The Carolian type G, Southern rifles and the Golden Age

"
I guess I was not educated enough to begin this conversation"

My post was not aimed at anyone in particular but was a general observation, typicaly threads start with a question which is often valid no matter the level of understanding as asking questuions is a good way to increase ones klnowledge of a subject, do not take offense 54Ball nothing was directed at you, your question/theory opened a very good subject. I just pointed put the typical range of responces which often include the ones based in superficial or dated information.Never stop asking it makes everyone think harder which is good.

I am curious as to when and to what degree the Deer hide hunting became a non seasonal venture due to the considerably better quality of hide in the warmer months, this is comparable to the Beaver trade beig a cold weather ything to take advantage of the fur as the thing with hide and fur is the material in the abimal shifts sesonaly to make one or the other 'better" for tne use it was harvested for.

On another note the 3=4' barrel on rifle imported fromn Europe were allreday there at least a decade or more before the first "American/colonial longrifle" was made, the slenderizing as some have said may have been due to the smaller cal trend, due to its nature the rifle barrels may have well been heavier at the muzle and probably the breech in a comparable bore size which does affect the overall architecture, the early guns to me seem to be a bit chunkier, the barrel profile may have contributed to this for a pleasing athstetic value

Rich,
I thought that too. When I first saw that rifle I agree it looks 19th Century.
There is a Museum sight I know you are familiar with. The opinions expressed there are that the Ketland lock may indeed be a little bit earlier than thought. Some even think this rifle saw action in the Cherokee War of 1794.
This may be based on family history. If any of it is indeed true and the rifle is that early "1790", That makes it a very special piece indeed..

Sorry if I was too defensive....

The deerskin trade has a lot of similarities to the later beaver fur trade. In large part both were fashion based. The demand for buckskin really skyrocketed when buckskin breeches became fashionable. Much like beaver felt later on.

Since finished leather was the end result, it did not matter what season the deer were harvested. The skin trade was so profound that it's still with us today. A deer skin was worth roughly a dollar. Ten deerskins = 10 dollars or 10 bucks.

The skin trade really put the southern and western tribes(for that era) on the hook so to speak. The Indians would traditionally hunt in the fall and early winter. Much like modern hunting seasons. In the dead of winter they would trap. The spring was war or game time as the women would prepare the fields. The late summer early fall was harvest and festival time. I'm sure a deer was taken now and then for food in the spring and summer months but the the main time to hunt was the late fall.

Pre-skin trade the Indians would seldom take pregnant does and fawns. In a sense they practiced game management.

At the height of the skin trade "If it's brown it's down" was the year round practice as leather was the end result.

The deer were about wiped out in the southeast. So tribes would travel farther and farther from their traditional lands. Also their primary meat source was depleted. The Creeks and Cherokees were in constant conflict for decades over this.

The skin trade is very significant to the development of the long rifle. In 1805 at the US trading post at Fort Stoddart just north of present day Mobile Alabama, The post reported that smoothbore guns were unsaleable to the Choctaw. They wanted rifles and would only trade for such.

The end of the trade is one of the causes for the Creek War of 1813-14. Tons of deerskin lay rotting in the US trade houses. Demand for the skins had about come to an end. The deer were virtually gone. The US policy of the time was to make ranchers and farmers out of the Indians, To civilize them.

As with a lot of "social" programs, the aid did not reach and benefit everyone. Through corruption some Chiefs became rich plantation owners while a large part of the tribe languished in poverty. The poorer tended to be the more traditional, longing for the old ways. This was a powder keg that led to a civil war in the tribe and ultimately a war against the United States.

The result was the rise of Andy Jackson and the ultimate removal of all southern tribes to lands west of the Mississippi.

The book Deerskins and Duffels is an excellent book on the subject. It discusses the trade and it's ramifications in detail. I've been meaning to get it.
:hatsoff:

:thumbsup: :hatsoff:
No lead box for you :rotf:

Interesting on the Deer skins as I know the hides are thicker in the summer than the winter as the fur is heavier in the winter than the summer caratin or some material goes abck and forth sessonaly as needed in the animals physiology, evidently not enough difference in the deer hides to matter once it is rendered to leather? I thought there were some mentionings of seasonal preferences in the longhunters practices for the bes/thicker hides (summer) much like the Beaver pelt trappers prefered late fall early spring, guess ya learn something new every day.

Rich Pierce said:

Regarding the Bogle rifle, Ketland and Company who made the lock did not export to America before 1790 and Bogle died in 1811 I believe so the rifle was made between those dates.

Click to expand...

There were other ways for products to wind up in the colonies besides a British company formally going into the export business. Many colonists ordered products from England on an individual basis, or traveled there and brought stuff back. That may be what happened in the case of this pistol described in 1774:

"The Pennsylvania Gazette
April 6, 1774
WAS lost, on the evening of the 25th of January last, on the road leading from Philadelphia to the Lower Ferry, a very neat Pocket Pistol, the stock mounted and inlaid with silver, on which at the end of the barrel is the figure of a squirrel maker’s name T. KETLAND, engraved on the side of the barrel, in a circular form."

That could be Thomas Ketland, Sr., who did business in England since about 1760, but started exporting only around 1790. If you found that pistol today and used his history of export to date it, you would end up with a wrong conclusion. Could something like that have happened with the Bogle lock?

