• 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

Early English Trade Gun and Carolina Gun the Same Thing?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I could be wrong, and it could be too broad a generalization, but, my impression has been that the Type-G predates the "Northwest," but that there is some overlap as the "Northwest" takes over and the Type-G phases out.

The Type G does predate the Northwest trade gun. As stated before, the Type G may have developed around the second decade of the 18th century. The development of the Northwest trade gun appears to begin in 1741 with the adoption of the large trigger guard bow and continued through that decade. An early version is in the Museum of the Fur Trade collection that was made between 1741 and 1744 that has all the characteristics of the Northwest gun except it has a Type G side plate, albeit a restored one. The earliest dated full formed Northwest gun known has a lock marked on the tail "WILSON 51" for 1751. S. James Gooding found a reference in the HBC records of 1749 that instructed "the Sideplates to be polished." He surmised that this referred to the cast serpent side plate with scales that obviously would need clean up and polishing after they were sand cast. So the final transition to the Northwest gun as we know it may have occurred that year.

Except for the inconclusive finds at the Spanish Fort site, the Type G appears to fade out after 1750.

I've often wondered if the Type-G phases out and the Northwest takes over, and does so North and West of the bulk of the Type-G territory, as rifles become more predominant in the area of the Type-G and rifles are later to take hold in the areas dominated by the Northwest gun?

That's not really supported by any evidence. As the map shows, evidence of the Type G has been found in what is now Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and way up in Canada, not just in the South.

I'm not sure what you mean by "as rifles become more predominant"? I'm not aware that rifles became predominant in the Indian fur trade. At least not until right at the end of the muzzleloader era and cartridge guns were becoming common.

Rifles get more attention on these forums, in books, and by collectors, but that doesn't really reflect the history of the use of firearms in North America.

When I was a kid, we had a lot more shotguns in our house than rifles. I think that was the norm through a big swath of America from the 20th century all the way back through this country's history.

We don't have a good record of how many NW trade guns were imported into America because both the fur companies and the US government had to buy them from independent importers and neither the companies nor the government bothered to keep good records of their purchases.

I think for the government, they were trying to keep the purchase of foreign merchandise below the radar because the politicians were pushing "buy American", but the Indians demanded British products because they were of higher quality and less cost. Not too unlike Walmart now with its dependency on China.

I'm not sure why we don't have better records from the fur companies, but it may have something to do with the fact that they made their purchases through middlemen in the US and in England. The AFC did not have a person in England that was ordering guns directly from the gun makers. They went through an import merchant in the US who dealt with and export merchant in England who bought from the manufacturers. The fur companies often used different merchants depending on who had the product on hand or could get it the quickest and had the lowest price. It may be that the information does exists in the surviving AFC records, and no one has bothered to look through the many volumes of records to tabulate the trade gun orders.

Once American gun makers were able to compete with the English on quality and price (in the early 1840s), the US government shifted their purchase of NW guns to firms like Henry Leman and George Tryon and kept records of the contracts and the deliveries. From 1837 to 1860, the US government only purchased 500 rifles from Henry Leman while purchasing no less than 8,620 NW guns from him. The government purchased 2,130 rifles and 5,822 NW guns from Tryon between 1832 and 1855. Rifles certainly aren't predominate in these figures.

On another forum, someone asked about NW trade guns in the Carolina's post 1800. Another person made the point that NW trade gun parts don't exist in the archeological record in the South. I pointed out that from 1795 to 1822, the US government was buying imported NW guns for their factories, many of which were in the South, and the British government sent a significant number of NW guns to the South for their Indian allies in both the Rev War and the War of 1812. So we have good evidence that the Indians had access to them.

When I reviewed my books on archeological gun parts, nearly of of which were written or edited by T. M. Hamilton, I noticed that they were all focused on trade guns of the Colonial Period. Further, Hamilton seems to ignore NW gun artifacts in all areas of the continent, not just the South. He just wasn't interested in them and left their study to the likes of Charles Hanson, Jr. and S. James Gooding. Hanson's interest was mostly in the West and a little in the Great Lakes Region and Gooding's interest was in Canada. No one has written books about NW guns in the South because they hadn't looked there.

