Who builds the best Tulle fusil de chasse

[Russ T Frizzen]

The original poster asked which builder produces the most authentic fusil de chasse. Most of the responses reflect that caveat and rightly so. In my experience, it is not the folks who value historic accuracy that do the crying--quite the opposite in fact.

 

I always enjoy these "p.c". debates whether it be about guns of any type, blanket colors or patterns , bags etc. I like to think of it this way. If you took your maple stocked gun and an olive drab army blanket and went back in time to Colonial America I bet the Militia wouldn't stop you from going along for the fight and the Indian that killed you wouldn't think twice about liberating both your gun and blanket if given the chance. Yep, I can just hear him now, "uhg, maple gun no good medicine, me no use!" What is all this talk about making up a scenario to cover why your gun isn't just as it shoud be. If I'm sleeping under a wool blanket next to a fire how am I somehow less than the next guy just cause his banket is a different color. It's all fine to know the history of the period but you aint never going back. Get the best equipment you can afford and have fun with it. Cause in the end that's all it is, is fun.

 

my point was to get the guy to research the gun he wnated, and then make the right choices.

Excuse me, but his question was, " "In your opinion" who builds the "best" fusil de chasse. I define "best" as most authentic, most accurate..."

He was asking for our opinions of "authenticity" and that's what he got.

Your responce, "there are alot of people on this site who will tell you what they think is authentic (pc)my advice to you is to do some research on the type of fusil "you" would like", was comparable to telling him to disregard the opinons of the learned peole on the forum and do his own research. Why do you think the forum is here? :shake:

we can`t all be pc or you guys would not have anything to cry about.
cut finger :blah: :blah:

No "we" can't, but some try, whereas others just make excuses to justify there choices.

P.S. So, what's your name, "Cut Finger" or "Gemoke"? Identity crisis? :haha:

 

[tg]

"The original poster asked which builder produces the most authentic fusil de chasse. Most of the responses reflect that caveat and rightly so. In my experience, it is not the folks who value historic accuracy that do the crying--quite the opposite in fact."

Good post Russ, usually it is those who have no interest in PC or history who jump into a post that started as a "what is historicaly correct theme" amd start PC bashing...and I will second the tresearch recomendation but do not use builders (with a very few exceptions" as sources of accurate info IE ...any who offer a fusil with 41" barrel maple stock and the wrong lock or a bio about fusil fin or ordinare or Tulle trade gun that is contrary to what the accepted research by folks such as Bouchard, Lenk, Hamilton Ravenshear and a few others should be dismissed.

 

[Cruzatte]

.any who offer a fusil with 41" barrel maple stock and the wrong lock or a bio about fusil fin or ordinare or Tulle trade gun that is contrary to what the accepted research by folks such as Bouchard, Lenk, Hamilton Ravenshear and a few others should be dismissed.

I have heard of Hamilton, I have his book "Colonial Frontier Guns." And I've heard of Ravenshear. But Bouchard and Lenk are new names to me. Can anyone pass along article or book titles by Ravenshear, Bouchard, and Lenk, please? This is a fascinating subject, and I'd like to learn a little more. Thanks in advance,
Cruzatte

 

If I'm sleeping under a wool blanket next to a fire how am I somehow less than the next guy just cause his banket is a different color. It's all fine to know the history of the period but you aint never going back. Get the best equipment you can afford and have fun with it. Cause in the end that's all it is, is fun.

What does that have to do with this discussion. The question was about authenticity. Not about having fun or comparing people's gear.

It wasn't about being PC until someone warned us about the "PC" people's opinions. It's always the anti-PC crowd that raises this issue, even when the initial question asked about authenticity.

Why is it so difficult for the anti-PC people to just stay out of it if they have no interest? I see far more people trying to combat the search for knowledge than I do people trying to convince others to be PC. It's the people who are anti-research that are the Nazis.

 

[benvenuto]

Russel Bouchard, "the Fusil de Tulle in New France 1691-1741"Museum restoration Services, 1998 ISBN 0 919316 36 0
Its only 48 pages but a very information packed book.

Torsten Lenk, "The Flintlock: Its origin and developement"
amazon link

 

Don't misunderstamd me Dale, I'm not against those who want to be "correct" just that this like so many other topics in society has experts with opinions on differnt sides of the issue. I only express my opinion to potentialy give pharmvet something else to think about. Yes he did ask for opinions incuding authenticity. But, if we get caught up in the authenticty of the hobby when is enough enough? Does my char cloth not pass muster because it was made from an old t-shirt and t-shirts weren't around in the 1700's That's a far fetched example but you see where I'm going. I have learned alot on this site from people who most probably are very correct in their approach. But as pharmvet is most likey new to this hobbey as I am (judging from the number of posts) I wanted to ask is this necassarily the direction he wants to go?

