AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Contemporary Longrifle Collecting => Topic started by: Eric Kettenburg on January 15, 2021, 05:26:11 PM
-
From Francis Parkman, The California and Oregon Trail, 1849.
"There are two methods commonly practiced, 'running' and 'approaching.' The chase on horseback, which goes by the name of 'running,' is the more violent and dashing mode of the two. Indeed, of all American wild sports, this is the wildest. Once among the buffalo, the hunter, unless long use has made him familiar with the situation, dashes forward in utter recklessness and self-abandonment. He thinks of nothing, cares for nothing but the game; his mind is stimulated to the highest pitch, yet intensely concentrated on one object. In the midst of the flying herd, where the uproar and the dust are thickest, it never wavers for a moment; he drops the rein and abandons his horse to his furious career; he levels his gun, the report sounds faint amid the thunder of the buffalo; and when his wounded enemy leaps in vain fury upon him, his heart thrills with a feeling like the fierce delight of the battlefield… The chief difficulty in running buffalo, as it seems to me, is that of loading the gun or pistol at full gallop. Many hunters for convenience' sake carry three or four bullets in the, mouth; the powder is poured down the muzzle of the piece, the bullet dropped in after it, the stock struck hard upon the pommel of the saddle, and the work is done. The danger of this method is obvious. Should the blow on the pommel fail to send the bullet home, or should the latter, in the act of aiming, start from its place and roll toward the muzzle, the gun would probably burst in discharging. Many a shattered hand and worse casualties besides have been the result of such an accident. To obviate it, some hunters make use of a ramrod, usually hung by a string from the neck, but this materially increases the difficulty of loading.”
This appears to be a true "PARTS GUN!"
Barrel is a .69 cal 1816 US musket barrel probably decommissioned and chopped ca. 1820s-1830s. Lock is a simple trade type lock, fairly large and stout with no internal bridle. The cock is a more recent replacement and the frizzen is a very old replacement with one heck of a stout sole/facing brazed onto it. I think the sole must be 1/8" thick at least, and while pan to frizzen fit is somewhat questionable, the lock sparks like crazy. *** Never reconverted! Neither lock nor barrel. ***. Frizzen screw is a newer replacement (with identical threads) to take up some slop but I do have the original frizzen screw although it's kind of useless. The lock now functions extremely well. Vent is still very serviceable but with 2F is somewhat self-priming; I would personally stick with 1F here. Bore was rough but has been slicked-up quite a bit and I have been having a HUGE amount of fun popping this off with light loads (@50 gr) and a naked undersized ball (.672) tamped with tow. Unless you are literally planning on running some buffalo, I'd call this one a "gong gun" now and keep it lighthearted with the loadings or consider a display piece as part of a larger display.
Overall it seems 1830s to my way of thinking and is very crude; it is clearly stocked either at a frontier trading post perhaps, or possibly may be native-stocked by a native with some gunsmithing skills. Rough tool marks are everywhere! What is most interesting is that the piece is clearly not cut down from a longer gun but was deliberately stocked with spare parts in this manner, apparently for a specific purpose. Call it a canoe gun, or a blanket gun, or a buffalo gun. I choose to view it as a buffalo gun as this function makes the most sense to me.
A great deal of secondary work/repair is evident. I'm not going to go into it all here and much is self-evident but the gun displays a great deal of use while maintaining functionality. Rammer looks old but not too old ;D and is clearly made from a random tree branch.
I think it would make a pretty wicked club, too...
(https://i.ibb.co/VBX1YKs/IMG-2495.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YjvCBrx)
(https://i.ibb.co/NV0rbJJ/IMG-2499.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xCnYdBB)
(https://i.ibb.co/y52HS3y/IMG-2504.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Bjk0N1Z)
(https://i.ibb.co/r7R6DVC/IMG-2505.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8KL51HW)
(https://i.ibb.co/ykPKs9T/IMG-2507.jpg) (https://ibb.co/3FdVh3X)
(https://i.ibb.co/bsBXTkL/IMG-2512.jpg) (https://ibb.co/N9jK5Mp)
(https://i.ibb.co/jH7W87R/IMG-2515.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FnG0hGV)
(https://i.ibb.co/QJnT0kg/IMG-2532.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ZfKF9Sj)
(https://i.ibb.co/71SFJFs/DSC02253.jpg) (https://ibb.co/CHwF5FR)
(https://i.ibb.co/NjnYZf1/DSC02257.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fpG04Z8)
-
Wonderful piece Eric. Just oozes forgotten stories of buffalo hunts and campfires. Inspiring work.
