Traditional Muzzleloading Association

The Center of Camp => People of the Times => Topic started by: IronBull on June 02, 2010, 03:24:40 PM

Title: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: IronBull on June 02, 2010, 03:24:40 PM

I know the common idea for a rifle/musket for a native is along the guidelines of a trade musket usually of .62 cal or bigger. Just asking opinions on if a Kentucky rifle of say .45 to .50 caliber would have been used? Been out of the loop for awhile, finacial, work, economy etc etc, and really considering getting back into this but to my native roots and building a Native persona!!!! Flintlock of course!

Title:
Post by: Mitch on June 02, 2010, 08:50:30 PM

for 1820s and on, Trade RIFLES were real common for Native or Metis or anyone else...take a look at the JJHenry trade rifles-Early English and two styles of Lancasters-these were made for the Western fur trade, are "right" as you can get and yep, it wasn't "only" whites who carried rifles(as a matter of fact, "whites" were an extremely small part of the Western trade)....just a few rambling thoughts..your research may vary

Title:
Post by: mario on June 02, 2010, 09:12:47 PM

In NY during the RevWar, rifle use among the Iroquois seems to have been more common than anticipated. By 1778, London gunmakers were making copies of Early Lancaster rifles. Bailey's book on British military rifles shows a few examples of the type. Almost 1300 were sent from London to Quebec between 1778 and 1782.

44" swamped barrels of .54cal+, walnut stocks, simple brass or wooden patchbox and brass furniture.


There are also records of one Schenectady, NY (outside Albany) merchant ordering rifles from PA.


“1 box Riffle guns with boxes in the but Meld [mold] & Measure”
Schenectady merchant Daniel Campbell. Order to NY merchants Folliot & Co, Aug 1772 As found in Bailey, pg 78

“10 rifles from Pennsylvania”
Schenectady merchant Daniel Campbell. Order to merchant William Backhouse, March 1773. As found in Bailey, pg 78

“8 riffle guns from Backhouse”
Schenectady merchant Daniel Campbell. Order to merchant William Backhouse, March 1774. As found in Bailey, pg 78






“Jacob Shy-yo-we-yooh…1 rifle taken by the British when he was made prisoner near Philadelphia)”

“Cornelius- Tow-ce-ny or Otter and his brother Thomas…1 rifle L4.”

“Peter Fry, O-quooh lo-tau…1 rifle 4.0.0.”

“Hon-ye-ry’s losses, as given by his widow, Nov. 24 1794…1 rifle gun.”

“Paolus Tegahsweangalolis…1 Rifle 5D.”

“Katalene, wife of Kahelayent…1 rifle 3.4.0.”

“Joseph Yogeaphlataleghhea (alias Hot Ashes) & children…1 Rifle 40/”

“Widow of Wm. Kayentarongwen…1 Rifle gun.”

“Widow of Capt. Davis…2 Rifle Gunns 6.0.0.”

“British adherents (Turtle Clan)…Peter Summer…1 Rifle Gunn 3.0.0.”



Account of losses sustained by the Oneidas & Tuscaroras, in consequence of their attachment to the United States in the Late War. Transcribed by Anthony Wonderly, 1/15/1998


"Gunns" and "fowling pieces" (a couple "Fine" and/or "French" also) outnumbered rifles, but still a pretty healthy showing, IMHO.


Please keep in mind the above info is for NY only and during the 1770s. It may not apply to other places.


There are other quotes putting rifles in the hands of Indians in the South also.

Overall, the trade gun was king, but depending on time/place/persona, a rifle (of the proper style) could work.

Mario
PS- Can anybody tell I'm thinking about a rifle for my new Mohawk persona?  

Title:
Post by: tg on June 03, 2010, 06:24:13 PM

As far back as the 1750's in some areas the NDN's showed a fondness of the rifled gun.

Title:
Post by: Mitch on June 03, 2010, 07:37:23 PM

yep, there's some info about it in "Deerskins to Duffels?-good book on the SouthEastern hide trade....seems the Creek had hunted the whitetail so much that the deer were almost hunted out and the Creek hunters were having to make long shots...hence the desire for rifleguns

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: SchdyHist on December 09, 2013, 01:01:18 AM

Given the small number of rifles ordered by Campbell, I tend to think he may have had in mind selling them to his tenants on the 20,000 acres of land he was subdividing west of Saratoga, NY. His orders for goods intended for the Native American trade were generally quite large. For example, for the 1772 trading season he ordered 10,000 flints, over 4,000 lbs of gunpowder, and about 185,000 "Fusil balls 28 per lb". Also about 7,000 knives. If I have a chance I'll take a look at his letterbook for the orders Bailly cites and see if there are any clues as to whether the rifles were intended for the Native American trade.

