Thoughts on old guns

[Dphariss]

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

I would like to have a  citation for John Taylor discussing cleaning of the 10 bore ML he discusses in “Pondoro”.  He did not discuss cleaning at all in this context, I just re-read this section. The closest he gets is standing up to load.

I would never state that all the natives used rifles.
The Great Lakes is a FAR different environment than PA or VA or KY. The lakes provided a large number of fish and fowl.  Different situation. Different culture initially brought in by the French.
That the natives in PA and other areas of the frontier used rifles to some significant extent from the 1740s onward is not even debatable. That they used even larger numbers of smoothbores is not debatable either.
But the fact still remains that even in the 1750s this use of rifles was a concern for indian agents and military officers. There were regulations to that effect by 1765 that the natives should NOT be supplied with rifles, according to Col. John Bradstreet in 1764:
 "...that the upper Nations are getting into them fast, by which, they will much less dependent on us, on account of the great saving of powder, this gun using much less, and the shot much more certain than any other gun and in their way of carrying on war, by far more prejudicial to us...." The "upper Nations" were the Great Lakes according to Bailey in "British Military Flintlock Rifes" my source for theses quotes.
Bradstreet went on “… if it would not be a public benefit to stop the making and vending of any more of them in the Colonies, nor suffering any to be imported.”
He is talking of BANNING the manufacture of rifles.
This was a recurring theme it would seem, coming, for example, from Sir William Johnson "...I am of the opinion, all white persons should be restricted on a very severe penalty from selling them to any Indians, or for their use."
Johnsons secretary in July 1764 noting that the Delawares have many rifles.

If the quotes in “BMFR” is any indication many were doing their best to restrict the natives from obtaining rifles from the 1750s at least.
Why do you suppose this is?
If the smoothbore is so superior why were the Natives willing to "... purchase [rifles] where ever they can at monstrous price..."? (Daniel Pepper writing the governor of SC concerning the Upper Creeks in late 1756). In a 1757 letter he says he will do all in his power to "...restrain the practice of vending them here..."
Could this “no rifles for the natives” policy be part of the reason that we see so many smoothbores in native hands by the 1770s?
Of course there is also a quote that the rifle requires too much wiping. This from Conrad Weiser based on advise from the natives in 1756. It is true of course. There are disadvantages to using the rifle just as the inaccuracy of the SB is a disadvantage.

Poorly formed shot and or deformed shot is a major factor in bad patterns, bad patterns reduce the effectiveness of the SB for hunting small game. This should be easy to determine if some tailed shot can be made.

Dan

[Pete G.]

The fancy gun vs. plain gun thing is still with us. Go on a dove field this fall and look at what guns are carried. You might see an engraved Beretta with upgraded wood, but you will see many more Remington Express pump guns and such. Us gun guys love and cherish our guns and appreciate the fine work, balance, etc. , but most other folks see a gun as nothing more than a tool. I will never forget the morning I saw a duck hunter use a Browning Sweet Sixteen for a boat paddle when his motor overheated and siezed up.

[jwh1947]

You guys are contributing some sound concepts and digging up some great stuff regarding smoothbores.  If my memory is correct, Capt. Dillin and his friends went out once and tested twist-rifled arms, straight-rifled guns and smoothbores to see how they compared for accuracy.  The rifled guns were logically and by far the most accurate.  The straight-rifled pieces fell in the middle, with slightly tighter groups than the smoothbore, which was clearly the most erratic.  I recall reading something of this nature in his book.   

[Dphariss]

<Snip>
 I will never forget the morning I saw a duck hunter use a Browning Sweet Sixteen for a boat paddle when his motor overheated and siezed up.

He probably didn't properly lubricate it. Should have been using Amsoil synthetic

But I think we are getting into 20th century mode here.
This is one of our problems. Getting inside the heads of the 18th century colonist/citizen.
I have no idea what the rifles/rifle stocked guns mentioned as on hand in Rock Creek in 1757 looked like. But the 1770s-80s the British Indian trade rifles were relief carved. Apparently,as I have stated before, the natives felt this was required of a rifle. Then we ask why? I would assume this was what they were used to. If this were the case then American rifles were likely carved to some extent as the "norm". But of course we have no way to prove this.
Rifles were never cheap. They cost far more than a "rifle stocked gun" did and several times what a common fowler/trade gun would.
It appears that "retail" was £6-£8 . A cheap smoothbore was a fraction of this. The highest priced fowler in a shipment to Quebec was £2 in 1781, the cheapest rifle, which apparently sold poorly, was £2.10 with wood box, mould and case. These were *cost* in London I believe, not what they traded for.

Some people, a significant number it would seem, were willing to pay the price for a rifle. There had to be a reason. People will not pay 4 times the cost of a good smoothbore without some valid reason.
If we look at the idea of shooting men rather than deer and ducks things change a little. If you have a clear shot at a man at 100 or even 150 yards you can take him out with a rifle if desirable. With the smoothbore of the time you would likely be telling him your gun is empty. In this situation farther is better. Especially if the adversary has a musket or trade gun.
We get into the 20th century "survival gun" mode thing, thinking the shotgun is best, which it is not, and then applying this notion to the 18th century where the shotgun performed with far less efficiency. The rifle, aside from speed of loading, is equal to the modern rifle within its range.

