• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

Bought an Old Trade Gun Kit

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

44-henry

45 Cal.
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
1,080
Reaction score
139
I picked up an older Northwest trade gun kit today. I have not received it yet, but am curious about the maker. It comes with all the hardware, 1974 dated Green River Forge blueprint for this gun, an Italian made Lott marked flintlock, 26" barrel, and a pre-carved stock with no lock inlet.

I vaguely recall that Dixie Gun Works once sold a trade gun kit with no lock inlet and think this might have been one of those. I wasn't too crazy about the 26" barrel, but the components and (I think maple or light walnut) stock all look to be good quality and I got it for $350 which didn't seem to bad. Anybody seen an original with a 26 or thereabouts length barrel. I guess I could see one being cut down after a burst muzzle.

_57.jpg


_571.jpg


_574.jpg


_572.jpg
 
Actually the maker was The Green River Forge, out of Bellevue, WA. They were one of the first to market a Trade Gun and it was of very good quality. They went out of business sometime in the late 70s if I recall correctly.
 
My brother Fred Martin built a squirrel rifle with a Green River barrel and a Dixie precarve stock IIRC. He loved it. Yes there were short barrel trade guns factory and altered. Build it, you'll love it. And if anybody complains about the barrel being too short, tell them you had to shorten it because it bent itself over the head of someone who complained it was too long! :rotf: Tree.
 
Thanks for the info. That is interesting about the shorter barrels. Out on the plains where I live I have heard the plains Indians favored the short barrels for hunting buffalo on horseback. I would like to try hunting waterfowl with this when finished and the barrel is only a few inches shorter than my side by sides.
 
There was a Lott of variability in those Lott locks. I'd see how it functions before inletting it. Some had very weak mainsprings.
 
Rich Pierce said:
There was a Lott of variability in those Lott locks. I'd see how it functions before inletting it. Some had very weak mainsprings.

Understatement of the year there Rich :grin:

I know a guy who used to totally remake the internals for those locks, but he hasnt done that for 25 or so years.
 
If necessary I can rebuild the lock and re-heat treat the springs myself. I have heard the same thing with these locks, I might even color case harden it though that probably isn't exactly hc.
 
It's a nicely shaped lock for a trade gun, and cheaply made as were originals. If you can tune it, it will serve well for this sort of project or even a militia musket of early vintage.
 
There are references to 3, 3 1/2 and 4 foot guns. I believe that refers to the length of the barrel, not the length of the gun.
 
I much prefer Tree's comment, should anybody pursue a discussion about the barrel length :wink:
A twenty six inch jug choked barrel will give you most of what you may need for round ball, or bunnies & birds, and last but not least nosy neighbors :cursing:
They were really good guns, except the questionable locks, which are an easy fix.
Best regards
Fred
 
Does anyone know where this kit manufacturer got the barrels for these guns? It should be here in about a week and I will get a chance to inspect it better. One thing I noticed is that the barrel tang is straight and not flared. It looks like it was inlet in properly, but I would have expected to see a flared tang on this style of gun. Nothing that couldn't be undone, but I am wondering what style was correct for this gun.
 
DickS said:
There are references to 3, 3 1/2 and 4 foot guns. I believe that refers to the length of the barrel, not the length of the gun.
Have found most references to guns In feet like that nearly always is by length of barrel. :thumbsup:
 
Not to pick a fight with you Zonie, but I have an article by Charles Hanson (Jr.) on trade rifles.

Here are a couple of quotes:

In 1821 the Northwest Company merged with the Hudson's Bay Company. After that date Hudson's Bay guns
carried the tombstone fox with the maker's name and date. The fox stamping regularly included the initials
"EB". Of all trade guns the HBC guns were uniformly the best. They were produced under strict agreements
and were viewed by an independent firm, usually Bond of London. By the 1840's the HBC guns had been standardized
with double-throat military type hammers and butt plates held on securely by 5 screws. Bore was
standardized at 24 gauge. Well known makers included Wilson, Barnett and Parker Field & Company. Barrel
lengths in the first half of the 19th century ran from 30 inches to 48 inches.


By 1800 American traders were importing thousands of British Northwest guns. These guns were rarely
dated and sometimes there was no maker's name. By the late 1800's they were bringing in a great many cheap
trade guns from the factories of Liege. This is a step that the Hudson Bay Company tried only once, in the late
1860's. It was decided that Belgian guns simply did not measure up to English standards. During the 1830-
1860 period the two commonest Northwestguns in the American trade were those by W. Chance of Brimingham
and those of doubtful lineage with the "ELG" proofmark of Belgium. These U.S. trade guns uniformly had
gooseneck hammers, two-screw locks and flat brass butt plates with only two screws. Most of them were
made with 30 to 42 inch barrels but Chance supplied a few with 48 inch barrels.
 
If you read all of the information in the topic I linked above where I gave the sources of the information you might notice Baron de Lahontan was speaking of the late 1600's to early 1700's when he recommended the abandonment of long barreled trade guns to the French. (He died in 1716.)
The other source by Rodolphe Schmidt was also speaking of a earlier period of time.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why even mentioning a factory made short barreled trade gun is almost a blasphemy. :confused:

It's almost like suggesting the Hawken brothers made something other than a large bore plains rifle. :confused:
 
I don't think I posted anything above that would discount a "short barreled" factory gun.

When terms "usually" are used in a description that does indicate that "outside of that range" was also known (or the quote would be more specific - as in "always 30-40 inches or whatever".

Here is a little more from the article (interesting information on the late availability of flintlocks)

"A percussion model using the Civil War Enfield lock was adopted by the Hudson's Bay Company in the 1860's but flintlocks were still purchased until 1886. Percussion Northwest guns are known to have been sold in the early years of the twentieth century.
These ante-bellurn trade guns were sold in 30, 36, and 42-inch barrel lengths."

If a 30" was "available" there certainly must have been ones "cut down" due to muzzle damage - so a 26" barrel is not a "stretch" in thinking when it could have started life as a 30" barrel.

My earlier post was simply in response to the remark about not seeing 48" barrels later in the period.

One more note on "how late were they built":

"In the 1880's they began to decline rapidly in popularity and by 1912 the Hudson's Bay Company
office in London was asking the Northern posts to substitute something else if possible when requests for
Northwest guns were received"

(quoted material attributed to Charles Hanson Jr.)
 
Well said galamb, I won't bother commenting further since my statements of fact from more recent research were kindly linked to by Zonie in his earlier post on the subject. Whether many like it or not, the long trade guns were more common and the short "canoe guns" were usually shortened, damaged guns that started out with longer barrels, not necessarily factory produced. Short guns were acceptable for use by boys, not for adult usage. :stir:

Don't forget to read the 2nd page of the post Zonie linked to.
 
I would have preferred a longer barrel on this, but I will live with the 26" length. Francis Parkman described a native buffalo hunt that he witnessed in the summer of 1846 where the natives were almost certainly using muskets, probably flintlock on horseback and reloading them while on the run. I personally think this would have been cumbersome with a long barreled musket, but who knows.
 
Back
Top