Thoughts on old guns

[jwh1947]

This thread is intended to raise some consideration and respect for the old guns that are still in existence and perhaps help to keep enthusiasts' feet on the ground regarding original specimens.  It could as well appear in the antiques thread.  I base my comments and propositions on my personal database consisting of 50 active years of gun collecting in the heart of central Pennsylvania. 

First and foremost, most early period Kentuckies are not carved, let alone highly embellished with do-dads and exquisite engraving.  The earliest guns are normally remarkable for their architecture rather than for the presence of ornate Rococo or "high art" motifs.  These are the exception; hence, their high value as objects of art and American material culture.    From my experience there are perhaps about 10% of extant specimens that will present carving, either incised or raised or both.  Moreover, I have firm reason to believe that a statistically significant percentage of the aforementioned 10% have had the embellishment added in the 20th century.

So, one could argue that the presence of an abundance of fancy rifles is essentially a 20th century phenomenon.  The extreme ends of the bell curve of the current trend of "high art" guns are complete with space-age artwork that is purely modern in motif as well as contemporary in manufacture.  I have no problem with any of this, as long as it is put into reasonable historical perspective.  Other than for a small group of advanced collectors, if you seek to find early flints, plan on studying quite a few plain guns for every fancy one.  They, too, have a story to tell, and it is the one so cherished by blackpowder buffs...the story of early, simple folk who carved out a country from rough terrain, using firearms as tools of survival, not amassing eye-popping collections of artifacts. 

As any of the judges at Dixons, or elsewhere, will tell you, the first thing one sees in a rifle is the overall architecture and form.  If there is any, the class begins to emerge here, and it is both necessary and sufficient for the right form to exist.  Then fitting skill and hand work are examined.   If the piece fails in these areas, no amount of gingerbread or glitter will redeem it.  You can put rouge and expensive perfume on a streetwalker, but... 

Next, over the decades, countless people have invited me into their homes to examine their "original flints."  I've learned to keep my mouth shut and answer questions rather than offer unsolicited advice.  About 95% of those flints were reconversions, some good, some absolutely horrible.  I can spot an L&R or Siler from across the room, modified or not.  The story is told that Joe Kindig, Jr., rebuffed a man in his shop who claimed to have three original flints at home.  Joe reportedly pulled a wad of 100's out of his pocket and said, "You show me 3 original flints and this is yours!"

Also, some people seem to look with disdain upon octagon-to round, buck and ball-type guns.  They were around for a long, long time and, based on existing inventory, were relatively popular.  Why shouldn't they have been?  If you were a man of simple means with one gun, wouldn't it make sense to have a buck 'n ball?  Light weight, comfortable to carry, and versatile...shoot big game or birds...all with one gun.  Don't be surprised to find out that some very knowledgeable collectors appreciate them.  They were working guns steeped in frontier heritage. It has been said before, there is elegance in simple things.  Don't overlook the old workhorses just because they don't glitter in the neon lights. 

Incidentally, there's a big auction coming up in central PA.  Over 200 black powder guns.  This presents a good example of a cross section of what is out there.  Of these, I counted about  7 honest carved rifles, and some of these are reconversions.  The rest are plain or "enhanced."  Of the others, lots of the barrels are stretched, only about 5 haven't been reconverted.  I actually saw a few that had been bogused up by some clown who took a percussion and made it a flint that it never was originally.  Most of this stuff has no future home in the best collections.  Make sure you read the detailed descriptions of these items.  The evaluator did a decent job of sifting through the stuff and identifying key issues.  This will be somewhat of a bellweather regarding what people will pay for wallhangers.  All the best, JWH

[Dan'l 1946]

This is like a breath of fresh air! Thank you.

[Daryl]

Also, some people seem to look with disdain upon octagon-to round, buck and ball-type guns.  They were around for a long, long time and, based on existing inventory, were relatively popular.  Why shouldn't they have been?  If you were a man of simple means with one gun, wouldn't it make sense to have a buck 'n ball?  Light weight, comfortable to carry, and versatile...shoot big game or birds...all with one gun.  Don't be surprised to find out that some very knowledgeable collectors appreciate them.  They were working guns steeped in frontier heritage. It has been said before, there is elegance in simple things.  Don't overlook the old workhorses just because they don't glitter in the neon lights. 

