trade gun

I agree about North Star West, they're good people and make good products. The problem is that for the F&I War era, nearly all their work is too late for that period. I've never been too sure about their Early English Trade Gun. It doesn't really replicate anything from that era I've seen so far. It's not the more common trade gun type known to have been traded through English traders. The Light Infantry Officer's Model is more like those from the AWI era rather than F&I War. Their work is excellent but not really typical for the time frame mentioned.

Where could I find this list of traits? And which stock style best represents that?

Howdy,

Does anyone have experience with the New England Fowler from Middlesex Village Trading? I seems to fit airbear's bill, and it is a bargain compared to Caywood or Chambers. Tho I already have a fowler from Early Rustic Arms (another I would recommend), I was toying with the idea of purchasing the one MVT has. Any opinions?

BTW, airbear, where in PA are you located? I'm in the NE corner, and some folks and I are trying to form a F & I era group. If you're close enough, you'd be more than welcome.

Tim

New England Fowler from Middlesex Village Trading?

Click to expand...

:shocked2:

I dunno what that club is but it's definitely not a New England Fowler.

A fella i know got one and had the frizzen screw break right away. He called them and told them what the problem was and asked them to send him a new screw. He was told he had to send the lock back to them for repairs. When he got it back the repairs consisted of a piece of all thread with a nut on the outside. Needless to say he is not a happy camper and said because of that he will never deal with them again.

and it is a bargain compared to Caywood or Chambers.

Click to expand...

That's debatable....
Just because those guns cost far less, doesn't mean they're a bargain.

Tim,
Im in the southeast corner and theres a group based 5 minutes from my house.

Some folks can't afford a caywood The guns from Middlesex fill a nice notch and with a little help they are decent guns.I like mine fine..Mark

". I've never been too sure about their Early English Trade Gun."

I have never seen one up close Wes but I think they are going for the Frenchified gun like the Wilson but without the cows foot stock, more like what TOW calls a C or D shape?

When Bill Wescombe and Bob Rathbun still owned NSW, they were kind enough to send me a complete set of full-sized blue prints of all their guns. I can only say that the Early English Trade Gun is similar to but not exactly like any guns shown by Hanson. The lock has, or had, a sitting fox mark as does the barrel. The trigger guard looks just like the Sea Service Besses with the round front. The gun may certainly represent an attempt to copy styles, but I just can't find a specific gun it replicates.

Wes,
I've got to eat some crow here and appoligize to NSW, as I've been critical of their early english trade gun in the past for the same reason you are.
A couple weeks ago I saw a nearly I dentical original gun as the NSW gun. This gun had a standard brass english fowler butt plate, a small bowed steel NW gun trigger guard with round finials, the sideplate was a NW gun scaly serpent, not flat as in NSW's gun. The lock was a standard 6" unbridaled english trade quality lock, three locks screws too, if I remember correctly. It had the boars head and hunting horn motiff engraved on it's tail that is usually associated with the cipher guns. The stock archetecture was very typically english of the 1770's period. The barrel was probably 46" to 48" long and looked to be about 20 bore. I had planned on a more detaile examination, with pictures, but was distracted by selling a gun, and when I got back to the guy's table it was covered and he was gone.
So, NSW's early english gun is just about spot on with a few minor discrepencies. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there is an original floating around that has the flat serpent side plate just like NSW's gun.
One thing I would like to point out and emphasize is the slimness of the gun I saw, and every other early period english trade gun I've seen. I've never seen a "factory" reproduction that comes close.
Ooops, I just want to add, this gun didn't have a sitting fox stamp anywhere , and I don't believe it had any association with the Hudsons Bay Co.
I did see a NW gun of a later period at this same show, and it did have the sitting fox stamp.

