Officers fusil?

[Capt. Jas.]

Tatonka, the hardware's style characteristics date earlier to higher end, latest trend guns but are common on cheaper end guns late in the century. An example of trends would be seen by looking at the serpent side plate and tang screw running up thru the bottom to the top. These characteristics could be found on some high class guns very very early yet they remained on trade guns long after they had disappeared on better guns. Matter of fact they continued for well over a hundred years on low end firearms.

 

[Tatonka]

Well - now this is getting interesting...

Tatonka - does yours have the "Rectangular Washer" forward of the trigger like the Weapon on the Link?

E

The rectangular washer is there. But it doesn't have the bolt/screw protruding from it like the Thayer gun. These two guns have different triggers. Thayer notes that the trigger on his gun is backwards and somewhat improvised.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I found one source that put the side lock circa 1720.

:shocked2: You gotta be kidding.....
If you are a long time collector and already have all these english books you should easily be able to find the info you're looking for and I won't have to spend hours looking up the information for you. :thumbsup:

 

[Tatonka]

I found one source that put the side lock circa 1720.

:shocked2: You gotta be kidding.....
If you are a long time collector and already have all these english books you should easily be able to find the info you're looking for and I won't have to spend hours looking up the information for you. :thumbsup:

I was quoting Thayer:

The "Dragon" side-plate maybe the oldest part of the gun. (Gooding, S.J., 2006, TradeGuns of the Hudson’s Bay Company, Museum Restoration Service, Alexandria bay, NY) It dates c. 1720.

I never claimed to collect English guns though I do have a large amount of books on all types of guns and would have appreciated even the smallest bit of help in pointing me in the right direction.

You know you are pretty smug for a gunmaker who has an inventory of unsold guns in the thousand dollar range. :thumbsup: You could have easily made a friend and potentially a customer by just being a friendly person. He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere.

 

[Mike Brooks]

You know you are pretty smug for a gunmaker who has an inventory of unsold guns in the thousand dollar range

Usually several thousand dollars, I don't build thousand dollar guns.... :wink:
So, I'm smug because you won't take some of the most knowledgeable people in the field's advice on what you have..... :idunno:
You have already been given direction, now uncover your ears and do some research. It's not up to me to hold your hand along the way.
BTW, "smug" is a rather mild word describing me on this board. :haha:

 

[Stumpkiller]

BTW, "smug" is a rather mild word describing me on this board.

I gotta say "smug" is not the first word that comes to mind. :rotf: But it does have four letters. :thumbsup:

I'd rather talk to someone with strong opinions than chew cud with some sheep. Defending an opinion tells you whether it's worth keeping or not; and challenging one sharpens your own knowledge.

I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them.

George H. W. Bush

:wink:

 

[Okwaho]

I'll take a stab at it. Looks like a very well done restock of a post rev war english export grade fowling gun. The engraving on the buttplate leads me to believe the late date. Got a better picture of the lock?

I guess I should jump in here. I agree with Mike and Joe as to this gun.It has all the earmarks of those cheap British export trade guns of the post revolutionary period. It was undoubtedly restocked in America or it was a stocking up using older parts.In any event the period 1790-1830 seems likely.The cut back butt piece with the pin through the butt just below the comb and the late replacement lock as well as the curley maple stock wood suggest the American restocking/stocking. As Mike has suggested the removal of the barrel would show the new pin placements but if I am correct the forestock holes would be new.As to the "officer's fusil" term, an "officer's fusil" was any fusil carried by officers who purchased their own guns. I agree with Joe as to the sling/bayonet stud on a fusil carried by an officer and I would be interested in the caliber since the British carbine bore was 0.65 cal.and an export gun would likely have a smaller caliber.I also wonder why the barrel was cut back,perhaps that is why there is no bayonet stud.


As to the rather far fetched scenario involving the capture of the gun by a British officer from an Indian after a battle "near Quebec". The last major battle there was the Battle of The Plains of Abraham in 1759 where both commanding Generals were killed.Any Indians present on the French side would likely have been carrying French fusils probably Fusils de traite or de chasse.

I began collecting and studying Kentucky rifles with my first purchase of one about 1962 and still have one but now concentrate on trade guns primarily French and Ligeoise with some interest in British Carolina guns.I read the poster's comments about and to Joe Puleo and Mike Brooks two people whose statements and comments I hold in extremely high regard.I find his comments directed towards Joe and Mike as well as those who agreed with them to be extremely childish and distasteful.

As always I welcome "RESPONSIBLE" opposing comment. :nono: :hmm:
Tom Patton

 

[Stumpkiller]

Mike is on my "bestest guy" list (in fact, he's hopefully chipping away at my fowler at present). Though his chickens are meaner than mine.

JW Puelo should also freely shrug off anything I may have said that he disagrees with. My point being more that a fusil was an officer's choice, and whether he wanted a full or tiny bayonet (I have seen little 5" blade attachments (what Kit Ravenshear called "dainty bayonets") or none at all was his choice.