  JWH

Just a note on this paragraph, Jerry - buck and ball, or shot and ball were popular all over, not only in the America's but throughout the British Empire where large game was found as well - Africa and India were prime for such weapons, as well as points East of there.  The standard for the English, of course, was the double - maybe a rifle, but more commonly, as double shotgun, loaded with ball in one barrel and shot in the other, as indicated by Lt. James Forsyth in his delightful little book of 1863.  He also notes the 'local's used heavy charges of coarse powder and balls in their long barreled smoothbore matchlocks, getting close totiger, buffalo or elephant and killing by the shear driving force of the ball.

It is fit that this type of 'specialised' "All Round" gun should be collectable, even if only single barreled as most were this side of the pond.

[northwoodsdave]

I have several old guns, all now percussion, that were modified over the years.  By the time they came to me  they bore an assortment of styles and periods, even though some parts may date to the 1700's.

At first, i considered rebuilding these guns into shooters, but lately have pretty well decided to keep them as they are.  All are smoothbores and each is quite unique.  One is an early French musket, later modified into a breechloader while still being used as a French military weapon.  Another is a 12 gauge, with the original percussion lock but a much later (and not very well done) attempt at a restock. 

None is what might considered a museum piece, yet each is a very distinct remnant of the muzzleloading age and each bears the marks of the path it took into the modern era. 

Incidentally, not one has anything in the way of adornment, carving or engraving.  These were working man's guns: the real backbone of our heritage both here and in Canada (where some of these may have originated).

It seems the buck 'n ball may finally be getting the recognition it deserves. They certainly don't have the glamour and mystique of the American Rifle, yet the musket heritage of these smoothbore guns is just as important a part of American history (and our hunting heritage)  as their more celebrated rifled cousins.                       

[Richard Snyder]

Do you have any photos of any of these plain guns that you could post?
Richard Snyder

[rich pierce]

I agree with most everything with small exception.  It's clear that there are important differences in the sort and prevalence of decorative elements between different time periods.  Early, Revolutionary War rifles, versus the 1820 and later guns, there's a world of difference.  Carving was out of style late and inlays were in style.

Shame that folks back in the 1940's-1980's couldn't see into the futire and know that un-altered "as found" guns would be sought after someday.  Back in the day, every Beck or Rupp was specially shined up for every show.


Conversisons and reconversions:  It's just a fact that flint rifles, all other things being equal, sell for more than percussion guns.  I'm surprised folks could afford to do the retoration work on guns that now sell for say $2000, though.

I love a good buck and ball gun and a guy could buy an original cheaper than he could get one made up.

[jwh1947]

You are on the mark.  I read somewhere, probably in Shumway, that appearances are that after the War of 1812 was over there was an abundance of gunsmiths with time on their hands.  They devoted the time to adding embellishment to their products.  Then we can carry your point to the 1840's and 1850's where some of the pieces glitter with silver from muzzle to buttplate.  For my tastes, these guns have about as much appeal as rapper Little Wayne's crunky teeth.  But, there again, it is a matter of taste and interest, and they, too, are part of the history of the longrifle.

Another question to ponder.  Sometimes you may run across a beautifully engraved specimen signed by a gunsmith who is not known for fancy work.  In other words, the engraving appears better than the norm for that specific maker.  Could it have been that the gunsmith walked down the street to the local silversmith and had him finish off the artwork.  They were cooperating tradesmen in town and more than likely shared tea, beer, friendship and products, just like any group of local businessmen in any other era.   
Then there were gunsmiths who could compete with any jeweler in town...P. Kuntz comes to mind as a grand master engraver.  I can't recall seeing any engraving on an early gun that I liked more than his.

A friend who frequents my shop asked a straightforward question a few days back.  I'll post it for general consideration.  The question went somewhat as follows.  If one were to set out to build a rifle with popular appeal and excellent functionality, what would it need to have?  My answer, again just from personal experience, was thus.  Most customers would be happy with a .45 or .50 caliber barrel.  You are building a longrifle, so make it long, 42" minimum.  Decide on a classic architectural design.  The most generically acceptable for lots of hunters is the classic early Lancaster style...straight stock comb and Germanic lines.  Stick to it.  No guess work as to what it should look like.  Study the originals, and I don't mean pictures only.  Next, take your time with fitting and craft work.  Do your best, nothing less.

