• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

what constitutes a pc smoothbore?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I'd be very cautious about ordering a custom rifle from any builder that has less than a one year waiting period. Generally there's a reason why he has no work.
 
Hey Mike Brooks, I want to thank you for helping us all get a better handle on these great guns and I'm glad for others that help to keep you interested and focused. It is easy to tell that you have put a great amount of time into this study. I just want to tell you and everyone that I have just read "Founding the American Colonies 1583 * 1660 ", by John E. Pomfret with Floyd M. Shumway. If you are interested it is part of "The New American Nation Series" and this book alone has answered many of my questions about religion and race relations among the imigrants and the Native Americans. It also focuses on the many tenuous conditions of the land patents and the European Empires. Doesn't tell much about the guns but tells a whole lot about the people and the period. Just another piece of the puzzle.Perhaps this should be entered as a new post...I simply don't know how at this point...maybe the moderator could help me out here? Many thanks and happy" Thanksgiving" to Mike and everyone on the FORUM.
 
Mike
Like you I don't know where the "O'Conner" gun fits in as far as NW guns are concerned. The trigger guard on the O'Conner gun as well as another original I had the opportunity to handle look deeper in the bow than a regular guard but not quite as exaggerated as the bows on the later NW guns, but maybe I'm not seeing it correctly.

The other gun that I examined had a 48" barrel while the O'Conner gun is a little over 45" as I recall. It did not have the two piece stock feature that the O'Conner gun has but Hamilton noted that the stock was probably damaged when the barrel blew out on the O'Conner gun.
These guns both exhibit features used on the later NW guns, such as the iron guard and brass butt plates, but they also differ in that the butt plates are heavier brass castings rather than sheet brass and in the very French style architecture of the butt stocks. Hamilton states that this style of English gun shows up shortly after the F&I war to appeal to the indians who where familiar with the French style guns.
Now just to muddy up the waters even more there is an English trade gun in the collection of the Ohio Historical Society that has all the elements of the NW trade guns including the flat sheet brass butt plate held on to the stock by eight square headed nails. The trigger guard is identical to two previous guards. The butt stock architecture has the more typical straight lines of the comb and toe. This whole gun is very light, almost dainty, even by NW guns standards. This gun is marked "Wilson" on the lock and "London" and "P.W." on the barrel, there are engraved script initials on the top of the heel extension "PW". At the time I examined this gun John Barsotti of the O.H.S. felt that the initials were of Peter Wilson who he said worked in London in the 1770s and early 1780s. At this point maybe Hamilton is correct in his assesment that the O'Conner gun is a higher grade of gun given to chiefs and exceptional warriors while the gun in the O.H.S. collection represents the more common style traded to the indians during the Revolutionary War period.

Regards, Dave
 
Gotta agree with everything you said Dave. Most early period english trade guns and "Carolina" guns I've handled have barrels right at the 48" length.
I'm not sure if we'll ever untangle exactly where these existing guns fit into the puzzle for sure, I guess that's part of what makes these early english and French guns so interesting. :hatsoff:
 
Maybe we're talking about the same gun in the OHS collection. May have been marked Wilson instead of Wheeler unless they have more than one. What impressed me is this gun was a lot like the Sandwell in architecture (french sweep to the butt) except the OHS gun didn't have the cupped bow on the TG. One other thing, it was almost all original hardware except for the forward ram pipe. It had been replaced by an octagon longrifle pipe. The last I knew it was on display at the Piqua John Johnston Farm Museum.Really neat gun.
Don
 
I've read all the posts and they were very informative.I agree that the origin of these North West guns is rather murky.I suggest that those interested in these guns consider two publications by S.James Gooding. The first is an article by him in"The Canadian Journal of Arms Collecting" Vol.13 No. 3, "Trade Guns of The Hudson's Bay Company 1670-1700 which was later expanded into his recent book,of the same title published in 2003.He makes a strong case for the proposition that the North West Gun derives from the Hudson's Bay guns although to date there are apparently no known 17th century HBCo specimens known. He does show a very early gun with an "English" lock with what appear to be Snaphaunce internals and a dog catch.The gun has no HBCo markings but it is marked on the inside of the lock plate with what was probably a crown over the initials "EI". The markings have not been positively identified but these are the initials of Edward Ireland who was one of the gunsmiths when "snaphans" muskets were ordered in 1674.,Gooding P.38
On PP 54-57 he illustrates and describes the earliest NW gun known to him,.The gun is restocked{ Ca.mid 18th century}but was made and signed "Williams"either John { first HBC contract 1715,d.1731 widow Elizabeth contract Ca.1735} or his son Thomas{ first HBC contract 1738 d.1738 His widow Ann continued the business but her last contract was in 1735.The gun is typically North West in mountings with mixed iron and brass.The guard is the large type and the lock plate is flat.The 48" barrel in addition to the early tombstone fox is marked with the view and proof marks of the London Gunmakers'Company and the maker's mark of Richard Wilson whose proof piece was presented and his mark granted in 1730.Each of these features suggest a a contract date between 1741 and 1745 when Ann Williams was running the business.The anomaly is the present side plate {one half scaled serpent}which Gooding suspected would have been used after 1750 and which was probably installed when the gun was restocked and the third lock bolt eliminated.

Gooding also partially illustrates {P.56} but does not describe a gun in the Museum of the Fur Trade collection which has a long thin wrist, a standard size guard,,scaled serpent side plate,and a three screw round face lock.The name Richard Wilson is engraved on the tail of the lock with his name and the date "51'{1751} and stamped in front of the cock with the early tombstone fox.Then there is the Rock Island{Lake Michigan}site gun found in burial No. 4.This is a complete gun signed Wilson on the lock along with "a small animal in cartouche"and dated 62{1762}. The gun has mixed iron and brass furniture.The side plate, butt piece, and ferrules are brass and the rest is iron. The barrel is octagon to round 41 5/8" long.The lock is a three screw version and the guard is fairly large but it has been bent and this makes it difficult to determine the size.The butt piece has 9 square punched attachment holes and has been fastened to the stock by means of square-sectioned iron pegs.The entire barrel,guard, and lock were heavily painted or dusted with vermillion.This is the gun to which Mike referred.

Here we have three guns of the type generally considered to be North West guns ranging in date from Ca.1741-45 to 1751 and 1762.We also have a possible Hudson's Bay Company gun from possibly Ca.1674 or a time difference of about 67 years at the least.We are getting closer to the answer as to when the North West gun appears in it's fully developed form.Now let's keep digging and in the meantime,I heartily recommend Jim's books on these guns.
Tom Patton :thumbsup: :hatsoff: :hmm:
 
Good post Tom, I kind of look at it as we have good info as to when the NW gun came about in its final form/forms but are searching for what it looked like at different periods of its evolution, as it was definitly around and called a NW gun by at least the mid 18th century probably earlier, finding what this gun looked like at different periods of time seems to be the goal as many want to use it for personas but nothing is available for the pre rev-war period.the roots are undoubtedly linked to the HBC.
 
Okwaho
Great post! A lot of information, you have obviously done a lot of research.
Thanks for sharing.

Regards, Dave
 
Well, that pushes the date back a few more years for the handle," Northwest Gun". Anybody find any pictures of what these guns may have looked like from decade to decade? Hamilton's book is the most definitive thus far as much as I can tell. But, the evolution of the North West Trade Gun is not discussed much.
Don
 
Back
Top