-
Eric, you’re a story teller who uses gun making instead of a pen. Bravo again.
-
Totally believable.
-
Wow... Eric knocked it out of the park with this one! Just as he did the last one, and the one before...
There is historical precedent. Below is a piece that was displayed and sold by Ambrose Antiques several years ago. Fortunately, I had sufficient presence of mind to save some pictures. Here is a lock-side view:
(https://i.ibb.co/Kj70JvV/Blanket-Gun-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bgLWk9N)
And the reverse:
(https://i.ibb.co/b7jv8dX/Blanket-Gun-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/7bxp6yK)
Detail of the lock, which was converted from flint:
(https://i.ibb.co/vB21Zb8/Blanket-Gun-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/n0hrzTS)
...and a detail view of the tack work, in a design very similar to that used on Eric's gun:
(https://i.ibb.co/DtYm0tY/Blanket-Gun-4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/XbD6cbD)
Ambrose described this one as having a 12-3/4" octagon to round barrel in 24 gauge, likely recycled from a trade gun. However, they stated the lock was from a Long Land Pattern Brown Bess, and the triggerguard is "sheet steel." So, the original was also a "parts gun," as Eric described. Ambrose indicated there was no sideplate, and there is obviously no buttplate. I don't see any provision for a ramrod, but with a barrel that short, you could easily carry a loading rod stuck in your belt. They stated the "percussion bolster" was of brass, oxidized to a dark color. They did not provide any information with regard to the gun's provenance.
Eric described his gun as being "somewhat self-priming" with FFg powder. This was actually an advantage in some circumstances, buffalo running being one of them. Here is a short excerpt from John Palliser's Solitary Rambles and Adventures:
(https://i.ibb.co/mvV37QX/Palliser-pp-111-112.png) (https://ibb.co/gvLxCsP)
This preference for a self-priming flintlock for that type of hunting was also mentioned by others, so it was not unique to Palliser.
I believe there were several practical reasons flintlock trade guns "held on" for so long in the far north. Not only could the spark be used to ignite a fire for warming up (this, too, has been described in the literature), but priming a flintlock might be easier than handling percussion caps in extreme cold weather. In addition, if the gun was "self-priming," it would save a step in the loading procedure. That's just a hypothesis on my part. I'm a southern boy, and have no practical experience hunting in that kind of cold.
In any event, I would like to thank Eric for showing his "Buffalo Runner." Well done!
Notchy Bob
-
I'd love to purchase a book by Eric Kettenburg, showcasing his different projects along with his thoughts on what inspired him for each piece or anything else he felt like writing about. I can't be the only one here on this?
-
Ha! That is extremely kind of you to say, and humbling.
Inspiration is easy:
(https://i.ibb.co/4TgKDzL/Unknown.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
And yeah, a box, forget the bottle...
-
What Bobby said and the book idea...put me down for two.
Tim
-
Oh yea, I'm in for a copy.
-
I'd love to purchase a book by Eric Kettenburg, showcasing his different projects along with his thoughts on what inspired him for each piece or anything else he felt like writing about. I can't be the only one here on this?
Count me in, too!
Notchy Bob
-
Notchy Bob, regarding the gentleman in the Pallister article you provided...I’d imagine that a waistcoat pocket full of black powder could make for some interesting moments around the campfire, after the hunt was done...
Greg
-
Seems some say the canoe guns “never existed” or are not period.
I’m sorry but this (and others) makes me say “piffle!”
Amazing work Eric! Dandy doesn’t begin to describe it. I can just imagine them running bufflers with this or using it as a small defensive weapon during native attacks. Wonderful and stirs the imagination!
-
"Taking the bullet from the mouth is both the quickest and safest method of...."
I wonder if this has any correlation to men having shorter natural lifespans 200+ years ago!
I don't think my 4th gr-grandfather used this method though. He served in the Rev War in upstate N. Y., (9th Albany Militia) and lived to be 88 yrs old and fathered ten healthy children.
-
"Taking the bullet from the mouth is both the quickest and safest method of...."
I wonder if this has any correlation to men having shorter natural lifespans 200+ years ago!
I don't think my 4th gr-grandfather used this method though. He served in the Rev War in upstate N. Y., (9th Albany Militia) and lived to be 88 yrs old and fathered ten healthy children.
Lead poisoning hadn’t been invented yet LOL.
-
Seems some say the canoe guns “never existed” or are not period.
I’m sorry but this (and others) makes me say “piffle!”
