The Rifle Shoppe's Carolina/Type G Lock

[jmaurer]

Folks:
I'm planning a Carolina gun build, and have Davis' early English lock in hand as an option. I'd like to go all out on the lock; that is, I'd prefer to use a completely unbridled lock of the proper configuration. Can anyone suggest which of the extant Carolina guns the Rifle Shoppe's lock number 678 ("Type G Trade Gun Fusil Lock") is based upon? I do not have one of the Rifle Shoppe printed catalogs, and no image is associated with this listing online. Does anyone own one of these locks that they would be willing to share an image of? Thanks!

[LRB]

   The lock is said to be earlier than the Wilson in styling and the plate is straight with no curve at all. This is the lock that is used by Ben Coogle in his excellent copies of the type G. As far as I know, it is the only correct version available without modifying some other lock to be close. Ben used to keep a few on hand. You might try and contact him to get the info you want. He is very friendly and open with info on the type G's, and used to supply all the necessary parts for building one, directly copied from original parts he has excavated.

[Luke MacGillie]

I dont know exactly where I got these photos, other than the one I personally took, but you can see there is a bit of difference between say a Wilson other makers. 


Wilson Lock


Bumford Gun lock, bit of a curve there on the bottom of the plate. 



This was in Jimmy Dresslar's collection, dont remember who the maker was, just wanted to compare my Jack Brooks gun to Jimmy's

[jmaurer]

Folks:
Thanks for the responses. The one I'd like to build will be based on the one recovered from the Suwannee River and conserved by James Levy, who has been unbelievably gracious to me in providing information on that particular Carolina gun. Just this past weekend I took possession of a barrel by Ed Rayl that is based on the Suwannee gun, and I can now fully understand why these weapons were so popular; the barrel comes in at about 2.8 pounds!

Just to add to the information and the excellent photographs, I recently came across the article (finally!) that has more than just the tantalizing few photographs of the "TR" gun as presented in Hamilton:

http://americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Indian-trade-guns-English-B065_Burke.pdf

And from a collection of weapons that sold a bit ago, note the following weapon's sideplate, which is the same profile as the Suwannee gun, and has the happy circumstance of being dated 1710, which may help position this design element chronologically:

http://www.ima-usa.com/british-queen-anne-military-issue-brass-barrel-blunderbuss-by-halfhide-of-london-dated-1710.html

Mr. MacGillie, do you have any other details you may lend on the Dresslar gun? Again, thanks!

[jmaurer]

I also forgot to ask if anyone has had contact with Mr. Coogle recently. A search here indicated that the contact information presented on the Rifle Shoppe page is outdated. The other option would be Facebook, but that's something in which I do not participate. Again, thanks!

[James Rogers]

I think it is important to be careful using hardware features to comparison date guns of lesser quality. For example, the English used 1750-60 hardware on a plethora of cheap export guns of the 1790-1810 time frame. This is especially true of cheap trade guns which used very old style parts for a looking time. Locks as well.

[jmaurer]

Mr. Rogers:
Thanks for the advice and the caution. With your point in consideration, and the seeming propensity of different (later?) sideplates for Carolina guns when compared to the Suwannee gun, do you have an opinion as to the use of this style sideplate? None of the images I've been able to find of the Wilson trade gun (with the Suwannee-style sideplate) indicate that a date is present on the lockplate. The barrel on the Suwannee gun does seem to be of an earlier configuration, in that the breech is much thicker than other Type G guns, measuring a nominal 1.2 to 1.25 inches, with a rapid taper of the octagonal section to close to the final diameter at the muzzle (which will make drilling the ramrod hole a challenge, I'm guessing!).

[Marcruger]

I would add a bit of caution when asking about a "Carolina" long gun.  That term covers a lot of territory. 

From what I have learned (I am no expert) there were many different types of guns in the Carolina's.  In NC, I would allow that there were three broad areas, like terrain types: Coastal, Piedmont, Mountains. 

The Coastal area mainly used imported firearms, often English.  Apparently a large number were smoothbores due to hunting waterfowl. 

The Piedmont had numerous schools of longrifle making, and many had a strong Moravian or Germanic influence (see Salem, NC).

The mountains were an area to themselves, and this covers the so-called "Mountain Guns".  These tended to be simpler than Piedmont guns, but there are always exceptions.  Dennis can fill you in on these. 