I found a paper titled "THE FUR TRADE AND HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY - A BIBLIOGRAPHY" Complied by Michael A. Pfeiffer dated March 2015. It lists books and papers alphabetically by author and is 38 pages long. There are probably on average 12 sources per page or around 450 total. I got through the H's, which ended on page 14, and only found two papers about archeological sites in the South, and they focused on the early Colonial Period. It doesn't appear that anybody has been very interested in the fur trade, the deer skin trade, in the South.

Searching some of the state archeological websites for a few Southern states has lead me to believe that the archeological interest by the academics down there is focused on Pre-Contact Native sites, the Colonial Period, Slavery, the Civil War, and early 20th century. The period that the NW trade guns would have been used and artifacts deposited doesn't appear to be an area of study.

It seems to me that the lack of NW trade gun parts in the archeological record in the South is more a lack of study and knowledge and not a lack of existence.

That lack of knowledge skews our perception to think that the Indians in the South only used rifles. That's like saying the Southern Indians only liked blue blankets. In reality, they were human beings with individual preferences. Some would have preferred rifles while others preferred smoothbores such as the NW trade gun, just like some preferred blue blankets, some white, some red, some green--you get the point.
 
Per “For Trade and Treaty” by Ryan Gale, there is more to the story than Carolina guns and NW Trade guns. Guns were being sent to Hudson’s Bay Company as early as 1674. These were fowling pieces and snaphance muskets. Pages 25 and 26.
 
The Type G does predate the Northwest trade gun. As stated before, the Type G may have developed around the second decade of the 18th century. The development of the Northwest trade gun appears to begin in 1741 with the adoption of the large trigger guard bow and continued through that decade. An early version is in the Museum of the Fur Trade collection that was made between 1741 and 1744 that has all the characteristics of the Northwest gun except it has a Type G side plate, albeit a restored one. The earliest dated full formed Northwest gun known has a lock marked on the tail "WILSON 51" for 1751. S. James Gooding found a reference in the HBC records of 1749 that instructed "the Sideplates to be polished." He surmised that this referred to the cast serpent side plate with scales that obviously would need clean up and polishing after they were sand cast. So the final transition to the Northwest gun as we know it may have occurred that year.

Except for the inconclusive finds at the Spanish Fort site, the Type G appears to fade out after 1750.



That's not really supported by any evidence. As the map shows, evidence of the Type G has been found in what is now Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and way up in Canada, not just in the South.

I'm not sure what you mean by "as rifles become more predominant"? I'm not aware that rifles became predominant in the Indian fur trade. At least not until right at the end of the muzzleloader era and cartridge guns were becoming common.

Rifles get more attention on these forums, in books, and by collectors, but that doesn't really reflect the history of the use of firearms in North America.

When I was a kid, we had a lot more shotguns in our house than rifles. I think that was the norm through a big swath of America from the 20th century all the way back through this country's history.

We don't have a good record of how many NW trade guns were imported into America because both the fur companies and the US government had to buy them from independent importers and neither the companies nor the government bothered to keep good records of their purchases.

I think for the government, they were trying to keep the purchase of foreign merchandise below the radar because the politicians were pushing "buy American", but the Indians demanded British products because they were of higher quality and less cost. Not too unlike Walmart now with its dependency on China.

I'm not sure why we don't have better records from the fur companies, but it may have something to do with the fact that they made their purchases through middlemen in the US and in England. The AFC did not have a person in England that was ordering guns directly from the gun makers. They went through an import merchant in the US who dealt with and export merchant in England who bought from the manufacturers. The fur companies often used different merchants depending on who had the product on hand or could get it the quickest and had the lowest price. It may be that the information does exists in the surviving AFC records, and no one has bothered to look through the many volumes of records to tabulate the trade gun orders.