You have no idea of what you're talking about. That gun never saw the inside of a canoe, nor did it ever kill a canoe. What you're seeing was rather common out west and used exclusively on horse back. Do some research on Indians running buffalo. Fascinating stuff and I won't have to hear the term canoe gun in the future because you will be educated about actual 19th century history instead of popular late 20th century nomenclature..
-
Seems some say the canoe guns “never existed” or are not period.
I’m sorry but this (and others) makes me say “piffle!”
You have no idea of what you're talking about. That gun never saw the inside of a canoe, nor did it ever kill a canoe. What you're seeing was rather common out west and used exclusively on horse back. Do some research on Indians running buffalo. Fascinating stuff and I won't have to hear the term canoe gun in the future because you will be educated about actual 19th century history instead of popular late 20th century nomenclature..
Hey Mike, I defer to you guys who know much more about this stuff than I do and no doubt 'Canoe Gun' is a modern term as I alluded to in a post above, but, I think the point he is making is, as with the 'Sleigh Guns' (That are actually named 'Sleigh Guns' mind) in the other thread, and this cutoff 'Buffalo Running' gun, so handy to reload from horseback, the idea of a cutoff gun, handy in tight quarters was obviously understood, as proven by this type gun, the coach type/blunderbuss guns, and the sleigh gun. We might bristle at the term but the concept was common enough.
Edit: To further clarify my point, though a short gun of this general type might be called a canoe gun, a sleigh gun, a Buffalo Runner, or a coach type gun, the argument is about nomenclature and its application to a specific gun, not about whether the gun with the name applied existed. If a feller spent most of his day in a canoe, or a sleigh, Buffalo hunting from horseback, or guarding a coach on the road, he might have chosen a short cutoff gun, and if one guy chose one because he spent all day in a canoe, then the Canoe Gun existed in precisely the same way this gun did.
-
Gentlemen, gentlemen!! Can only speak for myself but many of us may be quite on edge today, not for any reason pertaining to short musketoons but perhaps for different unmentionable reasons altogether.
BTW, it's been a long time since I heard an expression like "piffle." Now that's certainly interesting.
Actually I spend an awful lot of time in the shop where this likewise may be useful in the event of unwelcome intrusion, so I shall now ordain it as "The Shop Gun."
-
Gentlemen, gentlemen!! Can only speak for myself but many of us may be quite on edge today, not for any reason pertaining to short musketoons but perhaps for different unmentionable reasons altogether.
BTW, it's been a long time since I heard an expression like "piffle." Now that's certainly interesting.
Actually I spend an awful lot of time in the shop where this likewise may be useful in the event of unwelcome intrusion, so I shall now ordain it as "The Shop Gun."
A 'Shop Gun' forsooth. Double piffle.
-
"and if one guy chose one because he spent all day in a canoe, then the Canoe Gun existed in precisely the same way this gun did."
I have spent extensive time in canoes on 18th century hunting trips sometimes for a week or more at a time. My "canoe" gun was a type G with a 48" barrel. Maybe I should have cut it off at 12"? I NEVER had a problem loading a gun with a 48" barrel while in a canoe....I wonder why that is? Maybe it is because of my genius classification....
I would however choose either of the above cut down guns to hunt buffalo from horse back. Large caliber percussion colts were used as well.
I also recall the archeological discovery of a canoe that was sunk in MN in the early 1800's. It had a case of trade guns still in it. None of them were cut down. I wonder how they even justified carrying a standard gun in a canoe even if they were freight ..... Very odd eh?
-
"and if one guy chose one because he spent all day in a canoe, then the Canoe Gun existed in precisely the same way this gun did."
I have spent extensive time in canoes on 18th century hunting trips sometimes for a week or more at a time. My "canoe" gun was a type G with a 48" barrel. Maybe I should have cut it off at 12"? I NEVER had a problem loading a gun with a 48" barrel while in a canoe....I wonder why that is? Maybe it is because of my genius classification....
I would however choose either of the above cut down guns to hunt buffalo from horse back. Large caliber percussion colts were used as well.
I also recall the archeological discovery of a canoe that was sunk in MN in the early 1800's. It had a case of trade guns still in it. None of them were cut down. I wonder how they even justified carrying a standard gun in a canoe even if they were freight ..... Very odd eh?
No odder than the picture I saw with the two guys on the coach with long barreled guns. Or the famous one of Indians hunting Buffalo from horses with what looked like 50” barreled guns, I suppose.