I would suggest buying Bill Ivie's book on NC longrifles.  It covers the whole gamut.  Dennis' book on the Gillespie's is worth reading for sure.  Especially if the mountain guns are your fancy. 

The locks in the Ivey book also seem to have no rhyme or reason to why certain guns have certain lock styles.  I could be wrong though. 

I hope this helps, and I welcome correction if I have mis-stated something above. 

Best wishes,  Marc

[jmaurer]

Marc:
Thanks for the comments! I use the term Carolina Gun strictly as it applies to records of production of items for importation and trade to the native Americans, as I understand it. Repeated references on many forums related to scholarly research on pre-F&I War items of trade quote records that refer to requests for X number of "Carolina Guns," which is to indicate an established pattern of firearm. Most modern discussions used the moniker "Type G" from Hamilton in the past, but with recent study, that seems to be going slowly out of vogue. So in this instance, Type G is what I mean. But thanks for the check-I'm also presently trying to chase down the lineage of a rifle owned by in-laws that generally follows the lines of a Gillespie rifle, and with so many irons in the forge, a gentle reminder of where I'm at is welcome. Thanks!

[Luke MacGillie]

I do no know where that particular G ended up when Jimmy's Collection was dispersed.  I do know it came out of NY and had a typical rifle rear sight instead of the large Brass "G" sight.  I used to think that this might be a distinction of a Northern "G" but have since seen at least one example of a brass sight that came out of a Mohawk Village. 

I know that many have started using the Carolina Moniker, and I understand that it is a period term.  But Im pretty staunch in my use of "Type G".  No one in the period would blink at selling Carolina guns to New York, but in the modern world there are folks that thing that Carolina guns were only in the Carolinas........

[Mike Brooks]

 I don't believe the TR gun's buttplate has been shaved. There would be evidence of the old nail holes at the edge if it were. The concavity of the BP is typical of these also. The restocked Bumford makes a poor comparison, no way to tell how it looked originally, it's BP was probably concaved too.
 Unbridled locks work well as long as the plates are hardened and the tumbler hole through the plate has tight tolerance with tumbler.
 I have the TRS cataloge and the series 678 appears to be what you're looking for. It has all the correct features. Good luck getting one.....

There were many variants when the term "Carolina gun" was used. Probably every contract had slight variations. Possibly even slight variation from gun to gun inside the same order.
 Reeves Goehring's "Carolina" has a cast buttplate and trigger guard but has all the other "G" features. I have examined another Carolina gun that is in Minnesota that has an unusual trigger guard I haven't seen anywhere else. As I said, many variations and you can't state "This is exactly how they all were".
 They are fun guns to build. I have built 18 of them to date and have orders for three more. I always look forward to building them.

[Keb]

I'm no expert on them (or anything for that matter) but I've made about 7 or 8 guns loosely based on what is called a type G today, all of which were my idea of what one could have looked like, kinda sorta. I was told I had too much drop, not enough drop, trigger guard bow too big, trigger guard too wide, too narrow, too much cast off, wrong caliber, etc. etc. etc. I even painted a few but was told I used the wrong kind of paint. Jeeze. How can there be so many experts on the subject when there are so many differences on this type of gun? I'm pretty sure it's more about who is saying what than what is being said.
Oh and I own one of Mike Brooks' Carolina guns. It's an awful nice gun and makes me feel like taking up golf when I compare it to one I made.

[Mike Brooks]

I gots pictures of the Minnesota gun I refered to, I'll try and get them posted. It is a restock though, very similar to the restocked Bumford.

[Marcruger]

Hi jmaurer,

Many thanks for the explanation.  I learn something every day.  It sounds like the "Carolina Guns" and "Type G" guns were what I understood were the imported coastal NC guns.  It makes sense that towns such as Brunswick, Wilmington and Beaufort  would have been points of import.  The explanation I heard for why there were few gun builders in eastern NC was that imported guns were available cheaply.  So I guess that means some of the "Carolina Type G" guns must have stuck where they landed. 

Luke, I hear your point about trade.  I got a surprised when I read Dr. Kelso's book about Jamestown and its settlement.  The materials excavated there were from all over the world, and the community was of course an English entrepreneurial expedition to exploit resources and make money.  Likewise, Salem NC focused on Moravians marketing their products.  Apparently one of their chief markets was Charleston, as they paid better than many NC areas.  I believe in some areas that guns were produced for the surrounding communities, but others were obviously intended for far-flung trade. 

Thank you for the education folks.

Best wishes,   Marc