Stumpkiller said:
We must be very careful about the "no rifles" thing. There were French Rifles in Canada in the late 17th C. Would have to dig for the citation.
There were significant numbers of rifles in native hands by the 1740s. Shawnees, Iroquois, Delaware etc.
Read "British Military Flintlock Rifles" by Bailey especially the Indian Rifle chapter.
There is an excellent chance that Braddock was killed by a rifle ball. The few Indian allies that were with Braddock had rifles I am sure the French allied natives had some too.
The idea of the rifle suddenly appearing on the scene in the 1760-1770 period is far from the documentation. In 1688 10% of a NY Militia force was rifle armed.
Detroit had lots of rifles in the 1780s the English were importing English made copies of the "American rifle" for the natives. Not as common as trade guns but they were there. Some natives did not care for the trade gun and the Eastern Tribes were much better marksmen than the western Indians of the 19th c. They seemed to rely more on medicine than in aiming.
Michigan settlers would have had what ever rifle they brought with them. Just like the people that settled Kentucky, Ohio etc.
The problem with rifles is that while they were well documented in writings of the time, they seldom appear in the "archeological record". This is mentioned in "Colonial Frontier Guns".
Apparently unlike the trade guns they were not just thrown away.
John Bartram wrote in 1756; "..they commonly now shoot with rifles with which they will at great distance from behind a tree...take such sure aim as to seldom misseth their mark."
Their were at least two reasons the traders and the Gov't pushed trade guns on the natives, from writings of the 1750s at least. First the rifle used less powder and lead, then the rifle was more dangerous in native hands due to the way they made war as noted above.
Dan