 

just to finish my thought after re-reading the initial post. There was more to his question than authenticity. He asked about accuracy and fit/finish but all he got so far was about authenticity". Like I said there is more to it than that.

 

just to finish my thought after re-reading the initial post. There was more to his question than authenticity. He asked about accuracy and fit/finish but all he got so far was about authenticity". Like I said there is more to it than that.

It doesn't take any more experimentation at the range to make a totally authentic smoothbore shoot accurately than a factory gun. They can both be made to shoot accurately. As far as fit and finish, I would go with a maker you trust and whose work you admire. Level of authenticity is up to the individual, but, one cannot make a informed decision without looking at all the angles and being informed of all the options. :winking:

 

[rich pierce]

The question was about a specific "model" of gun, if you will. Not about a generic smoothbore. When it's about a specific model, I think that authenticity does matter. For example, if I wanted a replica 1873 Winchester, I'd not consider one with a blonde finished birch stock and a brass lever, chambered for a .38 special, to be the "best" copy available, regardless of how well it works and shoots, fit and finish, durability and accuracy. It's that simple. When a maker offers a "model" I'd hope they would feel a responsibility to have it approach the original closely. That approach has been violated since the first commercial muzzle loaders were made. It's marketing, and precious few SUPPLIERS make an honest attempt to point out the variations between their "model" and the originals. For many folks getting into muzzleloading, the catalogues become something like "reference material" when in fact most catalogues are mostly hype and fantasy. The beginner believes what they see and read, spends precious money to get parts for a kit that is supposed to be authentic, then hears that the lock is wrong, or the barrel length is wrong, or the stock wood is the wrong type. Then it's human nature to say, "you're being a PC Nazi". It's easier on the ego than to say, "I was hornswaggled."

Catalogues are places to look for parts. Not advice or real data on specific types of originals, more's the pity.

 

I realize this will come down to much opinion, but thats what I want. "In your opinion" who builds the "best" fusil de chasse. I define "best" as most authentic, most accurate, best wood to metal fit, just highest quality overall. thanks for you opinions.

I've tried to stay out of this--Lord knows I've tried! Clearly the man was asking about a pc correct piece as well as workmanship. Most replicas are at least loosely based on a handful of surviving examples--at least some of which appear to be restocked in maple or other wood than the original european walnut. The problems encountered include: stock shape, lock style and barrel length/style. Many metal parts survive as archeological pieces, so we have a pretty good idea of the variety of iron and brass parts such as guards, sideplates, etc. We have French records of manufacture and shipment, including some design specifications such as barrel length and iron vs brass furniture. There were variations. It is easy today to find the furniture parts for a Tulle fusil de chasse in either iron or brass (both were made). Proper barrels are harder to find and many end up with 42"-44" ones (oct-round). Locks are another problem and most seem to select either the Davis (which has problems in style) or the L&R. Stock styles varied--the extreme cow's foot was just one type. The guns featured (as drawings) in the Bouchard book do not have this extreme shape. I have NOT found Lenk's book to be enlightening when it comes to Tulle guns--they are barely mentioned and the book concentrates on fancy european guns. Hamilton concentrates on archeological data. It is no wonder there is confusion and variability. Several people used to make acceptable fusils (your own limits of acceptability apply), but some seem to be out of business. Mine was made by Narragansett (defunct). I am happy with it and the strict French reenactor group I associate with is too. TOW commonly has a couple of Tulle type fusils on sale at any given time--check them out after reading the Bouchard and Hamilton books--I'd skip the Lenk one myself...one of the nicest Tulles I have seen was made by Tip Curtis.

 

P.S. another good source of info is[url] www.lanouvelle-france.com[/url] for a nice article on Tulle guns plus articles on French knives and axes.

 

[rickystl]

Just want to say THANKS to everyone on this thread. Picked up much information. Today, when I consider the variety of builders, supply houses, and information compared to 30 years ago, it only makes this hobby more fun every year. Thanks, again. Rick.

p.s. Mr.Brooks: That is one dam_ beautiful fowler :bow:

 

Rich, I agree with you wholeheartedly. No one is as disappointed as I about the situation. It seems that instead of making a good authentic kit, the manufacturers are copying each others mistakes. For example, Most of the makers of the Fusil de Chasse are making the same wrong gun.
Don

 

[musketman]

Things were heating up enough on this thread to warrant me closing it, but then they cooled back down and remained friendly...

There is some wonderful information being exchanged here, let's not loose that by engaging in PC battles...