The same observation you had about canoes could be just as easily be argued in regards to coaches, shooting from horseback (carbine?), or any other confined space. If someone spent a week at a time in a canoe would he bother? Surely not. The question is did traders or folks who otherwise spent months in a canoe at a time and the particular scenario called for it? Maybe. I’m not saying it was done, I’m saying it’s no less likely than a coach gun, which was not carried by a guy who rode in a coach for a week a year, but by someone who spent a career in one and the particular scenario called for it. I could be wrong, and probably am.
-
"Taking the bullet from the mouth is both the quickest and safest method of...."
Sorry I didn't post more of the quote, but I had to cut it off somewhere! Earlier in the text, Palliser said, "... you then take a bullet wet out of your mouth, and throw it down upon the powder; by which means you avoid the necessity of using the ramrod, a most inconvenient process when riding fast on horseback." I think what Palliser meant by "safest" was that you take the bullet from your mouth and throw it down on the powder with your fingers, rather than using the technique demonstrated by this guy:
(https://i.ibb.co/zHzchWW/Reminton-1892-Buffalo-Hunter.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
:o
I guess "safety" is relative...
Notchy Bob
ADDENDUM: The painting was done by Frederick Remington in 1892, and is entitled "Buffalo Hunter Spitting a Bullet into a Gun." Remington was a little late to have witnessed this sort of thing, and he was also a little too... "well nourished"... to have ridden a galloping buffalo pony even if he had been there. However, he did meet old-timers who regaled him with tales of the early days, and fueled his creativity.
John Palliser (1817-1887) was an Irish explorer, geographer, and adventurer who came to the United States in 1847 for an extended hunting trip on the northern plains. He wrote about it in a book originally published in 1853, Solitary Rambles and Adventures of a Hunter on the Prairies. In his book, Palliser had plenty to say about guns and hunting, not to mention the native and Metis people, the traders, and the flora and fauna of the time and place. He was a keen sportsman and a very knowledgeable shooter. It is a wonderful book, easy to read, and you can access the whole book online for free, courtesy of Google Books: Solitary Rambles (https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/UFU0AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PR3)
-
Bob,
If that horse threw its head back, that ombre would do quite the swallowing act!. :-)
FWIW,
I have seen a couple of these short buffalo running trade guns up here, found fairly recently on the prairie. ( In the last 20 -30 years I'd say)
The metal -work would clean up to usable, and the stocks were really checked , but still seemed solid. Looked a bit like driftwood.
They were flintlocks , and more popular for the reasons posted above.
These were likely lost when running buffalo. Lose your gun, and by the time you work out of the herd, all is trampled and you may be a mile or two from where you lost it. Would make it hard to find.
I know of another full length musket found on the prairie east and south of here. Believe that one was percussion.
This is short grass dry prairie I am talking about.
-
I wonder if ‘ol Jackie Brown still makes his canoe guns?
While I have little use for a canoe in my home in the Mojave, a canoe gun would certainly be useful against snakes and just “fer fun” imagine that? Think I’ll go hunt me up a canoe gun soon. Bet the old timers enjoyed their canoe guns even if not used in a canoe at all times. There’s always been a need for a light handy yet powerful firearm be it guys with their canoe guns in the 18th and 19th centuries. ( edited to fit ALR rules)
-
Panzer, it’s enlightening to do a Google book search of “Indian, Canoe, Short gun” or combinations of two out of the three terms. ‘Short Gun’, which was, amazingly, just a short gun, is a term often seen in period accounts in conjunction with the term ‘canoe’ from 1700 through the western expansion, when it’s more often found alongside the term ‘buffalo’. I’ve downloaded a dozen references today alone. A short gun was a thing, as was a canoe. As was, it seems, an ‘Indian’.
(https://i.ibb.co/h8WdNnY/IMG-0721.jpg) (https://ibb.co/885xwRY)
Perhaps the purpose of a ‘short gun’ on a canoe was concealment and not convenience....
-
Bob,
Interesting read.
Don't know if I missed it in this thread, but Blanket gun was a real item.
It came in, in the reservation period. A short gun that could be carried concealed under a blanket.
-
Bob,
Interesting read.
Don't know if I missed it in this thread, but Blanket gun was a real item.
It came in, in the reservation period. A short gun that could be carried concealed under a blanket.
Here’s one that might be of interest on that subject, a bit earlier than the reservation period (1760’s). Not to hijack Eric’s thread but it is a reference to the type of gun that is the subject of his thread.
(https://i.ibb.co/XJq2kfC/IMG-0722.jpg) (https://ibb.co/nkFg8qL)
-
Bob,
Another good read!
Maybe one of the first times laws against "Concealed carry " were enforced! ;-)
-
I don't think it's "hijacked" at all - this is all very interesting stuff, especially since it is somewhat difficult to track down period information or documentation regarding short utility pieces such as this.
