Possible Indian Trade Musket???

[mstriebel]

Hi All,

I have been seeking to purchase an Indian trade musket of the correct type and era as may have been used by the Native American tribes in the Northwest Territory and lower Canada that were led by Tecumseh in the time period preceding and during the War of 1812. 
 
I recently came across the musket shown in the attached photos, which I believe may be accurate in both type and era to what I am seeking.  I was hoping some of the experts on this forum that have far more knowledge than I do on the subject might be able to give me their thoughts.

I believe the musket was likely produced from 1797-1808 for the following reasons:
         
Robert Wilson *RW Mark on Barrel
o   Richard Wilson as a company was in production from the early 1730s to 1832
Northwest Company Mark on Lock
o   The Northwest Company was in operation from 1783 to 1821. 
”Wheeler” Mark on Gun Lock
o   Richard Wheeler had a British Ordinance contract from 1797-1808.  That firm was succeeded by Richard Wheeler & Sons.   I have seen locks made by that firm with a distinctive “Wheeler & Son” stamp to the front of the cock.  For this reason I am assuming this musket with a “Wheeler” stamp to the rear of the cock was produced by Wheeler from the 1797-1808.

The seller of this musket said that, “this gun is of the configuration of the Canadian Trade rifles imported from England and was actually found in Canada. “ The Northwest Trade mark on the lock and the bow and arrow mark on the bottom of the trigger guard is typical of what I would expect on a gun built for the Indian trade. 

However, not all features seem to fit what one would expect in an Indian trade gun.  The classic Northwest trade gun would have an enlarged trigger guard and a serpent side plate.  This musket has neither. 

I have seen chief’s guns that had a similar trigger guard.  Those chief’s guns I have seen also had a somewhat similar shaped side plate, but typically the side plates on the chief guns I have seen have had a bit more of a curved shape and some engraving on them.  This musket also lacks an escutcheon with either the “Crown over GR” mark that I would expect on British made chief guns made in the 1790s and prior or the escutcheon with a side view of an Indian chief that was used on British made chief guns from the 1790s through the War of 1812.

I believe this is a gun that is of the right era, but I am not sure if this may be of a type that was intended for the Indian Trade.

Would you please provide your thoughts on:
1)   Whether my estimate of a time period of 1797-1808 for a date of manufacture for this musket seems accurate?
2)   Whether this musket has the characteristics one would expect in a genuine Indian trade musket from that era?

Thanks for insights you might be able to provide.

Matt

[Hungry Horse]

You do not mention the barrel length, or bore diameter, which can be a factor in the age of the weapon. My gut feeling is that this gun is more than likely an 1820's era production. It does seem have some confusing characteristics, but I have seen others that don't fit the classic mold either. Its condition is pretty good for a trade gun, but not all trade guns wound up in native ownership.

                 Hungry Horse

[jdm]

The 1812 era Wheeler  trade guns had the butt plate attached with nails not screws. The tang bolt should start from the bottom by the trigger guard and go up.  Wheeler took over for Wilson in supplying Board of Trade guns in the 1790's . I don't know why this gun would have both makers marks . Just a few of my thoughts.   JIM

[mstriebel]

Hungry Horse -- I just found out the musket has a 0.62 caliber bore and the barrel length is 36 inches.  I have been looking for some reference that gives some guidance on how the barrel length and bore size might help in aging a trade gun, so any ideas you have on that would be appreciated.

JDM --Thanks for your comments.  I just asked the seller to get me some views of the butt plate to see how it was attached as another point of reference on the age.  Your comment on the Wheeler gunlock and the Wilson barrel marks has me stumped and a little concerned as .  Some have told me that perhaps this gun was restocked and put together from different parts.  Another thing I read in an article (which I of course now cannot find) was that it was not uncommon for English gunmakers to use parts from another maker that specialized in that part.  However, I have no idea how accurate this is or how widespread the practice may have been.