That said, Sir William Johnson (Commissioner of Indians for the Northern Colonies, headquartered at Johnstown, NY just north of the Mohawk River) submitted a departmental report to the Lords of Trade (IIRC) at the conclusion of the French and Indian War in which he advised prohibiting traders from supplying Native Americans with "rifle barrelled guns."  The text reads: "Art 38th: Rifled Barrelled Guns should certainly be prohibited; the Shawanees and the Delawares, with many of their neighbors are become very fond of them, and use them with such dexterity, that they are capable of doing infinite damage, and as they are made in some of the Frontier towns, where the Indians will procure them at any price, I am of the opinion all white persons should be restricted on a very severe penalty from selling them to the Indians, or for their own use." Source: Documents Relating to the History of Colonial New York, London Documents XXXVII, p. 665. It appears then that Native Americans had some rifles in the 1755 to 1763 time frame, and wanted more, although they also fired "swan shot" in combat. There is a first-person account from the Battle of Lake George during the F and I War that recites a Mohawk running up to about 10 yards and killing an enemy by shooting him in the chest with "a load of swan shot."

In the summer of 1775 a settler on the western frontier near the Mohawk River wrote a letter to the Schenectady Committee of Safety reciting how two Mohawks visiting at his house had warned him that their nation was going to join the British and kill Americans. When a neighbor was seen passing the house on a wagon, one of the Mohawks "lifted his rifle" and declared that he could shoot that man through his left eye. The letter, a copy of which I've seen, specifies "rifle", not "musket". Rifles were still in Native American hands a good ten years after Johnson argued they should be banned from owing them.

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: sse on December 09, 2013, 10:17:36 AM

Most fascinating...and welcome to you...

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: Captchee on December 09, 2013, 11:36:38 AM

Rifles were pretty  common  among natives even in the south east. This is why the governments of the states  often passed laws making it a crime to sell  rifled guns to natives people . a lot of folks  I believe simply disregarded that .
 If the stories  of the Tecumseh  trade gun are true .  Then  he also carried a rifle in the end

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: gunmaker on December 09, 2013, 02:14:42 PM

Alexander in his book says the Indians were very involved in the long rifle design/trade because of the amount of market hunting done by the tribes. They liked long bbl. muskets & transferred that desire to the new made "twisted" guns...?????    Tom

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: SchdyHist on December 09, 2013, 04:26:15 PM

When we think of the fur trade we often focus most on beaver but a look at Campbell's correspondence, or that of Phyn & Ellice (arguably the dominant firm just before the Revolution, and who also happened to have their HQ a few doors from Campbell...), and it's clear that deer skins were also heavily traded, along with raccoons, muskrat, and even bear. Beaver, raccoon, and muskrat I would expect would be more efficiently hunted with traps (and IIRC I have seen some orders for steel traps during this period) but deer and bear would have pretty much required firearms, I'd expect. I often wondered why so many deerskins were shipped to London, until I came across a letter from Campbell to his agent in Detroit in the early 1770's, telling him to stop buying deerskin because he had just received a letter from his London merchant (IIRC John Blackburn) informing him that a new, durable type of cotton had been invented in England and that the makers of breeches were all switching over to it, resulting in a drastic decline of deerskin prices. So it seems that buckskin was the preferred material for men's breeches in Britain prior to this.

If anyone would like me to have a gander at Campbell's letterbook for more information on trade guns, or any other topics, let me know. My local county historical society owns the book and I've looked through it for my own research before. Prof. Timothy Shannon has written a very interesting article about Native American clothing preferences, which can be viewed at the link following (registration required, but it's free) or you can download it for a fee.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2946822?uid=3739832&uid=373351057&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=3739256&uid=60&sid=21103093072821)

I was surprised to learn the degree to which Native Americans had very specific preferences for their consumer goods. Then later I came across a letter Campbell wrote to his London supplier (9 July 1771, John Blackburn) criticizing him for sending him the "wrong" goods. I'll quote a bit: "the Red Strouds ought not to have any white stripe and will Not sell"...."I also send you Iron Jews harps which would never sell here I wrote you for some small Brass Jews Harps. likewise find you back Two parcells Ribbands which came in....They are not Indian Ribbands nor could I Sell them here as long as I am living. you will please to get them Exchanged for Indian Ribbands and find me an equal quantity of each kind - Green Blue Yellow and Red let them be about a Foot & a half broad..." (all punctuation, spelling, and capitalization as per original except for elipses.)