 Definitely install a correct patch box.  Those made correctly by hand are far better than prefab store-bought ones.  It is very difficult around these parts to sell a gun without a patch box.  My experience attests to the fact that people want them.   If they hang the gun on the wall, the patchbox is usually facing the viewer.  I made a Lehigh for a customer a while back without a box.  His specifications to cut down on costs.  After one season of deer hunting he brought it back to have a box installed.  It was the old, "Pay me now or pay me later."  Later usually costs more.

 Finally, build your gun sleek.  The most common crafting flaw on home made guns is too much wood.  Take that forend down...thin it out.  Look at a violin; that wood is strong and the barrel supports the wood, not the other way around.  Follow these simple guidelines and you are on the road to building an acceptable longrifle.  Regards from the Paxton Armory on the mighty Susquehanna.  JWH

[Dphariss]

Its hard for us folks living out in the sticks to judge when the collectors and such insist on only doing books on the "fancy" guns.

But of course we must then wonder how many of these plain guns might have been restocked in the 19th century when there was no carving or by a less skilled maker in the the 18th and look carefully at the architecture. Even then a good stock maker may have copied the original stocking and left off the carving since he was using the old parts.
But I keep running afoul of the the "how come the British Indian Trade rifles were carved" thing.
English rifles by were not carved in most cases. But if the English was made a rifle for America they made an American rifle and carved it???
Just more things to think about. I am no expert but there are questions that need to be asked. Such as if the "ball gun" was so wonderful why were there (apparently) so many rifles on the frontier?
There are far more questions than answers in any of this. But we do have some documentation such as found in Baileys "British Military Flintlock Rifles" Chapter 6. From Bailey's "end notes" there is a lot of information out there on rifles from 1740 on at least (rifles were in militia use in NY in the 1680s). There are 65 citations just for chapter 6.
We find that Sir William Johnson and numerous indian agents and military officers were very upset with the numbers of rifles being obtained by the tribes for reasons of both economy and warfare. They are, according to them, too cheap too shoot and too dangerous in war for the natives to have. Complaining they will obtain them "at any price" (Johnson) in the frontier towns where they are made.  This of course raises the question of "why?". Why would the frontier, where money was pretty tight, be the place that rifles were made? Why did the frontier have so many rifles if the ball gun and fowler was superior in so many ways?
I constantly here this. But if this is so why were Morgan's Riflemen able to sweep the British Army's Canadian and Indian scouts from the Saratoga battlefield. They virtually ALL went home when Morgan arrived and set to work. Bristish officers are quoted complaining that those who remained "cannot be brought within sound of the a shot".
There is far more to this than our current "conventional wisdom" indicates.
There have ALWAYS been proponents of both. The Delaware's were apparently well armed with rifles by the 1740s-50s. We have reports of Shawnees with rifles in the 1740s. Rifles cost many times what a trade gun or musket did.
Why were they spending the money when the traders apparently preferred to sell them "traders"?

Why were the Wilson trade rifles carved? Were American rifles "supposed" to be carved? Was it expected? If so were most rifles carved to some extent like the Haymaker? Were enough American rifles carved that it was considered the norm by the time of the Revolution? When the English Trade Rifle really came into being since the English could not obtain American made rifles easily.

I often have wondered if powder quality was one reason a lot of rifle stocked guns are smooth bore, either made that way or bored later.
Then we have the assumption that the shotgun is better for small game, if this is so why did the rifle not die out completely? Instead it got smaller in the bore. Its cheaper to shoot squirrels and rabbits with a 28-40 caliber rifle than with a smoothbore with small shot. The economy of the rifle was known from the 1740s-50s at least. A 50 caliber rifle is more economical than a 58 or 62 caliber smooth bore and is superior (IMO and that of at least some colonists it would seem) to the SB for anything but shooting flying birds. OR 18th century *European* military tactics.
There is ENDLESS supposition on these subjects.
We really *cannot get inside the heads of the 18th century colonist*.
We cannot replicate the powder they had available in many cases. Rifles required better powder, that is a recurring theme. Was this a factor?
There is far more here than shooting small or big game. We have adversaries with rifles. Was a rifle needed to counter a rifle in frontier warfare?