[Hungry Horse]

 It is likely that the buttplate will be a fowler type, attached with screws, or pins. If it is indeed a chiefs grade, it will more than likely have a rear ramrod pipe, that most standard grade trade guns lack. It probably would have a wrist medallion as well, if it is a chiefs grade. Early trade guns often had barrels in 42" or longer. The 36" versions, and their later 30" brethren, were  fur trade era, and later. of course many were shortened later in life. The Wheeler lock, could have been a field replacement, or something that was used at the time of its percussion conversion. Chiefs grade guns often used a rifle size lock, instead of a musket sized one.

                        Hungry Horse

[jdm]

mstriebel----When I said the butplate would be attached with nails  that is true of the early common Northwest guns. The chief grade can be attached with screws or nails as Hungry Horse stated.  There are some guns known with R. W. under a sunburst mark on the barrel. That stands for Robert Wheeler.

[Steve Collward]

mstriebel:
  Ryan Gale's "For Trade and Treaty" has photos/description of a Willets Chief's Grade fowler, c. 1813-1816 with some features similar to the one you have posted, specifically the trigger guard, side plate and ram rod pipes.  The Willets trigger guard and side plated are engraved.  The barrel length of the Willets is 36.75" and bore size is 0.600.
  The stock architecture of the Willets, along with a few other trade guns listed in the book, is also similar to yours.
Could you post photos of the butt plate, entire trigger guard, wrist, and the front sight (if there is one)?
 

[mstriebel]

Steve,

Many thanks for the insights.

I actually ordered "For Trade and Treaty" last week and hope to receive it tomorrow.  I will look forward to see the photos of the Willets Chief Grade.

I have requested additional photos from the seller and will post them as soon as received.

I am used to looking at American made rifles where the often the lock and/or barrel was made by someone other than the gunmaker.  From what you know of trade rifles and English gunmakers, does is seem strange to you for a Wheeler lock to be matched with a Wilson barrel?

Best,

Matt

[mstriebel]

JDM --

I just saw your comment on the *RW mark possibly being for Robert Wheeler.  I had assumed because the similarity of the mark on the musket I am looking at to a mark for a pistol produced by the firm William Wilson (as shown in Dewitt Bailey's article on the Wilson's and attached below) that this mark was for the firm started by Robert Wilson and carried on by his descendants.   

If a similar mark actually was used by Robert Wheeler, then that would certainly clear up some major questions I had about this musket.  Any photos or references you might be able to refer me to on the barrel marks for a Wheeler made firearm would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Matt

[Steve Collward]

Matt:
  The "For Trade and Treaty" book you ordered will be helpful to you.  The photography of the guns illustrated is very good and the text offers a great deal of information.  Also, as JDM pointed out, the RW mark could be Wheeler's mark. 

[mstriebel]

Steve,

Attached are some additional photos of the musket provided by the seller.  I did not get all the photos I asked for, but at least I got most of them.  I would appreciate any thoughts you may have on how these compare to the photo you found in "For Trade and Treaty" or any further other insights you might have based on your knowledge on the subject.

Following up on the comments, by JDM and you on the *RW mark, I ran across any interesting article from the Birmingham Gun Museum that makes me have some different thoughts on the matter.  

http://www.birminghamgunmuseum.com/media/Provincial_Makers_Marks.pdf

I guess I always think of knockoffs and trademark infringement as a problem mainly with Asian companies producing various products in recent decades, but until I read this article I never thought of the English gunmakers doing such things.  With the London gunmakers of the 1700's having a reputation as being the finest in the world, gunmakers in Birmingham and elsewhere had a strong incentive to try imitate their markings to increase their own sales.  

While the article from the Birmingham Gun Museum does not show any barrel markings used by Wheeler, it does show a "Crown of RW" stamp being used as a mark by another Birmingham gun maker  in what was a probable attempt to closely mimic the *RW mark of one of the most well know London gunmaking firms run by Richard Wilson and later his desendents from 1732-1832.