I remember years ago when engaged in quite a bit of research involving Northampton Co. during the War, I came across a reference to the Moravians at Bethlehem desiring one of their "agents" (not sure if that's the right word, but he was in Philadelphia at the time I believe) to acquire a number of blunderbusses for the defense of the town. I'd have to assume that they wanted such shorties for close-quarter engagement.
-
I don't think it's "hijacked" at all - this is all very interesting stuff, especially since it is somewhat difficult to track down period information or documentation regarding short utility pieces such as this.
I remember years ago when engaged in quite a bit of research involving Northampton Co. during the War, I came across a reference to the Moravians at Bethlehem desiring one of their "agents" (not sure if that's the right word, but he was in Philadelphia at the time I believe) to acquire a number of blunderbusses for the defense of the town. I'd have to assume that they wanted such shorties for close-quarter engagement.
I would think that would be why they would order that type gun. Urban combat against an enemy that might at some time be bunched up. A dozen pistol balls sounds pretty convincing....
I've read where a blunderbuss is described as a 'short gun with a wide bore', 'a carbine is a short gun used by horsemen', etc. I've read where the blunderbuss or short gun was carried by the night watch, stories of confrontations with robbers by homeowners in their houses using a blunderbuss or short gun, and lots of stories of the blunderbuss or short gun used for concealment, ie "talking the blunderbuss from beneath my cloak" or "his short gun appeared suddenly". It makes it a bit tough to determine whether a the short gun in any instance was a blunderbuss, purpose made or a cut off gun, but it's fairly obvious they were used just like we would use them today, for concealment, close in work, and for ease of reload in certain scenarios, and that they were well known, understood, and ubiquitous.
-
Short guns purpose made that way interest me. I’m planning a military carbine based on one in “Of Sorts for Provincials” by Jim Mullins.
I’m not sure short guns were ubiquitous in the mid 1700s through the fur trade era. In that time frame they don’t rise to the level of commonality of long guns. Blunderbusses though fascinating seem rather rare. I’ve yet to see one made here in America or find one in a list of trade items, etc.
Buffalo running and blanket guns seem to be phenomena of the mid to late1800s.
Of course in the mid 1800s short guns - double barreled shotguns with 26-32” barrels - were ubiquitous.
-
Short guns purpose made that way interest me. I’m planning a military carbine based on one in “Of Sorts for Provincials” by Jim Mullins.
I’m not sure short guns were ubiquitous in the mid 1700s through the fur trade era. In that time frame they don’t rise to the level of commonality of long guns. Blunderbusses though fascinating seem rather rare. I’ve yet to see one made here in America or find one in a list of trade items, etc.
Buffalo running and blanket guns seem to be phenomena of the mid to late1800s.
Of course in the mid 1800s short guns - double barreled shotguns with 26-32” barrels - were ubiquitous.
I didn't mean to insinuate they were ubiquitous in the sense that a gun of musket length was but that they were well known enough not to draw attention when seen. I have been searching google books using a timeframe of 1700-1850 and I am seeing hundreds of references to 'short guns' in the hands of Indians from 1700-1780 and how they are described paints a picture of them not being entirely unusual. It seems as the references pass about 1820 they appear more often in a hunting context than the earlier concealment/close in fighting context.
(https://i.ibb.co/Fs55Dp6/IMG-0724.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hXBBm0s)
-
Bob, good documentation. I guess we can’t be sure that what was called a short gun in some of these records doesn’t have a 30-36” barrel. In days when trade guns typically had barrels up to 48” long, a 30-36” barrel might be considered “short”. I think many of us raised on unmentionable guns with 18-22” barrels think a gun with a 42” barrel is a “long” gun. Back then it’s possible that was considered an “average length gun”.
A lot depends on what happens in our brains when we see “short gun” versus what happened in their brains when they wrote or thought of “short guns”.
-
Bob, good documentation. I guess we can’t be sure that what was called a short gun in some of these records doesn’t have a 30-36” barrel. In days when trade guns typically had barrels up to 48” long, a 30-36” barrel might be considered “short”. I think many of us raised on unmentionable guns with 18-22” barrels think a gun with a 42” barrel is a “long” gun. Back then it’s possible that was considered an “average length gun”.
A lot depends on what happens in our brains when we see “short gun” versus what happened in their brains when they wrote or thought of “short guns”.
