MVTC Tulle Fusil de Chasse (w/Pics)

[Russ T Frizzen]

The existing examples are much lighter due to the fact that that is what the intended market wanted. You couldn't sell a heavy gun to a man who didn't want one. And given the price asked for the gun, you couldn't afford to put in extra metal that was neither needed nor wanted.

 

[FearNot]

Russ - I see what you're saying and I agree; the market drives the production. I guess what I was asking is, if the government (or the colonel or whoever) was buying firearms in lots of 100 or 1,000, would the quality be as high as if the person were buying just one? Or, would the hurry of trying to meet the contract have allowed lesser quality arms to be accepted. I'm certainly no expert, by any means. But when someone says that a firearm is not correct because it weighs 8.5 lbs instead of 8.0 lbs or because the wood along the barrel is 1/8" thicker than expected(I'm exagerating a little here, but you get the idea)I have to wonder if that's true. I guess the question boils down to - how much variation from the "norm" is allowed before the experts consider it to no longer be historically correct? Or do the weight and measurments need to be exactly the same as the original? Not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers. I've learned alot from you and Okwaho, TG, Mike Brooks and others and I really enjoy what all of you have to say; wouldn't be reading this board if I didn't. Mostly just curious.

 

[Mike Brooks]

As far as barrel weights go the HBC was very specific on barrel weights, If I recall correctly they had a 4 ounce range they had to conform too for a certain length of barrel. So, yes the weight of certain guns is pretty critical. In other guns it isn't so important. But, in general, most all the smooth bored guns made today are too heavy in the barrel and stock when compared to the old ones.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

It's like Mike says, there were tolerances: specs that they had to meet. And today, it should be possible to meet those specs easily since we have CNC controlled machinery and the ability to meet closer tolerances. Big outfits like Pedersoli should be popping out perfect copies all day long. But it isn't happening. Instead it is the hand builder still crafting each gun one at a time that is making the light and balanced replica that looks and feels like the real thing. Personally, this suits me fine. A hand made gun looks and feels completely different from a machine made one. In this over-mechanized world, it's nice to know somethings haven't changed.

 

[Okwaho]

Good question on the weight and I will try to answer as to French guns.From 1691-1741 guns for the Ministry de la Marine which had jurisdiction over land troops in New France were primarily purchased from the Tulle manufactury. These included Boucaneer muskets,common and grenadier muskets and hunting muskets. Boucaneer muskets were not as common in Canada as in the West Indies. The common and grenadier muskets were intended for the Compagnies Franche and hunting muskets including the Fusils de chasse were for white use and sometimes as presents for selected Indians usually chiefs.Tulle guns were not trade guns per se and were almost always iron mounted although some were brass mounted especially the Boucaneers. The assembly of Tulle guns was apparently done in a central location in France with many parts such as locks,mounts and the like being done on a cottage manufacturing basis.It is natural that guns especially the hunting muskets would vary somewhat as to appearance and weight.There are numerous cites alluding to the Indian preference for light guns and nowhere is this preference so noticeable as when we consider the fact that English Carolina trade guns were usually 6 lb. or less.
Tom Patton

 

[don1836]

Dave,
Did you ever age or brown yours? Curious to know if you ever 'defarbed' it. I have one on it's way to me.- Don

 

[Dave Markowitz]

Don,

I haven't had the chance to brown/age it yet.

OTH, I did tweak the lock a bit, since the trigger pull was heavy. I carefully thinned one leg of the sear spring, and also slightly shortened it. This reduced the trigger pull quite a bit.

Be careful if you try this, since it's a whole bunch easier to remove metal than it is to add it back. :wink:

 

[rich pierce]

Most fowler barrels available stock are too thick at the muzzle. And they make 1 profile since they are intended for kits then offer them in different gauges or bores. So then the smaller gauge ones are extra heavy at the muzzle. I just ordered a 20 ga, 48" oct to round trade gun barrel from a Kentucky fella and I'll let you know how it comes out.

 

[don1836]

Thanks! That's good info. I prefer a lighter trigger pull as well. I may ask more on that after I check it out. It arrives tommorrow. I'm going to do some searching on this site to learn the best ways to 'defarb' it since I'm hoping to make some F&I events next year.

 

[Okwaho]

An epistle from Mt.Sinai along with the Ten Commandments {My thanks to"Chicken Man Brooks"here} on "defarbing" a Fuzee de chasse from MVTC.First of all unless one is an experienced gun builder about the only changes that should be attempted are the removal of that too bright finish on wood and metal components.While I do have serious issues {see my previous posts}with this gun,I find the same problems on other kits/finished guns.I'm not sure about Early Rustic Arms and I have always liked their guns.I guess I need to talk to Larry here if he is still in business.I haven't seen any custom built Fuzees de chasse so I have no frame of reference.

There is a tremendous difference between the original Fuzees de chasse and the kits and/or finished guns such as the MVTC guns. and if one lays a kit/finished gun along side an original he will be amazed at the differences especially on the Pied de vache butt architecture of an original gun and the kits/finished guns.Original Fuzees de chasse are slim,graceful, and are light yet sturdy guns.I weighed an original gun {Ca.1720's}and with the rammer it weighed 7 lbs.and 2 oz.The other gun now in restoration is slightly smaller in dimensions and I estimate that the finished gun with a 47" barrel will weigh about 7 lbs.or even a little less.