Thanks for the welcome!

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: gunmaker on December 09, 2013, 05:29:24 PM

Deer were hunted mercilessly, That's where the expression worth a "buck" comes from, or so I'm led to believe. Tom

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: sse on December 09, 2013, 05:44:39 PM

Their guiding principles were different than today's...

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: SchdyHist on December 09, 2013, 10:37:13 PM

In the summer of 1771 Campbell wrote to Blackburn that he was expecting delivery of 4000 deerskins shortly! And he had already sent a number of "bales" of skins to London that year. Campbell by no means had a corner on the deerskin trade, I don't think, so it is really kind of a staggering total that we may be talking about for a yearly take. And still some officials complained from time to time that the Indians weren't industrious enough in their hunting! The thing that amazed me was how small the profit was per skin when all was said and done.

Sorry about the bad link in the earlier post. If anyone wants to see Prof Shannon's article, got to JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (http://www.jstor.org) and in the search box enter Dressing for Success on the Mohawk Frontier and it will be the first item on the list of hits returned. It's free if you register.

Cadwallader Colden, New York's Lt. Gov took some issues with Johnson's suggestions regarding swan shot, noting in a letter of his own to London that prohibiting it wouldn't work, since the traders were allowed to sell bar lead to the Indians it would be easy enough for them to make large shot if they wanted it. I don't know if he was assuming they could melt lead and pour it through a strainer into a bucket of water, or if he expected them to cut off polygonal chunks and then hammer then into an approximate sphere.

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: sse on December 09, 2013, 10:42:58 PM

I've always heard that the deer 'herd' is greater now than in the old days.  Maybe that is not correct.

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: SchdyHist on December 09, 2013, 10:44:02 PM

What do you all make of the huge number of 28 gauge balls that Campbell was sending to his trading post in Detroit? That would be about .55 caliber I think, but I don't know the history of long rifles to know whether they would have taken such a ball. The other option I was thinking about was that the Native Americans may have loaded one more of them at a time into a large caliber musket, creating a sort of "super shotgun", but I have no idea how correct or even realistic this may be. Any insights you may have would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: SchdyHist on December 09, 2013, 10:51:55 PM

The Detroit trading posts were tapping into the resources of a very large part of the country. Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and they would sometimes send agents north up into what's now Ontario. And then too, one of the primary trade goods was rum. Johnson mentioned that their thirst for it was unquenchable which makes me wonder how many were driven to kill far beyond what they knew was "right" so they could afford rum.

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: mario on December 10, 2013, 07:21:45 PM

Quote from: "SchdyHist"

What do you all make of the huge number of 28 gauge balls that Campbell was sending to his trading post in Detroit? That would be about .55 caliber I think, but I don't know the history of long rifles to know whether they would have taken such a ball.

The trade rifle examples I have come across were .55-.62" (+/-).

Quote from: "SchdyHist"

The other option I was thinking about was that the Native Americans may have loaded one more of them at a time into a large caliber musket, creating a sort of "super shotgun", but I have no idea how correct or even realistic this may be. Any insights you may have would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

With the avg trade gun bore being somewhere around .58-.62 or so, just wouldn't be feasible, really. Too small to make an effective double ball load (which Ned Roberts wrote about in Canada during the 1940s), too big to make an effective shotgun.

SWJ complained of muskets sent to him being of too large a caliber and that the Iroquois wouldn't use them.

Mario

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: SchdyHist on December 10, 2013, 07:47:55 PM

Mario, thanks for the info. Next time I'm around the Campbell letterbooks I'm going to take a closer look at his orders. Johnson's statement above leads me to think his concern was not so much with the large fur-trading operations.

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: mario on December 12, 2013, 07:13:54 PM

Quote from: "SchdyHist"

Johnson's statement above leads me to think his concern was not so much with the large fur-trading operations.

Well, he WAS the largest operation in the area.