I agree, and it didn't take long for my searching for mentions of 'short guns' to turn into trying to define what was meant by 'short gun'. I found references, including dictionaries of terms, over the entire 18th century that defined a blunderbuss as "a short gun of wide bore" and a Carbine as "a short gun used by horsemen" so I think it was a vague generality just as it is today. I see things like "the short gun suddenly appeared from beneath his greatcoat" or "the company was refitted with muskets in preference of their old short guns" which seems to be describing a gun like Eric's in length and a carbine of something like 30-36". The context usually tells the tale but I have come to the conclusion that what Eric built would have been called a 'short gun' in the period.
(https://i.ibb.co/Y8C5gq9/IMG-0727.jpg) (https://ibb.co/XpQnHvB)
(https://i.ibb.co/NSs4y89/IMG-0725.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cL1mrG6)
-
Thanks Eric for the fantastic gun and for inspiring the conversation. Any further references I find interesting I'll put on it's own thread entitled 'Short Guns'.
-
No doubt, what Eric made is short!
-
Plus, if I remember correctly, short doesn't necessarily equate to expedience or efficiency. In a later American conflict it appeared that many CSA cavalry preferred the 2 band Enfield to the carbine! A middle ground solution for Horse Soldiers it appears, that "just" worked.
-
Plus, if I remember correctly, short doesn't necessarily equate to expedience or efficiency. In a later American conflict it appeared that many CSA cavalry preferred the 2 band Enfield to the carbine! A middle ground solution for Horse Soldiers it appears, that "just" worked.
The 2 band jobber had a great rep for accurate shooting, too!
-
I think Bob McBride's excellent research has provided us with an appropriate and historically correct name for firearms of this type: short gun
I seem to recall reading about "canoe guns" (sorry, Mike Brooks. I had to say it...) in Mike Nesbitt's column in MUZZLELOADER magazine a few years ago. If I remember correctly, a customer asked Matt Denison, then the proprietor of North Star West, to build a short trade gun that the customer would use while canoeing. I think this was in the 1990's or early 2000's. In any event, either Matt or his customer started calling it a canoe gun, and orders for these started coming in to NSW asking for them. I'll need to go back through my back issues and look for the article, but that's the way I remember it. So, canoe gun joins plains rifle, tow worm, throwing hawk, and possibles bag, and likely a bunch of other terms, as late 20th - early 21st century entries into the muzzleloading shooter's lexicon.
I think we have pretty well established that short guns existed. Just to get this out of the way, we can mention that some were purpose built, like this German boar rifle from the 18th century:
(https://i.ibb.co/T4bP9Zw/German-Boar-Rifle.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fknrjbX)
I think the barrel on this rifle is less than a foot long. It was intended for hunting on horseback. You can link to a video of the Cap & Ball guy test-firing it via Pedersoli's blog: Shooting An Original 18th Century Short Rifle (https://blog.davide-pedersoli.com/shooting-an-original-18th-century-flintlock-short-rifle/)
However, I think this thread is more concerned with trade guns and "frontier" short guns, assembled from parts. Samuel Hearne (1745-1792) was an employee of the Hudson's Bay Company, and he traveled all over Canada with native bands in the years between 1769 and 1772. He wrote extensively about his experiences, and his writing was published in a book, A Journey to the Northern Ocean, as early as 1796, or possibly earlier. I found this interesting passage in his memoir, discussing the Indians' methods of hunting moose, and the use of cut-down trade muskets:
(https://i.ibb.co/25jp07R/Hearne-p-279.png) (https://ibb.co/M9RJyDK)
(https://i.ibb.co/TH2Mt8v/Hearne-p-280.png) (https://ibb.co/Cn8KQ71)
The pertinent passage is near the top of the second page: "...I never knew any of them take a gun [moose hunting] unless such as had been blown or bursted, and the barrels cut quite short, which, when reduced to the least possible size to be capable of doing any service..." Taken as a whole, the statement from Hearne suggests (to me) that cut-down guns were made in an attempt to salvage a damaged weapon. They were useful in some situations, but the native people had other options for weaponry in that particular methof of hunting.
I looked through James Gooding's book, Trade Guns of the Hudson's Bay Company, 1670-1970, and found a good discussion of standard barrel lengths. He said detailed data start in 1680, and "for the first decade or so, guns of 5 feet, 4-1/2 feet, and 4 feet were standard" (p.62). Over the next few years, guns of 3-1/2 feet were added and guns of 5 feet were removed. In 1693, there was one order for guns of 5-1/2 feet. The last order for guns of 4-1/2 feet was in 1705. Barrel lengths of 3 feet were first ordered in 1688, dropped five years later, then added on again in 1731. By 1841, guns of 2-1/2 feet were added. So, between 1680 and 1841, standard barrel lengths of trade guns gradually decreased, but at no point did Mr. Gooding indicate that new guns were offered in barrel lengths shorter than 2-1/2 feet (thirty inches).