Once American gun makers were able to compete with the English on quality and price (in the early 1840s), the US government shifted their purchase of NW guns to firms like Henry Leman and George Tryon and kept records of the contracts and the deliveries. From 1837 to 1860, the US government only purchased 500 rifles from Henry Leman while purchasing no less than 8,620 NW guns from him. The government purchased 2,130 rifles and 5,822 NW guns from Tryon between 1832 and 1855. Rifles certainly aren't predominate in these figures.

On another forum, someone asked about NW trade guns in the Carolina's post 1800. Another person made the point that NW trade gun parts don't exist in the archeological record in the South. I pointed out that from 1795 to 1822, the US government was buying imported NW guns for their factories, many of which were in the South, and the British government sent a significant number of NW guns to the South for their Indian allies in both the Rev War and the War of 1812. So we have good evidence that the Indians had access to them.

When I reviewed my books on archeological gun parts, nearly of of which were written or edited by T. M. Hamilton, I noticed that they were all focused on trade guns of the Colonial Period. Further, Hamilton seems to ignore NW gun artifacts in all areas of the continent, not just the South. He just wasn't interested in them and left their study to the likes of Charles Hanson, Jr. and S. James Gooding. Hanson's interest was mostly in the West and a little in the Great Lakes Region and Gooding's interest was in Canada. No one has written books about NW guns in the South because they hadn't looked there.

I found a paper titled "THE FUR TRADE AND HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY - A BIBLIOGRAPHY" Complied by Michael A. Pfeiffer dated March 2015. It lists books and papers alphabetically by author and is 38 pages long. There are probably on average 12 sources per page or around 450 total. I got through the H's, which ended on page 14, and only found two papers about archeological sites in the South, and they focused on the early Colonial Period. It doesn't appear that anybody has been very interested in the fur trade, the deer skin trade, in the South.

Searching some of the state archeological websites for a few Southern states has lead me to believe that the archeological interest by the academics down there is focused on Pre-Contact Native sites, the Colonial Period, Slavery, the Civil War, and early 20th century. The period that the NW trade guns would have been used and artifacts deposited doesn't appear to be an area of study.

It seems to me that the lack of NW trade gun parts in the archeological record in the South is more a lack of study and knowledge and not a lack of existence.

That lack of knowledge skews our perception to think that the Indians in the South only used rifles. That's like saying the Southern Indians only liked blue blankets. In reality, they were human beings with individual preferences. Some would have preferred rifles while others preferred smoothbores such as the NW trade gun, just like some preferred blue blankets, some white, some red, some green--you get the point.
 
If I remember correctly, there were ceremonially-killed Type-G guns at a Creek burial site on the Apalachicola River here in Florida. It is generally referred to as the "Flintlock Site." The weapons seem to have been stuck into the ground as something akin to headstone markers. the site generally is considered to be from the First Seminole War (1816-1818.)
 
I'm not sure what you mean by "as rifles become more predominant"? I'm not aware that rifles became predominant in the Indian fur trade. At least not until right at the end of the muzzleloader era and cartridge guns were becoming common.

People in the United States often completely miss that the Fur Trade also was very heavy in Canada. Now in Canada, the rifle did not catch on the way it did in The States, and while the flintlock rifle was iconic in The United States, it was the smoothbore trade gun that was/is iconic in The Canadas...,

LD
 
I had read that article about the Flintlock Site on the Apalachicola River in The Journal of Maritime Archaeology. It is believed to be the site of a Seminole attack on a transport boat, in the First (of three) Seminole Wars. The researchers did indeed find a number of Type G parts there, but most of these were from guns that were believed to have been disabled before the attack. The archaeologists also recovered a TVLLE marked lockplate, which would have been from an early French gun, maybe brought over from Mobile or Louisiana.