There's also:

"abt. 2 dozn. fusee Guns proved Barrells @ 14/--very good at the price but rather larger bores than those commonly used in the Indian Trade; they would answer very well for a Bullet & Shot & believe wou'd suit the Southern Indians; as I have been told they do not use a single Bullett so much as the Northern Indians."

List of Indian goods at Rock Creek belonging to the Ohio Company, Letters to Washington

It insinuates that the Southern tribes used their guns as shotguns more often, but even going up to musket bore (+/- .750"), using ball of the caliber you describe wouldn't really work well at all. Even less given the fact that Swan shot, Beaver shot, etc are commonly traded.

Mario

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: RobD on November 04, 2014, 07:47:49 AM

so, what was the preferred long gun of the nor'east native americans just before, and then during the rev?

i'd expect it to be a rifle, w/longish barrel - what caliber, stock wood, trigger?

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: cb on November 05, 2014, 12:26:57 PM

Quote from: "rfd"

so, what was the preferred long gun of the nor'east native americans just before, and then during the rev?

i'd expect it to be a rifle, w/longish barrel - what caliber, stock wood, trigger?

While rifles were used by the Indians, by far the most common long gun was a smoothbore trade gun of one of the period types common to the area.

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: mario on November 06, 2014, 09:38:26 PM

Quote from: "rfd"

so, what was the preferred long gun of the nor'east native americans just before, and then during the rev?

i'd expect it to be a rifle, w/longish barrel - what caliber, stock wood, trigger?

If by "preferred" you mean what they bought the most of, than the smoothbore trade gun was #1.

Once you leave NY going NE, I see no evidence for rifles until well after the RevWar.

Mario

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: RobD on November 06, 2014, 09:55:54 PM

Quote from: "mario"

Quote from: "rfd"

so, what was the preferred long gun of the nor'east native americans just before, and then during the rev?

i'd expect it to be a rifle, w/longish barrel - what caliber, stock wood, trigger?

If by "preferred" you mean what they bought the most of, than the smoothbore trade gun was #1.

Once you leave NY going NE, I see no evidence for rifles until well after the RevWar.

Mario

for the known colonies of the pre rev and rev ... "preferred" as in - rifled or smooth bore, caliber, long barrel versus short barrel, iron or brass furniture.

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: mario on November 07, 2014, 10:15:50 PM

Quote from: "rfd"

for the known colonies of the pre rev and rev ... "preferred" as in - rifled or smooth bore, caliber, long barrel versus short barrel, iron or brass furniture.

The vast majority of firearms traded to the Indians of the eastern US, pre-1783 were smoothbores of approximately .58-.62 caliber, barrels in excess of 44" and carried brass furniture.

The basic trade gun of the 18th century was really nothing more than a simplified (and hence, cheaper) version of the fowling piece.

Think NEF Pardner shotgun vs. Holland & Holland SxS.

In the South, you see a move toward rifles (again, 44"+ barrels, .54+ caliber, brass furniture) fairly early on , like the F&I era. But the smoothbore trade gun reigned supreme numbers-wise for many decades after.

Mario

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: RobD on November 08, 2014, 06:10:54 AM

peter alexander's 'the gunsmith of grenville' has some interesting historical info in its preface.  whether it's all truth or theory or conjecture, who knows for sure.  in essence, he writes that during the mid to late settlement period (about the 1750's) the indians wanted long rifles in particular, not smoothbores nor the shorter jaeger rifles, because of the scarcity of game that required killing at longer distances.  he referenced george carroll's 'the indians as riflemen during the golden age and before', along with a very interesting 11/30/1756 letter written by georgian trader daniel pepper to governor lyttelton that talks about his concerns over the indians desires for the long rifle, and in acquiring them makes the natives more of an equal to the settlers.  part of this, or maybe all of it, is that pepper was an indian smoothbore trader, and now the indians wanted rifles.

Title: Re: Kentucky rifle?
Post by: mario on November 08, 2014, 09:09:31 PM

There does seem to be a desire for rifles in the South, but there were actually laws regarding their sale. Most of the time, it was prohibited.

"Regulations For Indian Traders and Rates of Goods

9. Not to sell "Swann Shott" or Rifled Barrel Guns to the Indians."

Mobile, AL. April 10, 1765

As far as why they desired them, it could be various reasons. One being that most southern Indians traded in deer hides and the rifle was simply a more efficient tool for hunting them.

Mario