Spence

54ball said:

:thumbsup: :hatsoff:
No lead box for you :rotf:

Click to expand...

You don't mind if I keep tryin' do ya? :haha:

Good info on the deer skin trade.

"If it's brown...it's down!" :grin: ....I haven't heard that since I lived in Virginia. Being from up North I never could get used to buckshot being thrown around like anti-aircraft fire and all those dogs. But who am I to buck 300 years of tradition?

Thanks, J.D.

Could be the Ketland and Company lock got here some other way and was re-used but I generally prefer the less complex story. If it did come off another gun that would only change things by a few years. The main reason I see the gun as post-1800 is that I'm not recalling a buttplate that narrow and that curved on a rifle we are sure is pre-1800. The Ketland and Company lock is another feature that can help us date the gun. Taken together, we have 2 features that are 1790 or later. Most 1790's rifles I have seen have buttplates wider than 1 and 5/8 and closer to 1 and 3/4" wide with moderate curvature. But my experience is mostly Pennsylvania rifles. Some believe rifles changed more rapidly in the South, but have not brought forth a signed and dated specimen supporting that argument. So it remains an interesting hypothesis in my view.

Thanks for the info and the links. I'm familiar with the development of the rifle. I am aware of the importance of the trade gun but I have not paid as much attention to the particular types and the years they were imported as my main interest has been rifles. In retrospect I should have realized that "Carolina gun" referred to a general type rather than something imported exclusively by traders in the Carolinas :redface: .

I enjoy participating in the discussions. I would rather participate and risk making a mistake rather than not participate. I just find I learn more this way.

I have developed more of an interest in trade guns since I have been using the forum. I hope to put one together at some point, after I have completed a few other projects. I think it would make for some great hunting. - John

BigDad.54 said:

I think it would make for some great hunting. - John

Click to expand...

Thousands of our native brothers would likely agree!!! Time tested and Indian approved. :grin:

Enjoy, J.D.

I have no idea if hides were graded at the trading houses. There would be some interesting information there if they were.
This is pure speculation but even though they were hunted year round, it would be easy to assume that most deer were harvested in the late fall early winter when the vision is better and the deer are moving during their rut and change of season.
Also one can imagine just how dangerous the eastern woodlands were during these times. Roving bands of Indians some possibly hundreds of miles from there home. Settlers on hunts after harvest time and the occasional market hunter. All of these could be friend or foe.

Here's a tale about a Boone hunting trip.

Boone alone, was making his way around a limestone bluff. The path way was on a narrow ledge barely wide enough for two men to pass. As Boone rounded a large rock formation He found himself face to face with a Shawnee warrior.
They stood there silent for several moments. Each holding their rifles, nearly knuckle to knuckle. Silently the Shawnee then reached for Boone's horn. He shook it. Then he took his horn uncapped it grabbed Boone's horn and poured some of his powder into Boone's. He then nodded his head and said "More Hunt." He then made his way around Boone and they went on their way.

A very large portion of these trade guns are found with a rear sight. The sight is located closer than on a rifle, about at the forward lock bolt.
The folks who have them with that sight say it acts as kind of a period peep and does really well.

Thanks. I,ll keep that in mind. - John

Seems I remember they actually hunted deer when "in the red", or late spring and summer...The hair is thinner then and comes off the hide easier...

"Seems I remember they actually hunted deer when "in the red", or late spring and summer...The hair is thinner then and comes off the hide easier"

That is waht I recall from some information I have seen, I have tanned der hides from summer killed Deer and late fall winter Kills and as well as the hair comming off easier it did seem that the hided itself was a biot heavier as I recall, I used to pick up road kill Deer for the county localy and take the meat to a raptor recovery center for bird food as thye wewre very particular in what meat they would eat, so I had hides from all times of the year to deal with.

Asgor sights on the smoothbores I used the small rifle type as is shown in many originals and found it to be basicaly the same function/method of sighting as with a rifle sight but out to 50 yds a well fitted gu which comes to popsition in the right opace ptety much automatical can give very nearly the same results as a sighted gun, I suspect that at increased ranges the sights would be more helpfull but the natuire of a smoothbore barrel might very well cancel out any potential advantage.

I wonder if the location of the rear sight on some smothbores was determined by the wall thickness, originals had most of the taper in the first few inches which may have left less metal farther down for a safe dovetail? The smootbores which had rear sights varied quite a bit by time and place of origin and likley no more than 50% if that many overall had an original rear sight during the 18th early 19th century here again the time period/location must always be included as it can be so important and actual make the difference twixt a correct and an incorrect statement many times, interesting thread though in time many things will sift down to a clearer picture that the surviving examples and period writing/factors orders will support.

I have made rawhide quivers from winter and summer killed deer. The winter hide is thicker, maybe to support the heavier thicker hair. I would think the summer kills would provide a finer garment grade of hide, but that is subjective on my part.
Robby

tg said:

I wonder if the location of the rear sight on some smothbores was determined by the wall thickness, originals had most of the taper in the first few inches which may have left less metal farther down for a safe dovetail?

Click to expand...

Something I never considered but I always wondered why some trade guns had sights so close to the breech. I like the idea. Some of the trade gun barrels were amazingly light and thin-walled. I have a late percussion original trade gun barrel in 20 ga that is only about7/8" thick at the breech and 36" long- the barrel weighs less than 3 pounds, and would make a sub-5 pound gun with thin futniture.