Oh boy, one more edit. :haha: I'm not sure this type of gun was intended specifically for the indian trade or not. It was a well made gun, even had a triggerplate with the tang screw running from the tang and threading into the plate. The gun had seen heavy use, the comb was carved away with a pocket knife in it's working history, and the gun was heavily worn everywhere, which may indicate indian use, no way to tell for sure....
Anyway, with my research on these guns I feel guns of this quality were for sale to who ever had the money, either Anglo or Indian. Then there's the term "chief's grade" which I find annoying, but was used during the period. Maybe this gun was one of those.....I don't know, and I'm not sure anyone else does either.... :haha:

Good post. Another 'annoying' thing is that there are historic records of thousands of various trade guns being sent over here from various parts of Europe/Britain, yet only a mere handful of surviving examples and a few rooms full of buttplates, rusted locks, guards, etc from archeological digs--annoying ain't it? We argue over how "authentic" our copies are yet we have so little to copy. "All" of the Tulle fusil de chasse examples I have seen are restocks, for example. Period examples of the early English gun (so-called type G) are rarer than hen's teeth. and so on...

", NSW's early english gun is just about spot on with a few minor discrepencies'

How "early" would the original you saw possibly be Mike? if it is similar to the North Starr gun that could date their offering.

Well, The lock was marked "Willets", so that would give a rough date. Unfortunately I don't have any information on Willets to know when he worked.
It struck me as a 1770 ish gun.

Just curious as most consider an "early" trade gun something that would fit the F&I period, I think the Wilson Caywood is suppose to go back that far as it has the looks of some of the French guns from that time and earlier, if the NSW "early"gun is 1770 it is not much earler than the standard style NW gun, probably more of an English fowler maybe for upper end trade or gift/alliance gun?

You're right Mike, the lack of details is frustrating. I'm reading about Dr Andrew Turnbull's ill-fated attempt to start a greek colony in British East Florida right after the F&I war and there are tantalizing references to his purchase of muskets in London with which to arm his immigrants (of which he proposed up to 1000 persons) but no details!!!

Adam

tg said:

Just curious as most consider an "early" trade gun something that would fit the F&I period, I think the Wilson Caywood is suppose to go back that far as it has the looks of some of the French guns from that time and earlier, if the NSW "early"gun is 1770 it is not much earler than the standard style NW gun, probably more of an English fowler maybe for upper end trade or gift/alliance gun?

Click to expand...

Early is a relative term I guess. :winking: The O'conner gun by Wilson , in my opinion is from right at the end of the F&I period to probably ten years after that. Roughly a mid 1760's gun only traded for a short time. Just my opinion of course.
I do agree with you that guns like NSW's "early" gun is and upper end trade item, probably costing a bit more than the standard trade quality gun. Now, you can realy get into trouble with the term "standard style" when refering to the NW gun. I've been digging deep in the past few weeks on these and have come to the conclusion that archetecturally they looked the same as the fowlers of the same era. Except of course they had sheet brass buttplates and all the other hardware we expect to see on a NW gun. I don't believe what we think of as the classic NW gun emerged untill the 1790's. Up untill then the looked like british fowlers in profile. I believe the early NW guns had a curved heal on the buttplate, only the post 1790 guns having the severe 90* angle at the heel.

Mike,
From what I've read about trade guns, the early english trade guns were stocked to more closely resemble the French trade guns--hence curved lower butt etc. Supposedly the indians preferred the French gun. So the English design was an attempt to compete with the French. After the F&I was when France was all but ejected from the colonies the English began making trade guns from old service muskets and eventually the guns began to have a decidedly more English design similar to what one would expect on an English military arm or fowler of the late 18th century.

Shelby Skinner said:

Mike,
From what I've read about trade guns, the early english trade guns were stocked to more closely resemble the French trade guns--hence curved lower butt etc. Supposedly the indians preferred the French gun. So the English design was an attempt to compete with the French. After the F&I was when France was all but ejected from the colonies the English began making trade guns from old service muskets and eventually the guns began to have a decidedly more English design similar to what one would expect on an English military arm or fowler of the late 18th century.

Click to expand...

That is true only in one case, that being the "O'Conner" gun, which is copied by Caywood. All other british trade guns are distinctly british in archetecture and style and bare no resemblence to french guns.

That is the same take I get on the "early" English guns even though the English records show that the Indians wanted guns more like those of the French and factors requested such guns from as early as 1690 the O'connor gun is the only one survivivg and there were likely as many if not more French guns with out that extreme stock architecture which they could have copied, but I do not know of any Engish guns that look like that type, I suspect the main change the English made was to make them lighter and better made and was not so much cosmetic in nature as functional and comfortable?