• 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

Trade gun photos please....

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Here's my Wilson fusil by Caywood Gunmakers. I've had it for something like 20 years now. It's the first gun I built.
100_0991.jpg
 
One of my newer acquisitions is a vintage contemporary NW Trade Guns built by Michael Hayes in Feb 1979.



IMG_3223_low_res.jpg

IMG_3227_low_res.jpg


This represents a W. Chance & Son trade gun from the early 1840's. The lock was assembled from a parts set sold by Doc Carlson at Upper Missouri Trading Co.



Note how little wood was left around the lock, and that there is no beaver tail at the back of the panels.

In addition to the lock, it has the later style finials on the trigger guard, the barrel tang held by a wood screw in the stock, and the butt plate is held on with screws rather than square nails. All traits consistent with later trade guns.



The front bolt on the trigger guard screws into the bottom of the breech plug lug, providing an additional method of securing the breech to the stock. A more common method has a tang bolt passing through the front of the trigger guard and screwing into the barrel tang, thus dispensing with the wood screw in the tang.

I'm not sure this technique was used on trade guns, but some higher quality English guns were built with similar technique.

Mr. Hayes took a belt and suspenders approach to securing the barrel since the lock bolt also passes through the plug lug.



This is a well built and historically accurate NW Trade Gun that was built early in Mr. Hayes' career.
 
I'm not sure this technique was used on trade guns, but some higher quality English guns were built with similar technique.

One bolt going up and one bolt going down to secure the trigger plate is a historically correct method. There is an example across the road at the UBC Museum of Anthropology (photos available on line- contact currator for alternate angles). Cannot recall the maker but it has a flat lock.

Mtn Meek, Wow you scored big time getting that musket, Mr Hayes really knew his bussiness, perfection.

Skychief if you have any interest in Trade guns the best 100 bucks you'll ever spend is for the Museum of the Fur trade book. Early dutch to late HBC and beyond.
 
On the Subject of TRADE Guns.
It was my understanding that trade guns were made with the intention of exchanging them for piles of fur from the Indians. A pile of fur that were so many feet thick for a trade gun which was always a smooth bore. I had been given the impression that these guns were generally of minimum quality just enough there to perform as a shooting piece.
Not cheating the Indians had apparently never occurred to anyone. . I understood that the Hudsons Bay Company pretty much was founded on this practice.



How far off reality I might be is of interest to me if that is the case
Any correction of my errors would be appreciated if expressed briefly

Dutch
 
Dutch,

I do not do brief so bear with me. Your (understandable) impression of relationships between whites and natives in NA and the quality of arms traded amongst them. The only time we see real garbage and a real effort to be unfair is when we look at late period arms made for the USA gov. trade with natives. shody imported barrels- soft locks etc. Most of the records of how crappy those guns were come from the complaint letters sent by contractors who failed to recieve contracts because they would not compete with the lowest common denominator and destroy thier reputation amongst the natives. hmmm worrying about reputation amongst the natives. pretty telling. Take a look/read at the book I mentioned above and judge for your self.
Aside from the landless masses who came late to the NA party and the realestate speculators who encouraged them most of us were more interested in getting along and mutually benefiting one another then trying to make a quick buck on US made muskets, whiskey and stolen land.

No one ever burnt Sara Wells- Bull's house


:wink: :wink: :wink:
 
Dutch Schoultz said:
On the Subject of TRADE Guns.
It was my understanding that trade guns were made with the intention of exchanging them for piles of fur from the Indians. A pile of fur that were so many feet thick for a trade gun which was always a smooth bore. I had been given the impression that these guns were generally of minimum quality just enough there to perform as a shooting piece.

Not cheating the Indians had apparently never occurred to anyone. I understood that the Hudsons Bay Company pretty much was founded on this practice.

How far off reality I might be is of interest to me if that is the case
Any correction of my errors would be appreciated if expressed briefly

Dutch

Dutch,

As I'm sure you are aware, there are a lot of myths surrounding early North American history. The fur trade has its share as well as the Old West.

To quote James Hanson from When Skins Were Money: A History Of The Fur Trade,

Otherwise sensible professors teach their student that the guns the Indian bought didn't really work, but were carried by chiefs as "symbols of office". Parents tell their children that the reason trade gun barrels are so long was because the Indian had to stack furs as high as the gun to buy it. Neither of the claims is true.

As ddoyle said, trade between Europeans and Indians was generally mutually beneficial.

The Indians also had minimum standards of quality that they considered acceptable in trade goods. Fur trade companies often ordered trade guns of different quality to meet their customers expectations. Surviving documentation often lists trade guns, common fowlers, and high quality fowlers or what we call today "Chief's guns" in orders place by fur trade companies. The prices listed for each of these guns reflect their relative quality. The Indian trader often had a choice of gun and generally got the quality he was willing to pay for.