As to using this gun in a F&I setting or any other early setting,I wouldn't worry in the least.First of all only a very very small number of reenactors will know the difference.Unless one has made a study of these guns the differences won't register and this MVTC gun will be fine.Do a refinishing on the metal and wood and I guarantee this gun WILL NOT be questioned by 95% of reenactors.The other 5% will be folks like TG,Chicken Man,Russ,and yours truly. Carry it and use it and after the new shine is gone it will look 100% better

It is not my intention to downgrade guns such as this just for the fun of it but the collector and student in me just have come forth now and again and I try to offer OBJECTIVE criticism.By the way,I am also a reenactor portraying a 17th and early 18th Century {my cut off date is 1763} Mohawk from Quebec allied with the French and the gun I carry from time to time is a French Fuzee Ca.1670.I have thought about cloning my Fuzee de chasse now being restored but that is another project.
As always I welcome serious opposing comments.
Tom Patton :bow: :v :thumbsup:

 

[Mike Brooks]

The sad part of all of this is it would be just as easy for these Indian gun makers to build these right as it is for them to build them wrong. Why somebody doesn't get an original in front of these craftsmen so they can get them properly shaped is beyond me. :youcrazy:

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I stopped by Leonard's shop a couple of days ago and during the visit he showed me a section of the breech from one of these Indian guns.It was actually from a Charlevelle, but the breech wall thickness was more like what you'd find closer to the muzzle, not the robust thickness you would expect at the breech. The threads weren't consistent, starting off okay and fading as they went deeper into the barrel. I can't recall ever seeing anything quite like this before. I will admit to having a mild mistrust of these guns before, but now I really have serious concerns. If this is common practice, it is only a matter of time before some one gets seriously injured. Dan

 

[Okwaho]

Dan,since Charleville was a royal armory and not a distinct model such as Models 1763 and 1766 a large number of which were made in Charleville,which model French musket or contract date Marine musket{ before 1741} did you see ? That's downright scary.That's why I had Ed Rayl rebarrel a heavy dragoon pistol for my son.I don't know who made the gun you saw but I share your concern.

Mike, I don't know why these folks don't make a better copy. In comparing the MVTC Fuzee de chasse it appears to somewhat mirror the TOW pre carve stock and they both use that incorrect double set of wedding rings.One can only wonder.My son wants me to clone an old Fuzee de chasse and build a copy.That's probably a doable project but one I need to ponder on.
Tom Patton :bow: :v :thumbsup:

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Tom, what I saw was just a short piece that had been cut from the breech. I would think that this barrel was made from tubing judging by the wall thickness. I'm not sure which model this was, and given the lack of authenticity in these Indian guns probably wouldn't have been sure even if I'd seen the gun. Dan

 

[don1836]

Any thoughts on how to best 'knock the shine' off my Fuzee? I've heard everything from vinegar to leaving out in the rain. I don't want to necessarily brown it based on other Fuzees I've seen.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Try one of those green Scotch-Brite pan scrubbers. They usually work well. Or Naval jelly will leave it looking a grey color and then you can buff it up a little with 0000 steel wool until you like the look. I did a pistol this way and like it better than the scrubber, but the scrubber is cheaper.

Or you can rub it down with a wet, fouling covered patch when you are cleaning it. That'll do it too.

 

[Okwaho]

Any thoughts on how to best 'knock the shine' off my Fuzee? I've heard everything from vinegar to leaving out in the rain. I don't want to necessarily brown it based on other Fuzees I've seen.

I've never tried to clean up one of these French guns.My own French gun is a Ca.1670 fuzee copied as best we could from the Hannah Dustin gun captured from her Native captor in 1697.It was deliberately made to look as though it were 50 years old since I am rather long in the tooth.RussTFrizzen's suggestions look good and you might try them.I do have a Ca. 1740's English fowling piece by Chris Gilgun that I got from a friend in mint condition.It wasn't heavily finished like the Indian guns so I left it alone. I did the same with the metal and it turned into a nice used grey color.The wood just looks well used and that suits me although I haven't used it for a while.One thought to remember on these French gun imports is that the originals were made from European{French} walnut while the imports are made from who knows what.It is a lot darker than French walnut which has a nice warm honey brown color.
Tom Patton :v :bow:

 

[chuckpa]

Rusty
Was that Mr. Leonard Day's shop where you saw the breech you are talking about?

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

.................

My own French gun is a Ca.1670 fuzee copied as best we could from the Hannah Dustin gun captured from her Native captor in 1697.

I saw that one on the Contemporary Makers Blog and fell in love, it is a beautiful piece of work.

 

[tg]

", but the breech wall thickness was more like what you'd find closer to the muzzle, not the robust thickness you would expect at the breech."

Did there appear to be sufficient thickness to allow enough of the threads of a liner to hold? I had a gun made oct/round from tubing and in was marginal as for having enough meat for threading, these guns may be better off drilled for a plain vent hole.