Isaac Cowie (1848-1917) was a well-educted Shetland Islander who entered the employ of the Hudson's Bay Company in 1867 and stayed on until 1891. He was initially placed at Qu'Appelle, to work as a clerk. Trading was primarily with the Assiniboine, Cree, and Metis people. He wrote a wonderful memoir entitled The Company of Adventurers. Cowie was an accomplished marksman and a capable hunter, but he was also a shrewd trader and politician. He was very familiar with trade guns. Here are a few of his comments about them:
(https://i.ibb.co/RYmdMWK/Cowie-p-197.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Jm4gbPT)
(https://i.ibb.co/TK6Zx2C/Cowie-p-198.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rbYgR0W)
I apologize if that's more than you want to read, but I thought some folks might find it interesting. The really pertinent comments with regard to "short guns" are on the second page: "The shorter ones, two and one-half feet, were those most in use on the prairies, and these were usually still further shortened by the Indians, for lightness, as well as concealment under the robes or blankets they wore, and because in running buffalo with a good horse the hunter got so close as to singe the buffalo when he fired." So, Cowie's comments suggest that guns were intentionally shortened for specific purposes.
As a final thought, have you wondered how the Indians cut those barrels off? I read... somewhere... that this was done by cutting and then deepening a groove around the barrel with a three-cornered file, which was available from the traders. One of Bob McBride's submissions (above) appears to support this.
Best regards,
Notchy Bob
-
Thanks Bob! Some would have been purpose built like the (am I allowed to say this?) 'boar gun', and some cut down willy nilly as (I think you are referring to this exerpt) this shows. Interesting someone would cut down a gun for a single 'robbery'. He must've known he could acquire another easily enough...
(https://i.ibb.co/xM37fkp/IMG-0716.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GVF5t6K)
-
I like these:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1vjhDbS/00-E671-FD-DD7-C-4-F00-A1-F9-9-AFB03-C0-D1-CF.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XYkWFVrW/635-F24-A7-B126-4-E54-AA85-26-F61024-D2-B4.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/sDFCNBSy/50-A65530-5829-47-F1-B8-B6-F78-CDC433838.jpg)
-
Interesting thread. I have to add my .02 to the discussion.
There were probably very few --if any--purpose built for the trade "canoe guns" back in the day. But there were short guns, or blanket guns, which were shortened, either for concealment, or in order to salvage damaged guns. I myself have shortened TWO muskets, a Navy Arms "Charleville" and an Armi Sport M1842--due to damaged muzzles. And while it is not "period" documentation, Allen Eckert's book, The Conquerors, has a very good example of hostile tribes shortening the barrels of their flintlocks in order to smuggle them into several British forts -- I forget which ones exactly--to attack them during Pontiac's war, in 1763, I believe.
Again, as someone here said, "short gun" could mean one with a 42" barrel (like the Short Land Pattern Brown Bess), or it could mean Short Gun, like a canoe gun or blanket gun. It's all terminology anyway, and we live in the 21st C, not the 18th or 19th, so it seems that we can call'em whatever we want.
As for carbines, I don't know what to think. Again, Terminology.
Newman's book, Weapons of the American Revolution, describes carbines as being shoulder weapons of smaller caliber than the standard musket, IIRC. There are pictures of .65 cal English "carbines" in the book with 42" barrels, which is not what we "moderns" tend to think of as a short barrel, or a carbine (a short, lightweight shoulder weapon). Yet, Bob McBride has found references to short barrelled carbines. It's pretty obvious, to me anyway, that terminology has changed over the years --and centuries. We know that short barrelled guns exist(ed).
I think it comes down to personal preference. I read an article by Mike Nesbitt which recounted a duck hunt in which he used a short barrelled "canoe gun," Little Tacky. Mike certainly doesn't need a short barreled gun--he's 6'5"-- but he must just like them.
I personally prefer "shorter" barrels: 36" to 40". They are easier to fit into my vehicles, and besides, I like'm.
Seems I've rambled enough. Like I said, just my .02 --JB
-
Mike Nesbitt is the reason I haven't subscribed to "Muzzle-loader" since the early 80's
-
Interesting thread. I have to add my .02 to the discussion.