So whether the fusil of this thread was an officers' or a militia soldiers, or an agglomeration of assorted parts depends on the provedence of the weapon and it would be hard to stick a dart in the correct answer in from the distance time has placed between events.

Hadn't thought about the possibility of a cut back muzzle as Tom suggested. Another excellent possibility. (As might be that the last stocker - whenever that occurred - added the design on the buttplate to tie it to the sideplate - or added the design to both pieces at that time).

 

[rabjr]

"Mike is on my "bestest guy" list (in fact, he's hopefully chipping away at my fowler at present)."

No! No! No! Get inline! Mine firstest! :haha: :thumbsup:

 

[Stumpkiller]

Nah. You can settle for one of those $1,000 "off the rack" jobs that he keeps for walk-ins. :rotf: :rotf:


(Surprised our edit software let you slip that "get inline" comment in). :haha:

 

[rabjr]

Bah! Don't think that even covers the parts I sent him!! :nono:

 

[Tatonka]

If both Mr. Brooks and Puleo are so knowledgeable, which I don't doubt that they are, why can't they support their claims by pointing to at least one published example? After all, Mr. Brooks claimed that all I needed were books on English guns. Both of them are the ones who ganged up on me from the beginning and made conclusory statements without support. Instead of trying to help, they disparaged my gun and my "wishful thinking". I was innocently sharing this gun with others who I thought would appreciate it and also requesting information. I really didn't think I would be attacked by a gang of bullies.

Count this as the last time that I ever share anything or ask for help here. I found more information on Google than was ever offered to me by the experts here. The information I found from Mr. Thayer does contradict what both Mr. Puleo and Mr. Brooks said, although admittedly it did not support my "wishful thinking" theory. Mr. Thayer actually does collect and publish his research. Does Mr. Brooks? Or does he just build (excuse me) $2,000 range fowlers? I'm not disparaging his work in any way, I think it is quite good, but it doesn't itself qualify him in my mind to unquestioned respect. If I am supposed to accept his undocumented opinion as fact, then his credentials are fair game. He is a gun maker, he relies on seeing the collections of others, and reviewing books and publications. You would think he would be able to point me in the right direction. As for Mr. Puleo, doesn't his profession require sources and documentation? The fact that he wouldn't at least give one helpful citation or source speaks to the fact that he was acting maliciously towards me rather than trying to assist. I don't care who he is, if he can't be friendly and helpful to others then he is just another grumpy old man with an opinion.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

If both Mr. Brooks and Puleo are so knowledgeable, which I don't doubt that they are, why can't they support their claims by pointing to at least one published example? After all, Mr. Brooks claimed that all I needed were books on English guns. Both of them are the ones who ganged up on me from the beginning and made conclusory statements without support. Instead of trying to help, they disparaged my gun and my "wishful thinking". I was innocently sharing this gun with others who I thought would appreciate it and also requesting information. I really didn't think I would be attacked by a gang of bullies.

Count this as the last time that I ever share anything or ask for help here. I found more information on Google than was ever offered to me by the experts here. The information I found from Mr. Thayer does contradict what both Mr. Puleo and Mr. Brooks said, although admittedly it did not support my "wishful thinking" theory. Mr. Thayer actually does collect and publish his research. Does Mr. Brooks? Or does he just build (excuse me) $2,000 range fowlers? I'm not disparaging his work in any way, I think it is quite good, but it doesn't itself qualify him in my mind to unquestioned respect. If I am supposed to accept his undocumented opinion as fact, then his credentials are fair game. He is a gun maker, he relies on seeing the collections of others, and reviewing books and publications. You would think he would be able to point me in the right direction. As for Mr. Puleo, doesn't his profession require sources and documentation? The fact that he wouldn't at least give one helpful citation or source speaks to the fact that he was acting maliciously towards me rather than trying to assist. I don't care who he is, if he can't be friendly and helpful to others then he is just another grumpy old man with an opinion.

Oh boy...... :shake:

 

[Mike Brooks]

Though his chickens are meaner than mine.

All my mean chickens got turned into coon poop before I left Davenport, not a game chicken on the place. :shake: In fact, I think I have more turkeys than chickens at the moment. :shocked2:
You two fellas are next on the list, and Swampy, I just got the early french mounts for your gun the other day. Both of your stocks are getting their barrels inlet at the moment.....so, I'm working on a HVF with a 72" barrel to pass the time...
Guess I got off topic, sorry. :redface:

 

[Mike Brooks]

If both Mr. Brooks and Puleo are so knowledgeable, which I don't doubt that they are, why can't they support their claims by pointing to at least one published example? After all, Mr. Brooks claimed that all I needed were books on English guns. Both of them are the ones who ganged up on me from the beginning and made conclusory statements without support. Instead of trying to help, they disparaged my gun and my "wishful thinking". I was innocently sharing this gun with others who I thought would appreciate it and also requesting information. I really didn't think I would be attacked by a gang of bullies.