I had always thought that "Crown over CP" and "Crown over V" barrel marks were only used by London gunmakers.  However, after reading this article I learned the Birmingham makers copied these marks frequently.  I then found a flintlock pistol made by the Birmingham gunmaker, Robert Wheeler with these same  "Crown over CP" and "Crown over V" markings that the London makers used to distinguish their guns.  

I have not turned up any firm evidence yet, but it would not seem out of the question that Wheeler used a *RW in an attempt to mimic its much older and more prestigious London competititor.  If anybody out there has seen some barrel markings on other Wheeler made firearms that confirm this, please let me know.

Thanks,

Matt











[img]http://s28.postimg.org/nyhi4nsmh

[Hungry Horse]

 I would say she is a chiefs grade trade gun made by Richard Wilson. Having a Wheeler lock is puzzling, as is the lack of an entry pipe in the forearm. Both could indicate this gun was either made at the end of R. Wilson's career, or constructed from parts after his death. The latter could explain the Wheeler lock.
 This gun appears to be in fine shape for its age, indicating it probably was not native owned.
  Counterfeiting is also a possibility. The Belgians were past masters at it, and I'm sure so were some of the British firms. In either case, I would date this piece no earlier than 1820, and the 1830's would be more more likely considering the large musket lock, and the lack of an entry pipe.

                 Hungry Horse

[mstriebel]

Hungry Horse,

Thanks for your comments.  Just one more question.  Does the lack of any carvings or the classic side profile view of a warrior on the thumb plate / escutcheon seem odd or out of place to you, or was it common for such parts to be left plain on chief's guns.

Thanks,

Matt 

[Hungry Horse]

 The chiefs grade guns didn't always follow the rigid patterns of the standard grade guns. More variety is seen in their construction. Once again the lack of the embossed native on the thumb piece, and carved moldings around the lock area, would most likely point to a later production date. Remember that the trade gun, in several forms, was still available in Canada, in flint, and percussion, well into the cartridge era. More than a few chiefs grade trade guns exhibited wrist checkering during the late period as well.

                      Hungry Horse

[RAT]

Send your pictures to Gail at the Museum of the Fur Trade. They can tell you what you have there.

Another possibility is a fowler made for fort employee use. Most lower employees used "common guns" drawn from those for sale/trade (and returned when done)... but fowlers were also purchased (as were pistols and rifles).

My guess is that the lock could have been swapped out during conversion. Lock replacement was a common repair made by fort gunsmiths.

[Mike Brooks]

This gun is english and made for the export trade. It was probably slightly more expensive than the standard NW gun. It was probably made post 1800. Could also be a restock. The barrel is definately a Wilson.. I believe Wheeler's shop was next door to Wilson's and have read of some exchange/purchases of parts between shops.

[RAT]

I just noticed something... it's a 3 screw lock... but the side plate has no hole for the 3rd screw. The lock is definitely a replacement. Someone put a pre-1820ish 3 screw NW trade gun lock on an English civilian export fusil.

[mstriebel]

Bob,

Good eye to catch that one! 

After seeing page 61 of “For Trade and Treaty”, I had almost started to convince myself that the barrel and the lock were both original to the gun, even though they were from different makers.  On page 61, the author showed a Willets Northwest Gun circa 1789-1812.  That Willets gun had a Wilson barrel just as the trade musket for which I am trying to determine its history.    The author wrote, “The barrel of this firearm was made by William Wilson of London.  Though Wilson was the main trade gun contractor to the Hudson’s Bay Company at this time, he likely subcontracted barrels and locks to others.”

Your find definitely proves that there has been some major changes to original parts on this gun.  It also explains why the side plate never seemed to look quite right in comparison to the slightly curved appearance on the three screw side plates that I have seen on most examples of chief’s guns from the late 1700s to early 1800s. 

Looks like I need to keep looking elsewhere for a true representation of the trade gun from the early 1800s that I have been seeking.  Many thanks to you and the rest of the folks on the forum for helping me to avoid a costly mistake. 