There was also an old trade gun recovered from the Suwannee River in Florida, near Running Springs. The gun was still loaded, and wadded with palmetto fiber. I don't know where this one was written up, but it was discussed on the ALR forum a while back. I think this was a British gun, but can't say I remember specifically. I PM'ed Dr. James Levy (former state archaeologist) with a couple of questions about it a while back, but at the time, I was more interested in native loading techniques than the gun itself.

East and West Florida were British colonies between 1763 and 1783, and north Florida was a loyalist stronghold in the Revolutionary War. Parts of British guns show up here and there. I've never found any, on the ground, but bits of butt plates and broken, flat brass "serpent" sideplates can sometimes be seen in small, local museums. I doubt all of these parts have been properly documented.

Those early English trade muskets enjoyed a very wide distribution in their day. It is my understanding that by the time of the Second Seminole War (the big one...) the Indians here preferred rifles.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob
 
It is believed to be the site of a Seminole attack on a transport boat, in the First (of three) Seminole Wars. The researchers did indeed find a number of Type G parts there, but most of these were from guns that were believed to have been disabled before the attack. The archaeologists also recovered a TVLLE marked lockplate, which would have been from an early French gun, maybe brought over from Mobile or Louisiana.

Notchy,

If you read the paper that I attached again or at least the Conclusions, you will see that they hoped it would "be the site of a Seminole attack on a transport boat, in the First (of three) Seminole Wars." It proved not to be.

No artifacts were encountered that could positively be identified as belonging to the U.S. Army. Instead, the Flintlock Site collection appears to represent material remnants of cultural activities that took place along the river from the time of prehistoric occupation to the late Colonial and Seminole Period trade and conflict, the development of ante- and post-bellum plantation traffic, turn-of-the-century timber industries, and into modern commercial and recreational river use.

In other words, they found artifacts that spanned the period from before Columbus to modern times. They weren't even certain if the artifacts were deposited in the river at the site or washed down from upriver locations.

Your statement concerning the gun parts, "...most of these were from guns that were believed to have been disabled before the attack..." is correct.
All of the guns and locks were manufactured between 1750 and 1780...The most significant conclusion derived from the study of these weapons is that they were too old to have been used in the 1817 Scott ambush incident.
 
Thanks for the clarification! I had read the article several years ago and was relying on memory, which is never a good idea in my case. I should have re-read it!

Notchy Bob
 
I actually would like to ask an over generalized question about this topic. Would the "economically priced" guns that would have been imported and sold to English settlers in shops and trading posts up and down The Colonies circa 1760 have been more like "NW Tradeguns" or more like plain English fowlers? If anyone can recommend a specific source which shows some examples of circa 1750-1760's English tradeguns that would be great!

Also I understand that walnut or fruitwood were typical for English tradegun stocks, but would ash or maple wood commonly or ever be used?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Maple or its cousin the Sycomore was what I used , very like Maple but Beech was used despite its being harder to work than Walnut .I cant see them going out for walnut on a cost basis but sap wood still be Ok . fruit woods where used if not specifically for trade guns . All of which is a stockers view I've have no documentary evidence to offer. I doubt Ash was popular. But some makers used Ash. And as many learned students of arms on these posts have illustrated defined both where on offer if required or called for .
Rudyard
 
Would the "economically priced" guns that would have been imported and sold to English settlers in shops and trading posts up and down The Colonies circa 1760 have been more like "NW Tradeguns" or more like plain English fowlers?
More like English fowlers. But other different kinds of fowlers were being made in the colonies, also. And there were German trade guns being imported, too.

If anyone can recommend a specific source which shows some examples of circa 1750-1760's English tradeguns that would be great!
Rich Pierce has already recommended the book For Trade and Treaty by Ryan Gale which is available from Track of the Wolf for about $36..
book-ftat_1.jpg


It's a nice picture book that packs a lot of info in a few pages. The draw back is that it just scratches the surface, but it's a good place to start.

