Guns Along the Susquehanna

I agree with your points, nock. The specific gun for my particular c.1755 persona is likely a newer purchase of good quality. Likely an imported English piece or a well done locally made gun. In general, I think the variety of arms was very great along the Susquehanna, and I’m uncovering some additional information that paints an interesting picture. 

In Philadelphia, the import of trade guns, English and German arms, and myriad gun parts including locks and barrels makes anything possible to acquire, within the bounds of economic station and prevailing local tastes as to aesthetics. 

Traveling west, by 1755 Lancaster was a well established trading center and also an important gunmaking center. Shumway lists 22 gunsmiths who were working in Lancaster before 1760. The younger Martin Meylin’s estate inventory of 1751 listed a large number of gunsmithing tools, including rifling tools. Because of the trade happening, you could certainly acquire an imported gun in Lancaster. However, with the number of smiths and the evidence that rifles and smoothbores were being ‘whole made’ there, it’s also possible to have have purchased a locally made gun of Germanic influence. 

With the road extended to Harris’s Ferry, that area was becoming an increasingly important trade center. It was still the frontier in 1755, but an important economic hub for the lower Susquehanna. I’d love to find period information on the trade happening there, especially with regards to arms. My inference would be a preponderance of trade guns, followed by finer British imported arms, with maybe some locally built guns from Lancaster. I haven’t yet tracked down any information on gunmakers in what is now Dauphin County. 

Then there’s the true frontier gunsmiths… at Shamokin itself. This is quoted from Early Events in the Susquehanna Valley by John H. Carter, in another work. This is a book I obviously, desperately need to track down. 

Writing about the Moravian establishment of gunsmiths at Shamokin:

”John Hagen records that on June 21, 1747, that David Bruce (who had gone back to Bethlehem) returned to Shamokin with Christian Henry Rauch. On the way up he purchased, at Lancaster, the iron, etc., for the smithy which was transported to Harris’ Ferry. The Indians went down in canoes, loaded the anvil, iron, and tools, and paddled back to Shamokin. Gunsmith Anton Schmidt arrived (apparently later replaced my Marcus Kiefer) on August 3rd, 1747. This forge existed until the opening of the French and Indian War.”

More to come…

The Warren Johnson journal seems to indicate that by 1760 guns actually made in Philadelphia had a good reputation among the people he was spending time with in the area of Albany, NY. One way of reading what he said would indicate they were making the barrels, I guess.

"They are remarkable at Philadelphia for making rifled Barrell Gunns, which throw a Ball above 300 yards, vastly well, & much better than any other Barrells. People here in general Shoot very well with Ball, but don't doe much with Shot."

Spence

I've always appreciated this quote when you have graced us with it in the past.
Today I pulled a new inference from it.
We generally steer folks in the direction of a smoothbore for this time period as it seems they were most common.
I think the last line speaks to that.

"...Shoot very well with Ball, but don't doe much with Shot."

Clearly loose shot was a consideration and a factor in common usage of a gun. I almost feel to take this as, "well, these guns are really great at this one thing, BUT, they have this one flaw...."
It would seem the smoothbore with its ability to send both shot and ball was still a high standard to be compared to.

I like that analysis, brokennock. Use would determine which arm to acquire. 

Hand, also a good point. I wonder what’s out there regarding the comparative costs of various guns c.1750. 

I wonder if imported smooth barrels were ever rifled once in the hands of a colonial gunmaker. I think I have at least one example of a octagon-to-round barrel with rifling, and my first thought was it was rifled in Pennsylvania after manufacture. My second though was that Fowler barrels are fairly light and might not have the wall thickness to take the rifling or strength to handle the increased pressures of a tightly fitting patched ball. 

I’m stalled on my quest to find out more about the gunsmiths at Shamokin or what guns were available at John Harris’s post on the Susquehanna. I think Moravian archives might be a good source. I’m also going to put out feelers to historical societies and the museum at Fort Augusta (to which I’ve never been…!)

So… 

I’ll shortly start in on more detailed notes on the gun types listed previously, including surviving examples, what I’ve learned and can assume about their relative prevalence on the Susquehanna frontier, and how a fella could go about recreating one of these types for himself. This should be fun.

Now… with which shall we start…? Any suggestions? 

Still having fun? 

That would undoubtedly be Chief Paxinosa. If so, the gun is actually a "smooth rifle,' and amazingly survives.

scavengeology.com/the-rca-19-rifle-an-epic-mid-18th-century-flintlock-smooth-rifle-with-an-exciting-history/

I've observed this before that it would seem that rifle guns gained popularity with natives before the white settlers and frontiersmen.
There is an account of an early battle either of the F&I or leading into where one of the white survivors tells that the Indians were armed with rifles. If I recall correctly, this was the earliest I had seen a reference to rifle use.