...Them's fightin words.. :lol:

LOL!!  I never did see a "traditonal" muzzleloader that was ugly!  But, yes, there are those out there who swoon over the fusil like no other (you know who you are).  LOL!

Thanks to all for the comments and Longhunter for the very good links...