 

[Gemoke]

no excuses no identity crisis, just like to stir the pot once in a while.( e-mail GEMOKE )
(name---- cut finger

 

[mike mckinney]

An excellent piece Mike do you disassemble the barrel when you clean it? On the original subject where can I see some original example of these french arms in person?

 

[tg]

"just to finish my thought after re-reading the initial post. There was more to his question than authenticity. He asked about accuracy and fit/finish but all he got so far was about authenticity". Like I said there is more to it than that."

These may be tied together more closely than one thinks considering the authenticity factor to include a fit and finish comparable to the originals and not like that produced by many of todays builders?

 

[Okwaho]

An excellent piece Mike... On the original subject where can I see some original example of these french arms in person?

Just some random thoughts on the matter to stir the pot.

Probably as many as 65% of the Fusils de chasse and Fusils fin de chasse out there today are period restocks

Original French guns were always stocked in French walnut BUT if the gun you are copying was restocked then maple, usually straight grain, is OK, this applies to some very early fusils and composite guns.It is interesting to note that in 1696 "6 pieces of walnut timber to mount fusils of 2 1/4 diameter[original French was diametre and probably should have been "thick"],6 lock plates for fusils ordinaires and 6 " " " fusils Boucanniers"were shipped to Placentia", [the former capital of Newfoundland].,"Montreal Merchants Records"
Add to this the new and undrilled brass side plates and other parts from St. Etienne made around 1730-1760 unearthed at the archaeological site of the King's stores in Quebec City,"The Great Peace Chronicle of a Diplomatic Saga" P.23 and you have to wonder about the pure originality of these[url] guns.In[/url] comparing these guns with late 17th and early 18th century contemporary Northern New England and Canadian funiture you will see that maple and pine were often used as primary woods in Canada and were a close second to white oak in New England. I do not mean to suggest that in replicating a gun as it was originally stocked you can correctly use maple or other native wood BUT if when copying a gun you have reason to believe it has been restocked or in building a composite gun then certainly maple would be acceptable.I do,however doubt the widespread use of curly maple even in such guns.

Another factor to consider is that in the 17th and 18th centuries Liege was considered to be the "armourer to the world" and The Netherlands to be the "arms merchants to the world"and vast numbers of guns were manufactured in Liege,The Netherlands,some of the German city states,and France itself and then shipped to The Netherlands for transhipment to New France."Holland was...a centre for re-export to every region of the world.Firearms from Liege were distributed far and wide by Amsterdam and Rotterdam","Four Centuries of Liege Gunmaking" by Claude Gaier,PP.56-57.And while on the subject of Liegeois gunsI would respectfully disagree with Mike Roberts as to the merits of Torsten Lenk's book on the flintlock. It is true,as Mike states that Lenk shows a number of extremely high art guns but it should be remembered that under the bells and whistles the basic architecture is there to study.Were it not for Lenk I wouldn't have made the connection between the late 17th-early 18th century French guns and those of Holland and Liege or understood the Louis XIV and Berain styles of guns.It is this latter connection that enabled me to better identify the two Fusils fin that I have and which I believe came over to New France in the late 17th or early 18th century.Wallace Gusler commented on the earlier of the two guns that the furniture looked Dutch and now thanks to Lenk and subsequent research, I believe he was very close since the Dutch and Liegeois guns are very much alike.The old saying,"The Colonel's lady and Rosie O'Grady are sisters under the skin" still holds true un the study of early guns.Always look to the architecture everything else is window dressing and here is where we see the value of Lenk and his monumental book.

It is obvious after research into 17th and 18th century arms production and distribution that we are just scratching the surface on these guns heretofore considered to be strictly French and largely Tulle.Add to this the cottage industry type of manufacture and it is no wonder that in all likelihood no two fusils will be exactly alike and we can throw uniformity and standardization out the window.The French did reach some degree of uniformity with the first standard Army musket,the Model 1717 but it is highly unlikely that such was the case with the hunting and trade fusils as well as other fusils manufactured for the King and his Ministry de la Marine.Indeed Bouchard writes of de la Combe,the director of the Tulle manufactory: "to meet the demand,de la Combe used methods which,to say the least,remain somewhat unethical:he had crates of guns manufactured at St.Etienne unloaded at his factory","The Fusil de Tulle in New France,1691-1741" P.5

As I said these are just some random thoughts based on my ongoing and sometimes confusing research into these early French guns.I do agree,however, that many builders and vendors have offered guns based all too loosely on archaeological material and sketchy knowlege to the end that buyers are confused and sometimes misled {though not necessarily intentionally} as to the historical authenticity of the guns they are buying.Caveat Emptor. I think I have said enough but I just thought these comments ought to be made. As always I welcome serious conflicting opinion.
Tom Patton