We make judgments about what sort of firearm would best serve our purposes if we were in situation X at time Y in place Z. But period folk did not always have those options. Trade guns to indigenous poeple were meant to be produced at minimal cost, for maximal profit, and yet to be attractive to them. The smoothbore trade guns were considered an advantage over primitive arms, and proved to be. The Iroquois became dominant only when they became armed by the Dutch with smoothbore trade guns. Before they ever saw or heard of a rifle (pre-1700) they wiped out the Huron and other nations competing with them for the fur trade.
In what is now Canada, the rifle never did catch on with Native peoples much before cartridge guns became available. Somehow they lived before firearms, and then lived with smoothbore trade guns quite well. A .62 round ball at 40 yards probably works quite well on moose or caribou. Would a .54 caliber rifle work better, for less cost in poweder and ball? no doubt, but they simply were not on the trading blanket, and would have cost 2-3 times what the trade gun cost.
It's fun to discuss what would be better in situation X, etc but if it was unavailable at that time and place, it's an intellectual exercise.
You seem to be missing some things here.
The traders and the military did not want the natives anywhere to have rifles. Its well documented from the 1750s.
It was bad for trade and bad in how the natives made war. It cost the traders money and it was dangerous if the natives turned "unfriendly".
The numbers of rifles that the traders handled was surely fewer that those obtained from other sources. Capture and trade with other than the "traders" who kept records.
The rifle requires more education and dedication on the part of the user.
Some tribes were better at understanding this than others. Or at least this seems to be the case.
Considering the number of people to this day that can't shoot a flintlock well enough to feed themselves even with skilled FL shooters telling them in detail how to make it work the FL rifle is not for everyone. If the person cannot shoot with 12" at 50 yards he has little use for a rifle. This has to be taken into account as well. If the person cannot shoot well enough to take advantage of the rifle the extra cost and weight make it a waste of energy and money.
The Western Indians never really seemed to understand aimed fire even in the 1870s. They seemed to believe that if they put enough feathers and brass tacks on the gun and maybe made medicine over it they were good to go. In thinking about the natives firearms use we also have to consider the "trade point" arrow points that the traders foisted off on the natives. These things surely saved the lives of many Western trappers, Jim Bridger for one, maybe people in the east as well. He was shot in the back TWICE and the points, though near 3" long, never penetrated to the chest cavity. Had the native been using flint or Obsidian points he would probably never have lived to the have the points cut out some years later. They were really poor points, dead soft and dull as well, but the natives used them anyway, they were metal so the had to be good. Is this a recommendation for the modern archer to use them for hunting? East or West? I look at their use of the trade gun the same way. Its not based on an informed consumer. In fact the traders went to great lengths to KEEP the consumer ignorant and poorly armed if at all possible.
See Joe Meek's description of the ambush he rode into, so close that the wads were flying past him and they STILL missed. They nicked his horse in the root of the mane and the horse went down but regained his feet and got in motion about the time the natives reached them.
Now would this have ended as well with one of the eastern tribes described
by John Barnham in 1756?
"...they commonly now shoot with rifles with which they will at great distance from behind a tree...take such sure aim as seldom miseth their mark."
Maybe, but the chances are not as good.
Of course more natives had SBs. Its historical fact.
But this does not somehow make the SB something it is not. But if you have been making war with a 40 pound pull bow and a stone headed war club a trade gun may seem like a laser beam.
The SB is a limited weapon of war and a limited weapon for hunting speaking in the 18th century context. In CERTAIN specific situations its superior, but overall it is not. If it were the RIFLE WOULD HAVE DIED OUT and all those "squirrel rifles" made in the 19th century would NEVER HAVE EXISTED. This ALONE proves the shotgun is INFERIOR for hunting small game. IF the rifle owner can shoot very well at all.
Today more and more shotguns made for deer hunting are RIFLED to shoot slugs. There is a reason for this. Losing deer gut shot or having a leg blown off with a marginally accurate shotgun is "disappointing" and its also bad press if its found by someone who hates hunting anyway.
Using the fact that a group of people, recently living exclusively in the stone age, who have no real knowledge of how firearms work or what the differences are from one to another, who are encouraged or forced to use a certain type of arm is not a valid argument as to its efficiency or suitability.
One other thing people like to over look,
the smoothbore armed Natives LOST to the rifle armed Europeans, they had their moments now and then but over all they LOST. Yes there were other factors at play, but they still lost, in the forest or on the plains same story. Just like Morgan at Saratoga. The SB armed Canadian Natives and French Canadians
could not deal with the riflemen in the forest. Its well documented from the BRITISH SIDE. In the western fur trade they INVARIABLY got shot up badly in any engagement where both sides shot it out 7-8-10 to one or greater casualty rates. Even, as I pointed out at Pierres hole, when the fighting was well within SB range. Their understanding of firearms, in general, was such that a smoothbore was equal to the rifle.
How well the Iroquois did against the Hurons is irrelevant to this discussion unless the Hurons were rifle armed.
The invariably smoothbore armed British lost to patriot forces that were thought to be at least 50% rifle armed 74% of the time according to
LaCrosse If the smoothbore is so superior and equally useful and effective how can this be?
When the Rev War was warming up the Girty brothers, living and working with the natives, all acquired new
rifles apparently they thought they were a better investment than some cheap, throw away smoothbore trade gun or a musket shooting 12 to 14 to the pound ball.
George Rogers Clark's force was rifle armed and in the face of incredible odds and adversity won. Could they have silenced Vincennes' artillery, though the gun ports with muskets? I doubt it. Morgan's men were the force that silenced Burgoyne's artillery BTW. Sure they were paired with Dearborne's unit, so what? They still sniped a great many people at Saratoga.
And while the American's during the RevWar were reducing the number of rifle's in the field the British were busy INCREASING the number of rifles. I also wonder if the "no rifles in the patriot army at the end of the Rev-War" is factual. If so why the Contract rifles of the 1790s? It seems that they came to their senses after the war, or in reality the rifle never really went away as we are lead to believe.
Lewis & Clark going on an extended expedition where they were sure the meet some level of hostility, took rifles and used them almost exclusively. They had at least 17 rifles along. Lewis was shot by one of the "short rifles" while hunting elk, not one of the the magical (according to the modern dogma it seems) SB muskets they had along.
Dan