Matt

[firelock-inc]

I have been watching this tread with some interest.

All of the parts are from various trade guns as we now
call them.

The trigger guard would have come from a Board of
Trade William Wilson Captains gun Ca. 1820-30.
Barrel is in fact a Wilson N.W. Gun barrel.

The original to the trigger guard, the lockplate would have
been engraved with the boars head & hunting horn.

The butt plate is a military type Wheeler North West
Gun butt plate cast in brass and  installed with 2 screws.

The side plate is a shop made side plate that does not
go with  any of the parts.

You do indeed have a trade gun stocked with recycled parts.
There seems to be a growing interest in these "Restocks"
now days.

Rickp

[mstriebel]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for your comments.  When I told the seller that I was going the pass on this item, he insisted that the barrel was a Robert Wheeler barrel.  He said the markings on a Wheeler barrel are, "similar but not the same" to a Wilson barrel.  However, he did not mention any reference that led him to that conclusion.

I would be surprised if the Birmingham gunmaker, Wheeler, would have so closely matched the RW mark and also place London proofs on his barrel.  However, I am humble enough to know that I have a lot more to learn about 18th and early 19th century firearms than I know now, so I am always open to having my eyes opened to some new information. 

Do you happen to know if there is any reference book out there that documents what the barrel mark was that Wheeler used in the late 1700s to early 1800s?

Thanks,

Matt

[jdm]

I believe The Museum Of The Fur Trade has a book out. Firearms of the Fur Trade. Picture heavy on many types of trade guns. Also has pictures of proof marks.

[mstriebel]

Well Gentlemen,

It appears that the barrel on this old musket actually is a Wheeler barrel. 

I found a pair of Wheeler pistols, circa 1798 to 1813 that sold at James D. Julia auction house in the fall of 2008. (See attached photos.)  Sure enough, the barrel markings are a *RW, along with two Tower crown over crossed scepters proof marks.  The only difference between the Wheeler and Wilson *RW marks is that Wheeler surrounds his six pointed star with a circle.  This is exactly what appears on the barrel of this trade gun.  It seems as though Mr. Wheeler was really pushing the envelope by nearly copying the mark of the older and better known Wilson firm. 

That still leaves the question of why a Birmingham gunmaker would have London proof marks proof marks on the barrel.  That mystery was solved by an article published by the Birmingham Gun Museum entitled, “English Provincial Gun Makers Marks”.  It said the following,  "As previously noted, many gunsmiths from Birmingham and other towns made use of the private proof service available at the Tower of London. These barrels were stamped with the crossed scepter mark struck twice. A few provincial makers chose to have their guns proved by the London Gunmakers Company and marked as such.  This practice was comparatively rare, probably because the Tower proof house charged less.”

So there you have it.  The lock and barrel are of the same maker and both are from the same early 1800’s time period.  This would lead one to believe they were both original to the gun.  However, as Jim pointed out in an earlier post, the side plate is not a match to the lock and clearly not original.

Any final thoughts from the forum on this old musket before we put this thread out of its misery?

Matt   

[mstriebel]

photo



http://s24.postimg.org/kjmk8roht/Double_crown_over_cross_septers_and_RW.jpg

[James Rogers]

OK, Got to the PC this morning where I can actually see. The cell phone screen and my eyes are not very compatible even with specktackles.
I believe the OP is correct! This does not appear to be a Wilson mark like I am familiar with. Wilson had an open asterisk while this is more flower like.

 I also question these teardropped proofs to be lookalikes of oval London Company proofs. I have never seen authenticated London company proofs that were teardropped in shape. Maybe someone like Joe Puleo would know for sure and be able to provide sufficient documentation to prove it but I have never seen them. (Never say never ) Many provincial makers used marks very similar to company marks as a selling point.


This is a Wilson mark with London Gunmakers Co. proof and view marks