Another good source on Colonial trade guns for only $17.50 is T. M. Hamilton's Colonial Frontier Guns. It's heavy on the archeological record.
book-cfg_1.jpg


To understand early fowlers, their regional variation, and how they compare to trade guns, I would strongly recommend is Tom Grinslade's FLINTLOCK FOWLERS, the First Guns Made in America. It's available from Track for $38.
book-ff_1.jpg


There are some other books I would recommend, but they are out of print and very expensive when you can find them on the second hand market. So if you are really interested in this subject, I suggest you buy the books you want while they are available. The publisher only prints a finite number of copies, and when they are sold, the price jumps up dramatically.

Also I understand that walnut or fruitwood were typical for English tradegun stocks, but would ash or maple wood commonly or ever be used?

The HBC typically ordered their trade guns in walnut or beech. The records often refer to "Dark Colour" or "Brown" for walnut and "Light Colour" or "White" for beech.

Surviving trade guns that are found today in other woods such as ash or maple are thought to be likely candidates for period restocks.
 
I think this Northwest gun may have been restocked:

Powder & Power 1805 Barnett.jpg


The moulding around the lock and the teardrop carvings seem crude, and the wrist looks atypically thick. It also has a "shotgun butt," without the usual baluster. The forend looks sort of squarish, too. I think the stock may be beech, with that "flecky" pattern visible in the close-up image of the serpent, but I'm not convinced. I suppose it could even be birch; if the gun was in fact restocked it was likely done in Canada, and birch may have been available.

I think some of the hardware may have been modified, too. The buttplate looks as if it may have been slightly altered to make the gun easier on the shoulder, with some of the square edges appearing to be somewhat rounded, and the angle of the return at the heel seems to be more gently radiused than normal. The tang screw coming up from the bottom has an odd-looking head, so maybe its a replacement. I don't know what to make of that trigger.

The gun was identified as made by Barnett in 1805. I don't know its whereabouts. This "collage" of photos is from a blog post on the Alberta's Historic Places website: Power & Powder: Early Guns in Alberta

Notchy Bob
 
Early English Trade Guns and Carolina Guns the Same Thing? Or very close to the same thing? If not, what are the ldifferences? This question may have already been answered here somewhere but I cannot find it. Thanks

I highly recommend the new book The Art of the English Trade Gun on North America, by Nathan Bender, published by McFarland & Co. in 2018, still in print. Contains a lot of new information on the origin of English trade gun patterns, from 17th through end of 19th centuries.
 
I highly recommend the new book The Art of the English Trade Gun on North America, by Nathan Bender, published by McFarland & Co. in 2018, still in print. Contains a lot of new information on the origin of English trade gun patterns, from 17th through end of 19th centuries.
Let me be straight with you all, I am the author of this book, Nathan Bender. My original research with primary British documents led to finding the original specifications for English trade guns in 1700, a pattern that was then used for at least the next 50 years, eventually becoming known as Carolina guns. This is described in detail in the first chapter, Light Fusils for the Iroquois.
 
Nothing to ' come clean' over. You have done us all a great service as do all reaserchers who compile such usefull information. You are like them to be commended .
Thank you & Regards ,
Rudyard
 
Let me be straight with you all, I am the author of this book, Nathan Bender. My original research with primary British documents led to finding the original specifications for English trade guns in 1700, a pattern that was then used for at least the next 50 years, eventually becoming known as Carolina guns. This is described in detail in the first chapter, Light Fusils for the Iroquois.
As you are a new member to the Forum, let me welcome you. I do believe you will be able to provide a lot of specific insight to a specialized area of smoothbore utilization during the colonial period. I expect to see facts presented to dispel supposition and speculation. There was a lot of use of trade guns throughout the colonies. Your insight and research will be welcome.
 
Let me be straight with you all, I am the author of this book, Nathan Bender. My original research with primary British documents led to finding the original specifications for English trade guns in 1700, a pattern that was then used for at least the next 50 years, eventually becoming known as Carolina guns. This is described in detail in the first chapter, Light Fusils for the Iroquois.
Welcome, glad to have you here.
Is it available on Amazon? If not, where can we get it?
Any chance of signed copies for forum members?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top