Count this as the last time that I ever share anything or ask for help here. I found more information on Google than was ever offered to me by the experts here. The information I found from Mr. Thayer does contradict what both Mr. Puleo and Mr. Brooks said, although admittedly it did not support my "wishful thinking" theory. Mr. Thayer actually does collect and publish his research. Does Mr. Brooks? Or does he just build (excuse me) $2,000 range fowlers? I'm not disparaging his work in any way, I think it is quite good, but it doesn't itself qualify him in my mind to unquestioned respect. If I am supposed to accept his undocumented opinion as fact, then his credentials are fair game. He is a gun maker, he relies on seeing the collections of others, and reviewing books and publications. You would think he would be able to point me in the right direction. As for Mr. Puleo, doesn't his profession require sources and documentation? The fact that he wouldn't at least give one helpful citation or source speaks to the fact that he was acting maliciously towards me rather than trying to assist. I don't care who he is, if he can't be friendly and helpful to others then he is just another grumpy old man with an opinion.

Credentials? 30+ years studying mainly 18th century fowling guns. I have owned many and still retain a small collection of them. I was hired a few years ago on my credentials by the largest gun auction house in existance as their antique arms expert and description writer.
If you don't like the opinions of those that offered them for free, then go else where untill you get an opinion that will agree with what you want to hear. No skin off my butt if you don't like what you are hearing about your gun . If I were you I'd listen to Joe P., he's probably the best sourrce for information on these guns in the states,or any where else for that matter.

 

[Tatonka]

That doesn't change the fact that neither you nor he has offered one shred of documentation for your opinions. What am I supposed to use as documentation? "Two guys on the internet told me X?" I found information on my own, which was different from what I was told, except for the stocking date of approximately 1790's, from someone who is a college professor, a KRA member, and a highly respected source based on his credentials. Yet you want me to disregard that merely because you have been building guns for 30 years? Or because Mr. Puleo edits a gun collecting magazine? I do respect those credentials, and I'm not saying that I equal them in any way. However, I requested some sort of published or comparable documentation. You either can't give it to me, or refuse to give it to me. Either way I suppose this horse has been beaten to death and this thread is now truly pointless.

 

[matt denison]

This thread is soooo interesting in so many ways.

Puleo, Patten, Brooks. They've given an opinion on your gun and you should be thankfull. Where else can you get that amount of knowledge for free? And, I might add, they pretty much agree in their assessment of the gun. I happen to agree with them too, not based so much on their credentials but because I came up with the same assessment on my own feeble knowledge.

You said: "You either can't give it to me, or refuse to give it to me."

Well, to be honest, I "refuse" to give it to you, but for a FEE I would be glad to spend the time to peruse my library and post pictures to your e-mail and write a nice letter for you documenting hardware and dates of manufacture etc. In the meantime you have to be happy with expert opinions on an internet forum. You're getting a Heck of a bargain, mister. I, for one, have learned some things from this thread from some of the most knowledgable guys in the field. I suggest that you go back through the complete thread, re read it, log it.

Matt Denison

 

[Okwaho]

I have collected about 2 dozen original images of officers with fuzees... all paintings of the period. Every last one of them shows both a bayonet and a sling.

The fuzee, in itself, makes no sense without a bayonet. They weren't carrying them to shoot pigeons. They served as a more effective weapon than a spontoon in a melee. Without a bayonet they would have been less useful than a spear.

See an excellent example of a high quality silver mounted officers fusil with its probable original sling made by John Fox Twigg with hall marks used in 1777-1178. Fox is known to have to have worked in London between 1755 and 1788 and died in 1790.It has a bayonet stud under the barrel.
George D. Moller,AMERICAN MILITARY SHOULDER ARMS;Vol.1:Colonial and Revolutionary War Arms,PP: 243-246

This gun was doubtless owned by a high ranking officer and among other hallmarked ornamentations has a family crest.It should be noted that the mounts of these British fowling pieces aa well as those fusils intended for military use were mounted in three grades,the top grade being silver,the next and more frequently found were mounted in finely designed,forged and filed iron with many sideplates being foliated. and the last and lowest grade of mounts were brass which could be poured by journeymen and/or apprentices before final finishing.
Tom Patton

 

[Tatonka]

I think that's the difference between the collecting world that I'm in and the one that they are in. I am used to research and knowledge being shared. That's the difference between collectors and dealers/gunmakers. Some are in it to make a living, and some are in it to learn and have fun. I obviously misunderstood the "firearms research" portion of TMF.

I still think it's ironic that I found highly specific information about an almost identical gun from a Google search. I am being told to be thankful of what I received here? Just look at all the great information which was out there that I was not told here.

 

[Tatonka]

Thank you. I do appreciate that. I do agree that pretty much every officer's fusil I have seen published has a bayonet lug and cutback. The more I learn and look at the gun, the more I am convinced that it was a native-used gun. Almost every native-used trade gun I have come across has been literally beat to hell and converted to percussion. They also have numerous field-type or jury-rigged repairs. This gun seems consistent with heavy native use. I just wonder how it ended up where it ended up. The man who supposedly owned it was documented as owing other guns as well. Maybe he collected it, or maybe a later family member collected it. Or maybe it was a war trophy from the war of 1812 or thereafter. I hope it's okay if I have an opinion. :v