Dan

[J.D.]

IMHO, there is no doubt that bird size shot was used in the various, smooth bored trade guns.

However, IMHO, shooting a single small game animal with a shotgun is a 20th/21st century concept. In earlier times, if shot was used, it was most often used to shoot a sitting flock of ducks, or a sitting covey of quail, for example, rather than a single rabbit or squirrel.

I suspect that rabbits and squirrel sized game, up to coon and beaver sized animals,  were normally trapped rather than shot. Why waste expensive small game shot on one smallish animal, when far more protein could be procured by flock shooting,  for far less expense?

The rifle comes into its own when precision is required. And while the initial purchase is more expensive, the rifle is much less expensive to feed, long term, than the smoothbore loaded with shot.

As Dan mentioned, when one talks commonality of rifles vs smoothbores the context of region, time frame, and use need to be taken into consideration.

God bless

[Artificer]

In the 1980's, a good friend who was also a master machinist and muzzleloading rifle builder, told me he firmly believed milling machines HAD to have been invented and used earlier than is commonly believed.  (He decided he wanted a Ferguson rifle and without any plans and using only the few pictures available in those days, made one.)  He pointed to some pieces that "could only have been made" by using a milling machine and made in the mid 1700's.

I think he had a point, but I also think the machine used to make some of those cuts were actually rotary files and that has been said to have been invented by Jacques de Vaucanson, circa 1760.

However, "cherries" made for making round ball molds are actually a form of rotary file and go back further than that and something like that could well have been used to "mill" something by using shims to hold the "piece to be worked" in different positions and using a lathe to run the cherry. 

For those interested in early machine tools, here's a link that can start you out.  I'd suggest you click the link to Captain John Hall as he often never gets credit for metal machines he made and helped Harper's Ferry make the first truly interchangeable parts gun for the U.S. military, the Model 1841 "Mississippi Rifle."  (That is if you discount the ones John Hall made and were accepted by the U.S. government before that.)
.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milling_machine

[TPH]

The M1819 Hall Rifle (flint) was the first fully interchangeable gun in US Service and all of the Hall Carbines (M1836, M1840 and M1843, all percussion) as well as the percussion Hall M1841 Rifle that followed were completely interchangeable as well, including those made by contractors. The M1841 "Mississippi" Rifle was interchangeable as made only at Harpers Ferry, the "Mississippi" Rifles made by the contractors were only marginally interchangeable with those made at Harpers Ferry, some parts still required minor hand fitting.  The first arm made completely interchangeable between both Harpers Ferry and Springfield was the percussion M1842 Musket. The best source for information on interchangeable parts development in the US Government Armory at Harpers Ferry By John H Hall would be "Harpers Ferry and the New Technology" by Merritt Roe Smith, available for purchase on line and at most libraries.

[Artificer]

TPH, great synopsis on the Hall rifles/carbines.  The early Halls were used by the Military, but the first U.S. Arsenal produced interhangeable parts guns were the Harper's Ferry 1841 Mississippi rifles.  You are absolutely correct that contractor made Mississippi Rifles were not made to the intechangeable parts plan.

U.S. Marines were issued Hall Rifles for the Mexican War, as were other troops, of course.

An extremely good friend of mine collects Hall Rifles and has over a dozen, including one of the early civilian rifles. 

Harpers Ferry NPS used to display the pattern gages used to make the M1841 Mississippi.  I saw them in the 1980's, though I don't know if they still have them on display.

 

[Dphariss]

IMHO, there is no doubt that bird size shot was used in the various, smooth bored trade guns.

However, IMHO, shooting a single small game animal with a shotgun is a 20th/21st century concept. In earlier times, if shot was used, it was most often used to shoot a sitting flock of ducks, or a sitting covey of quail, for example, rather than a single rabbit or squirrel.

I suspect that rabbits and squirrel sized game, up to coon and beaver sized animals,  were normally trapped rather than shot. Why waste expensive small game shot on one smallish animal, when far more protein could be procured by flock shooting,  for far less expense?

The rifle comes into its own when precision is required. And while the initial purchase is more expensive, the rifle is much less expensive to feed, long term, than the smoothbore loaded with shot.

As Dan mentioned, when one talks commonality of rifles vs smoothbores the context of region, time frame, and use need to be taken into consideration.

God bless

As a kid circa 1940 Dad crawled on a pond with a flock of Canadians on it. 2 shotguns, a 10 bore double and a 12 bore 1897. Gave them both barrels on the water after a whistle to get their heads up aiming just over their heads, then ran the pump dry as they lifted off, shot penetrates better when they have their wings up. All neighbors had geese to eat too.
I know how to make the "flock shooting" thing work. But limits and such get in the way.
But its not really all that practical for anything but birds. It can happen but finding several squirrels in a bunch is not likely.

Dan