S. James Gooding's book, Trade Guns Of The Hudson's Bay Company 1670-1970, contains references of correspondence where Indians complained that certain trade guns were too bulky and heavy. They wanted a weapon that was light and easy to carry. When the HBC did ship poor quality guns, they were often rejected by the Indians and had to be returned to England.

The Indians expectations on the quality of a gun was likely influenced by the useful life of the gun. Today, we expect a gun to last a lifetime or multiple lifetimes if the gun is passed down through generations. Scholars have estimated that Indian guns only lasted a few years.

David J. Silverman in Thundersticks estimates that the Indians the French were trading with in the mid-18th century were replacing their guns every three or four years. Lee Burke in his article, "18th Century English Trade Guns in the South, or The Carolina Gun, It's Time and Place in History", gives a maximum gun life of 5 years as a reasonable cutoff.

To the Indian, a gun was a tool, not an heirloom. He only expected it to last a few years under the hard usage he gave it and accepted a "fit for purpose" quality.
 
Somewhere I read a letter from I believe, the HBC to a gun supplier in England giving the details of the guns they wanted.

It stressed several things that it did not want saying words to the effect of, "The Indians refuse to buy cheap, poorly made guns..."
 
Traders and factors soon learned that the Native warriors took pride in their acquired trade guns. They could, in fact, be very picky about clumsy stocks, weak springs in the locks or poorly finished stocks. In 1832 the American Fur Company's St. Louis agent complained of two piece stocks which looked fine when new but with wear this imperfection became obvious, concluding with "...and very often the Indians bring them back to be exchanged for better, or those who have them on credit will not pay for them." Acceptance or refusal could hinge on things as trivial as the serpent side plate or tombstone fox stamping. Certain criteria had to be met! Hudson's bay Company had already refused non-browned barrels by 1780 and the U.S. Office of Indian Trade had required blued barrels as early as 1808...much earlier than previously thought.
 
Hello all. Since the originator of this Thread was looking for pics of Trade guns, I thought I would re-post a couple photos here. I posted this gun here on the Forum about 5-6 years ago. I bought this from a co-worker who had no idea what it was. While not in my area of collecting, I knew enough of what I was looking at to know I had to have it. LOL With the gracious help of others much more knowledgeable on this Forum, we were able to determine this gun is actually a Belgium copy of an English NWT fusil.
The barrel is 36" long and about 20 guage. The lock was converted to percussion (darn) and is marked Barnett 1836. It's in rough shape and was probably used all the way up till the tumbler broke. Hard to believe the only thing missing is the ramrod.
Anyway, just thought some of you who had not seen my original post from years ago might like to view it. I'm still the proud owner and it has a special place in my collection.

Rick





 
HBC specified that the Belgian made trade guns had locks marked "Barnett", there had been a few problems with the Belgian guns and this may have been a way to pull the wool over many eyes! :wink:
 
Indians were very picky about what the bought. And styles changed overnight. Large fat pony beads went out of style poof, and traders were stuck with barrels of pony beads, by way of example.
Barrels had to pass the same proof test as every other gun. Locks were large but functional and as least as well made as musket locks. The trade depended on the on the Indians being satisfied with the trade and they did not look kindly on being cheated. Traders that attempted cheating soon paid the price. One year a trader in the great lakes sold silver plated pieces as trade silver. The thin silver plate quicky rubbed off. The next year the Indians traded baskets full of maple sugar. He then passed it on to the army at Detroit. Only to loose his shirt as the sugar were baskets of sand with a thin layer of sugar on top.
Early English trade fusils ha to be made to look French styling, as that's what the buyers wanted. The dutch club butts persisted in trade long after they had went out of style because the buyers wanted them.
Its worth noting that inspite of Indian victories over English troops during the F&I did not result in much use of English muskets by the French allied Indians. The archeological sights are devoid of English muskets.
they were savy traders, and a trade system that sold parrot feathers from the Yucatan into the great lakes and obsidian from the northwest in to Flordia was not going to accept manure from euopeans because it was shinny.
 
The myth about piling up beaver skins to the top of the barrel to purchase the trade gun has been dispelled in more than one book or article, including Colonial Frontier Guns by T.M. Hamilton.

Hamilton notes that by the early 18th century, British Trade Guns were far more popular with most (though not all) of the tribes than French guns, as the British guns were better quality.

What kept the French "in business" so much until the FIW was the fact that though the guns were often traded or sold by the British, it was far easier to bring powder and especially "shot" (or bullets and shot as we would call them today) up the Mississippi River from New Orleans and then up other rivers into the old Northwest Territory. British/British American traders could not bring that kind of quantity of powder, lead and shot over the eastern mountains on horses or mules.

The Tribes nearest to the French "Mississippi River and other Rivers" Trade Route for powder and lead often used French guns because they could get them cheaper from the French, plus the supplies to shoot them.

Gus
 
I honestly think this myth came out when people started seeing the ”˜Hudson valley fowlers’ and attempted to explain those.
Looking at trade guns we see barrel leaghth followed general styles of the time.
 
Back
Top