Its back to the honey dos.

Dan

[jwh1947]

Good read.  Lots to consider here.  Let me add these questions.  Some of these local buck 'n ball guns are straight rifled.  I've had a couple over the years.  My guess is that this feature was added (at some expense) to facilitate loading.  I can't prove it, just a gut feeling.

Also, historians need to consider this.  In colonial Lancaster, PA (first significant inland post from Philadelphia) patriot, community patriarch, and gunsmith William Henry, Sr., (1729-1786), teamed up early in his career with Joseph Simon, a noted merchant in town.  They sold guns to the Indians and traded pelts for them.  The pelts went to Philadelphia and Europe, where they were coveted.  The guns went back into Penn's Woods for more pelts.  More guns, more pelts.  Everybody was making money.  It is believed that a significant percentage of Lancaster's earliest guns went to Native Americans...well over 10% and probably more; I've seen figures that approach 40%.  Armed Indians were the base of the local cottage industry.  Some even disliked the French.  Incidentally, rifles that have been excavated from old, local Indian burial grounds (legitimate) that I have seen were made without decorative carving.  You might be able to find a copy of The Life of William Henry by Francis Jordan (1910).

Also, completely off the wall, historians owe it to themselves to study the fate of the Conestoga Indians at the hands of the infamous Paxton Boys (not to be confused with the Paxton Rangers).  A shameful page in our regional PA history.  JWH

[northmn]

A while back I did a small bit of research on gun building.  My curiosity was that of how did the military acquire so many firearms.  We are looking at Brown Bess numbering about 2 million more or less.  The milling machine was "invented" by Eli Whitney in about 1800 as well as his concept of interchangeable parts and an assembly line approach.  Hansen in his books on trade rifles mentioned the fact that due to the increase in water powered machine shops the trade rifles were cheaper to produce. They did have common elements. One conjecture I have in that the "Golden Age" guns which were much more elaborate than the early period were custom guns competing with the start up of the machine age just as a gunsmith today would have to build something finer than a 700 Remington.  According to Russel in his Journal the natives were most commonly armed with "fusils". 
Today we see the older guns common to farmers to be 22's and shotguns, usually one of each.  While a smaller caliber rifle is more economical to shoot one squirrel for instance, it is not if you sneak up on a batch of ducks and line them up to swat as many as possible with one shot.  Our local Ojibwa had many means of hunting waterfowl, and needed the down as well as the meat as it gets darn cold in the North.  Larger shot loaded in a smoothbore can also be used to take deer if close. Most common load found in the tradeguns at the bottom of Rainy River was shot.

DP 

[T*O*F]

Do you have any photos of any of these plain guns that you could post?
Richard Snyder

You can't get much plainer than this gun, square breech with a wooden under rib.  They are fairly common.





Square sided breech






Pinned barrel...no key





Lock marked Warranted Steel Albany on 3 lines








Note pinned wooden under rib


Very thick walled, smooth barrel in .50 caliber

[Dan'l 1946]

Good read.  Lots to consider here.  Let me add these questions.  Some of these local buck 'n ball guns are straight rifled.  I've had a couple over the years.  My guess is that this feature was added (at some expense) to facilitate loading.  I can't prove it, just a gut feeling.

Also, historians need to consider this.  In colonial Lancaster, PA (first significant inland post from Philadelphia) patriot, community patriarch, and gunsmith William Henry, Sr., (1729-1786), teamed up early in his career with Joseph Simon, a noted merchant in town.  They sold guns to the Indians and traded pelts for them.  The pelts went to Philadelphia and Europe, where they were coveted.  The guns went back into Penn's Woods for more pelts.  More guns, more pelts.  Everybody was making money.  It is believed that a significant percentage of Lancaster's earliest guns went to Native Americans...well over 10% and probably more; I've seen figures that approach 40%.  Armed Indians were the base of the local cottage industry.  Some even disliked the French.  Incidentally, rifles that have been excavated from old, local Indian burial grounds (legitimate) that I have seen were made without decorative carving.  You might be able to find a copy of The Life of William Henry by Francis Jordan (1910).

