English/NWT Fusil? for I.D. & Comment

[Extranero]

It is my opinion that you have an American Fur Company trade gun, Belgian made, simulating a Barnett of the HBC.
If it were mine, I would do no "restoration", but would stabilize what is there to prevent future deterioration.
As you are aware, these things are uncommon in any condition, the survival rate being extremely low.

Agreed, that its a great gun and agreed that its likely Belgian. Note the the backwards P in the faux London proof marks. Also, the inspectors mark looks like JA whereas, the English guns produced for AFC were usually stamped IA (I = A in ye olde English). The fact that its likely Belgian and not English does not negatively affect what its worth. As Dick said, AFC NW guns are pretty uncommon. It's a piece I would be proud to own. As far as restoration, I pretty much do nothing to it. Anything you did would probably reduce its value. As it is, the gun tells a story to your hands when you pick it up. Restoration would take away the smell of the campfires and sweaty horse blankets that you feel as though you can smell when you hold it.

Sean

 

[Okwaho]

I agree with Mike, Rod and others.
I
DO NOT RESTORE THIS GUN !!
I have several guns in like condition and have done nothing more than gently wipe the gun with a damp rag and maybe some very mild dish washing detergent.This gun is in great attic condition and VIRTUALLY ANYTHING you do will affect value. As Wes White once said about guns like this ,"YOU CAN CLOSE YOUR EYES AND SMELL THE INDIAN CAMPFIRES".

I have owned several pieces in the condition of this gun and after the gentle wiping I sometimes just gently hand rub the wood with hand and nose grease {natural lanolin}which helps bring back some patina.My old friend Earl Lanning likes to "fondle" an old gun while watching TV.The hand rubbing process cannot be hurried and I only do it to guns I plan on keeping.If I plan on selling then I leave the gun "AS IS" and let the purchaser do what he wants.

I have a Confederate piece in as found condition with baling wire around the forestock just forward of the panel opposite the lock where this gun is missing some wood. It secured the broken sliver and was probably an in the field repair.I wouldn't dream of removing this wire and gluing the wood.

I like the thimbles and they appear to have been done in the English manner with flanges rather than barrel loops which would have secured the barrel not the thimbles.

This a great old gun and one which reeks of history. Good luck with it. :thumbsup: :bow:
Tom Patton

 

[DickS]

I have an Indian gun in close to relic condition. The tip of the forend is gone; the tumbler shank broke, te cock was lost, and being unbridled, the tumbler released the mainspring, which popped a piece of wood out below the lock.
Even in this condition, the gun is collectiible and rare.
It was made by Moxham (1814-1818). It is in the standard Northwest gun configuration, with NWC circle foxes on the lock and barrel. But it is not a NWC trade gun. The proofs are Board of Ordnance marks, and at three places the stock is branded with the I/l\D of the Indian Department of the British Army. It came out of Brant County, Ontario, so would have been a gun given to Brant's Mohawks by the British Government.

 

[DickS]

I'll get some photos of the gun posted after Christmas.

 

[Dphar]

Hello again. I want to thank everyone for their input. I hope to receive additional information on this gun from others as well. I know there are people on this Forum that have forgotton more than I know about NWT Fusils.
Meantime, I was able to purchase this gun!!! It's not in my normal line of collecting, but I could not pass up the opportunity. What a great addition to a collection. There's so much History tied to these guns. Anyway, there's three things I was thinking of doing: 1) The two under lugs on the barrel are missing. Not broke, just missing. Should I have two underlugs soldered on so I can use two pins and get rid of the wire holding the barrel to the stock? 2) The breech plug is not threaded all the way to the breech (see photos above). Should I have this removed and threaded in further? 3) The tumbler is broke off where it meets the mainspring. Should I install a new tumbler (maybe from TRS) or have a new one made?
Or, should I just leave it as-is? OPINIONS PLEASE. Thanks, Rick.

Just leave it alone.
It is what it is, a neat piece of North American history and "improving" it is not necessary or advisable.
Dan

 

[Dphar]

I wonder if the breech plug is set back from firing?
These things were not made from "best iron" after all.
Dan

 

[DickS]

At one time I had a US M1842 musket which had the breechplug turned out one turn, just like this one. It was done so that the hammer would srike the replacement nipple properly. Might be the reason for this here. Once again, I wouldn't "fix" it. Too much chance of doing damage.

 

[rickystl]

Again, I have to thank all of you for your knowledge and input on this thread. It is most appreciated. Dan and Dick: I'll bet your right about that breech plug. Never thought of that.
Thanks to you folks, I will NOT make ANY attempt to restore this gun. I realize how fortunate I was being able to purchase/own it.
An interesting side note: The guy I purchased this from is 62 years old. He only knows that his Grandfather owned the gun. He does know his Family has resided here in the St. Louis, MO area since at least 1850. Makes me wonder if this gun was originally delivered to the St. Louis market area?
Talk about a textbook example of me being able to use the Firearms Research section of the Forum to my advantage. Thank you guys for the great X-Mas present in helping identify this gun. I can't thank you enough. Rick.

 

[DickS]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the gun was not origially sold in the Missouri valley area.
It is a really interesting old gun.
I had occasion to inspect a Wilson gun, 1792, recovered from the land in the area between Rankin Inlet and Chesterfield Inlet, on the west coast of Hudson Bay. It had been carefully slimmed down in the butt, the buttplate being trimmed to fit. It had been smashed, no doubt swumg like a baseball bat, the gun being bent in half behind the breech. Probably had come north from Fort Prince of Wales, at the mouth of the Churchill River. No doubt there was a story, but it is lost to time.

 

[Extranero]

Typing on a smart phone is not my strong point. I meant to say I = J in ye olde English.

Sean

 

[nkmprdstr]

Haven't been on here in a while and missed "laffindog's" comment about the sitting fox on your gun. I've got to go back in my "stuff" (Laffindog can tell how much there is), But the JB in the tombstone with reversed fox was James Bond, supposed to be Edward Bonds son. This would also fit with the apparent build style ie when was it made, being the son was obviously younger.I'll try and find out more of what I have on this if interested.

Dick

 

[rickystl]

Hi Dick. Now that would be interesting if the mark is a JB vs JA. Hmmmm. Any help you can offer is most appreciated. As suggested above, I sent these photos to the Museum of Fur Trade for comment. I'll post when I receive a response.
The gun is being deliverd to me in the next 1 1/2 hours as I write this. Thanks for the comments. Rick.