There were probably very few --if any--purpose built for the trade "canoe guns" back in the day. But there were short guns, or blanket guns, which were shortened, either for concealment, or in order to salvage damaged guns. I myself have shortened TWO muskets, a Navy Arms "Charleville" and an Armi Sport M1842--due to damaged muzzles. And while it is not "period" documentation, Allen Eckert's book, The Conquerors, has a very good example of hostile tribes shortening the barrels of their flintlocks in order to smuggle them into several British forts -- I forget which ones exactly--to attack them during Pontiac's war, in 1763, I believe.
Again, as someone here said, "short gun" could mean one with a 42" barrel (like the Short Land Pattern Brown Bess), or it could mean Short Gun, like a canoe gun or blanket gun. It's all terminology anyway, and we live in the 21st C, not the 18th or 19th, so it seems that we can call'em whatever we want.
As for carbines, I don't know what to think. Again, Terminology.
Newman's book, Weapons of the American Revolution, describes carbines as being shoulder weapons of smaller caliber than the standard musket, IIRC. There are pictures of .65 cal English "carbines" in the book with 42" barrels, which is not what we "moderns" tend to think of as a short barrel, or a carbine (a short, lightweight shoulder weapon). Yet, Bob McBride has found references to short barrelled carbines. It's pretty obvious, to me anyway, that terminology has changed over the years --and centuries. We know that short barrelled guns exist(ed).
I think it comes down to personal preference. I read an article by Mike Nesbitt which recounted a duck hunt in which he used a short barrelled "canoe gun," Little Tacky. Mike certainly doesn't need a short barreled gun--he's 6'5"-- but he must just like them.
I personally prefer "shorter" barrels: 36" to 40". They are easier to fit into my vehicles, and besides, I like'm.
Seems I've rambled enough. Like I said, just my .02 --JB
I don't think there were any purpose built canoe guns or we would have some sort of documentation, my argument was just that there were 'short guns', purposefully made, for one reason or another, that were if not commonly seen, then at least commonly understood, from Colonial times through the westward expansion, until today. Would I love to find a reference such as "so I cut my gun down so it would not be seen in the canoe as we approached the...." Yep. Do I expect to? Nope.
-
Bob--I completely agree with you, but perhaps didn't adequately make that clear in my post. --JB
-
Bob--I completely agree with you, but perhaps didn't adequately make that clear in my post. --JB
You did make it clear, I was just sort of talking at the computer I guess.... ;)
-
I wonder, then, what the ballistics of the round ball so discharged forth from these “short guns” would entail?
I see the Hungarian man Capandball has the video about a European (very) short barreled piece that looks hardly longer in the barrel than some horseman’s pistols, yet was claimed to hunt boars with?
-
I wonder, then, what the ballistics of the round ball so discharged forth from these “short guns” would entail?
I see the Hungarian man Capandball has the video about a European (very) short barreled piece that looks hardly longer in the barrel than some horseman’s pistols, yet was claimed to hunt boards with?
I have heard of those pieces normally called Alpine Jeagers. They probably didn't see much time in a canoe. Short guns in Europe are exceptionally common. As far as ballistics go, Euro powders were far superior to what was available in the Colonies.. Probably the difference between a BANG and a poot.
-
CANOE gun is just a modern term. Some people like the word
an some don't. But stalking whitetail in a thick swamp. I'll take my 24 inch barred short gun. Every time... Oldtravler
-
There's this one to check out. Talking on the phone isn't one of my strong points though.
I think the original Poster, Karl, is a gentleman who's worked at Fort Michilimackinac for years.
(https://i.ibb.co/5FwNQbC/french-27-barrel.png) (https://ibb.co/9tSFxQB)
-
This popped up today while I was looking for something else:
(https://i.ibb.co/yPL29kb/BBHC-P-20-0359.png) (https://ibb.co/C8xLc9T)
This is in the Buffalo Bill Center of the West Collection (http://library.centerofthewest.org/digital/collection/p17097coll30/id/419/rec/62), and was described as a "flintlock trade rifle; Indian used, from the Remington Studio collection." Obviously, it's not a rifle, it's a Northwest gun. Looking at the yardstick positioned above it, the barrel appears to extend from about the 34 inch mark at the muzzle to about the 9 inch mark at the breech, indicating a barrel about 25" long, and I don't see a front sight. The shortest Northwest guns I remember seeing documented had 30" barrels, and Northwest guns in general had rudimentary front sights, so we assume this one was cut down.
However, the ramrod ferrules, of which there are two, appear to be spaced about right for the barrel as it is. If the barrel had been cut back, I would think the ramrod ferrule nearest the muzzle would have been sacrificed, or would at least be a lot closer to the muzzle. I'm not sure what to make of this gun. I sure do like it, though.
Notchy Bob