Also, completely off the wall, historians owe it to themselves to study the fate of the Conestoga Indians at the hands of the infamous Paxton Boys (not to be confused with the Paxton Rangers).  A shameful page in our regional PA history.  JWH

Jerry, when you say easier to load, are you thinking that the grooves held the fouling and  and allowed more shots before wiping?  Dan

[Dan'l 1946]

TOF, thanks for the photographs. When I was a kid there were still a lot of this type of gun around, some still in use. Usually in 10 down to 20 bore, but pretty much as you've pictured. Sort of the Iver Johnson's of their day. 
                                                                              Dan

[northmn]

Another point on smooth rifles is that many rifled muskets were smoothed out after the Civil war.  I had a British Martini that was rebarreled to a shotgun which I had remade again into a 50-70.  The smooth rifle makes a lot of sense in that it was likely accurate enough in the East for most uses, possibly more accurate than many of them could shoot anyway and permitted a variety of loading options.  A sighted smooth rifle would give a little more range than a fusil with more rudimentary sights or none.  TOF's gun dates to what time?

DP

[Don Getz]

Wayne...you just insulted me.   You said all of those silver inlaid guns of the 1800"s are $#@*.   You better watch your step, boy.....you're stepping on all of my nice Snyder and Union County guns.....Joe Long, Sam Baum, and oh so many
more.   And then you tout those clunky Melchoir Fordneys, shame on you.............Don

[jwh1947]

Now, Don, I've seen some of those Snyder/Union County guns that were not all crunked up, extant proof that those boys could put out a decent piece now and then.  Best regards to the clan.  I once saw a piece made in Milton that looked as if it was assembled for a Parisian paramour well past her prime.  I'd trade 10 of these for one plain, signed Isaac Haines, or a good MG 42 in prime condition.   Wayne

[Don Getz]

Wayne.....just joshin, you know.   You must admit, they do have a certain appeal....not for shooting, but to look at.   We
found a rifle that Art DeCamp bought that had, I believe, over 60 inlays on it.   Almost makes you wonder why they didn't just make a silver gun and put curly maple inlays in that....just a thought.  See you at the CLA........Don

[jwh1947]

Yes, there is an appeal, and they are an important part of the big story.  I regret that I won't be at CLA this year.  I decided to attend that auction, and, for once in my life, I am out of show inventory.  Obama has helped sales, even for our stuff.  Had a guy come in to pick up a Garand that I rebarreled and he walked out with the Garand and a Lancaster with one of your .50 cal swamped Dickert barrels on it because his wife found it to be a "pretty" gun.  They'll probably never shoot it.  Go figure. Got a Lehigh on the bench right now, but each one takes longer and longer, because I get easily distracted by other appealing things.  Retirement is great, and it only gets better.   Best of health and peace to y'all.  Wayne

[Long John]

There is another issue that might be considered when looking at the preponderance of surviving rifle guns versus smooth guns.  Lead was dear!  On a trek last year I was armed with my 54 caliber rifle and several compainions were armed with smooth-bored guns, 20 gauge and up.  We had a little contest - who could shoot the most game with the least lead.  Only small game season was open.  I came back with 3 squirrels taken with 4 shots.  At 220 gr per ball that is 2 ounces of lead.  My smoothbored friends fired a bunch of times but none came back better than 3 squirrels in 5 shoots.  But those shots were with an ounce and a quarter of shot each.  Total 6.25 ounces of lead.

On the frontier a rifle is more economical to shoot!  Besides, where do you get the shot??  I have seen gang molds for making small balls but that is a rather tedious process if you are expecting to fill a shot pouch!  I seem remember that the first shot tower in the Americas was erected in Philadelphia and I think (not sure!) it was built after the War for Independance.  That means that the shot had to be hauled from a port city to the frontier.   furhtermore, if a large animal was shot the lead could be recovered and recycled; not so with hail shot.  These circumstances would make shot very expensive and shooting a smoothbored gun expensive relative to a rifle gun.

Best Regards,

JMC

[Dphariss]

There is another issue that might be considered when looking at the preponderance of surviving rifle guns versus smooth guns.  Lead was dear!  On a trek last year I was armed with my 54 caliber rifle and several compainions were armed with smooth-bored guns, 20 gauge and up.  We had a little contest - who could shoot the most game with the least lead.  Only small game season was open.  I came back with 3 squirrels taken with 4 shots.  At 220 gr per ball that is 2 ounces of lead.  My smoothbored friends fired a bunch of times but none came back better than 3 squirrels in 5 shoots.  But those shots were with an ounce and a quarter of shot each.  Total 6.25 ounces of lead.

On the frontier a rifle is more economical to shoot!  Besides, where do you get the shot??  I have seen gang molds for making small balls but that is a rather tedious process if you are expecting to fill a shot pouch!  I seem remember that the first shot tower in the Americas was erected in Philadelphia and I think (not sure!) it was built after the War for Independance.  That means that the shot had to be hauled from a port city to the frontier.   furhtermore, if a large animal was shot the lead could be recovered and recycled; not so with hail shot.  These circumstances would make shot very expensive and shooting a smoothbored gun expensive relative to a rifle gun.

Best Regards,

JMC

Thank you. 
This is modern confirmation of what was stated as early as the 1750s by military officers and Indian agents.

A quick search shows the Philadelphia shot tower was built in 1808. There were no shot towers in American and no shot towers anywhere before 1783 when Watts built the first one and got the patent.
Jefferson embargoed trade and shot could no longer be imported.

Dan

[northmn]

Shot was made long before shot towers, it was just more tedious.  Prince Rupert developed a system using a brass strainer and "poisened lead" (lead with arsenic added) in the late 1600's.  Very few used 1 1/4 Oz of lead.  Actually for squirrels a 1/2 oz load would work.  The Primary trade gun to the natives until the early to mid 1800's was the 24 gauge smoothbore.  Lead and powdeer was very dear to them.  They used it because it was adequate for larger game and could swat other game.  I have heard that smaller game was not commonly shot with firearms.  When I was younger Ruffed grouse and the true fool hen the spruce grouse were much stupider than now.  Some stated that they were often taken with rocks and sticks.  Rice? in his book on Tennessee rifles shows several crossbows as being common in the appalacians.  Natives may have also used bows for small game although both Pontiac and Tecumseh complained that the younger men could no longer use them.  Usually I can do better than 3 sqirrels in 5 shots with my smoothbore

DP

[Dphariss]

Shot was made long before shot towers, it was just more tedious.  Prince Rupert developed a system using a brass strainer and "poisened lead" (lead with arsenic added) in the late 1600's.  Very few used 1 1/4 Oz of lead.  Actually for squirrels a 1/2 oz load would work.  The Primary trade gun to the natives until the early to mid 1800's was the 24 gauge smoothbore.  Lead and powdeer was very dear to them.  They used it because it was adequate for larger game and could swat other game.  I have heard that smaller game was not commonly shot with firearms.  When I was younger Ruffed grouse and the true fool hen the spruce grouse were much stupider than now.  Some stated that they were often taken with rocks and sticks.  Rice? in his book on Tennessee rifles shows several crossbows as being common in the appalacians.  Natives may have also used bows for small game although both Pontiac and Tecumseh complained that the younger men could no longer use them.  Usually I can do better than 3 sqirrels in 5 shots with my smoothbore

DP

With a bore smooth bore hit probability with solid shot on small game is small, based on my actual 25 yard tests with a 50 smooth rifle. Misses due to poor patterning would cause problems with using small shot.
54 caliber rifles were rare even during the Revolution (Col Hanger and surviving rifles and a journal entry or 2 mentioning ball size). So even 1/2 ounce of shot is going to be more lead than a 44-50 caliber rifle. This is assuming that 1/2 ounce will work with the shot and wads used in 18th century America.

The shot used today patterns  better than Rupert or cut shot of the past. Then we have the shooter quandary should I load shot or ball? What if I see a deer and have small shot loaded? Or a bear, even more desirable than a deer.
Few modern hunters would recommend shooting squirrels with an open bored gun, from what I read. They generally recommend a full choke and #4 shot. I once killed a squirrel that had been shot through the lungs with a 22 (short I think I heard the the shot) and the hunter moved on and I came through saw a squirrel perched on a limb, head shot him with my ML and found he have been shot through the lungs from side to side. He was dying but would have been wasted had I not seen him.
A few small shot in a squirrel may kill the animal but not soon enough to put add it to the bag. The 50 caliber smooth rifle I tested would pattern 7 1/2 shot pretty well at 25 yards but not centered to the sights. But 7 1/2 is not good shot for squirrels or at least that is the conventional wisdom.

Then we have Boone barking squirrels and Audubon writing about it. So it was at least known and apparently done enough for it to be common knowledge.
We have a problem with use of the rifle today vs colonial times due to powder quality differences. The smoothbore shooters have problems with the shot quality and wadding they had available. The shot gun simply cost more to shoot. If nothing else it requires more wadding. What did they use? What did it cost? Did it actually work or did it blow patterns?
I think Ponitac and Tecumeh were concerned about cultural changes and excessive reliance on the traders.

Osborne Russell watched something like 200 (IIRC) buffalo killed in a short time without a shot being fired. For running buffalo the bow was BETTER than a ML firearm. For small game it is less clear.
Dan

[hammer]

Jerry, re straight rifling. 
I have come to the (theoretical) conclusion that it was an early, then revived, way to keep the load stablised as it travelled along the bore.   In those earliest days the load would probably be an unpatched ball over a wad.
Twist rifling sets a standard rotation on the patched ball that continues after it has left the muzzle and overcomes most of the random factors that result in a spread of shot. 
In a smoothbore a ball placed naked on top of the charge will leave the bore with a random rotation, in any direction, which exagerates the spread. 
A good fitting paper cartridge (or patched ball over a thick wad), the compacted tail of which provides a substantial wad, stabilises the load and pretty much ensures the ball leaves the barrel with little or no random rotation, thereby reducing the spread (though not by as much as a patched ball from a rifled barrel). 
 It seems to me that the straight rifling in later times was a way of better stabilising a variety of loads from the same gun, especially those unsuited to twist rifling such as buck and ball in a paper cartridge.       
Does that make any sense?

[Dphariss]

Just putting this out for discussion.
First I suspect that the "ball guns" rifled or otherwise, were usually patched. Not counting military use
A straight cut barrel would give a better run down the barrel than a smooth barrel.
If patched loose there may be gas escape past the ball on one side or the other. This will promote flutter in the bore. Its why airplanes fly Bernoull's principle.
Balls recovered (at least some) that were shot in muskets with paper cartridges seem to show that they have had collisions with the inside of the barrel. These were often pretty undersized and this would promote leakage.
The patched ball in a grooved barrel my leak some gas but it leak out the grooves as in a rifle and will not upset the balls travel up the bore?

Dan

[northmn]

Shot used in the earlier days was realtively large.  Swan shot was about the size of #4 buck and "duck" shot was about BB or so.  Some shot was cast and pretty good, and the drop shot like Ruperts might pattern better than one thinks.  Again I do not think small game was shot much by the Natives.  Rabbits can be snared.  Waterfowl were often netted.  They also went out and caught them at night. I never had any trouble getting squirrels with a smoothbore, but you had to allow for range and shooting conditions.  You more or less take rifle shots.  The way to waste shots with a flintlock on squirrels is to take them running in tree tops.  Kind of like grouse hunting with a long barreled fowler, taking one flying is a challenge.  I have yet to see a rifle in any of the museums in the Great lakes area that wasn't a percussion half stock of late era.  The local Ojibwa used NWTG predominately.  One thing that you riflemen assume in this day and age is that they always used lead in the smoothbores.  There were other rather exotic loads used like the old wrought iron nails, rocks etc.  They were also used, in the East, at bow ranges.   Rifles were not needed.  Taylor talked about using a 10 bore smooth rifle on elephant and mentioned how that had certain advantages, especially for cleaning where a rifle was not needed. 
Military muskets, both rifled and smooth had to used loose combinations for easy quick loading, fouling, and as a standardization for weapons that likely varied in bore diameter, as machinig tolerances back then were not as tight as today.

DP