|
|
Post by brokennock on Mar 15, 2023 7:52:36 GMT -7
I've been rereading this,  I have seen questions arise over the years on various forums and such regarding French guns and gear being used in New England during Colonial times. I found this 1st person case... Some background leading into our example,  From here our subject is sent to St. John's Newfoundland to retake it from the French and this occurs,  Unfortunately it would seem, although he doesn't say it outright, the gun didn't stay with him for long. He says he brought it home, but, he gets very sick before getting home and it seems that when he finally makes it home it is with nothing but the clothes on his back, but I could be wrong on that. Just a little "justification" for folks who want or need to use a bit of French gear in their Colonial American interpretation. š |
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalpedā¦
Posts: 979
|
Post by RyanAK on Mar 15, 2023 10:06:06 GMT -7
Interesting find, 'Nock. First person accounts are always an enlightening read. I do think that in addition to memoirs such as this, that the found and dug relic record supports a good number of French arms throughout New England. Dutch, too, the closer one gets to the Hudson Valley. There's a group in New England - Harmon's Snowshoemen - that have done a tremendous amount of research on the material culture of armed men from the second quarter of the 17th century through the Revolution. Specifically, their research and guidelines for Benjamin Church's Company (King Philip's War 1675-1707), John Harmon's Snowshoemen (1745-1763) and Jeremiah Eames's Rangers (1775-1783) are well done and appropriate to take a look at.
My sense from my reading leads me to think that a great amount of earlier French or Dutch arms in New England from throughout the 17th and 18th centuries were eventually stripped of their hardware and rebuilt into colonial 'composite' guns. If I have time tonight, I'll scan through my books and add what research I have on hand. French locks, both trade and military, seem to be quite prevalent on New England arms.
Good topic.
R
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalpedā¦
Posts: 979
|
Post by RyanAK on Mar 15, 2023 18:35:56 GMT -7
I just checked Grinsladeās Flintlock Fowlers, and of 40 New England guns made prior to 1780, 19 of them use at least some French parts. Most of these parts are reused, though some locks are imported pieces. There are 1728 locks on guns dated to the 1750s, and some Fusil de Chasse hardware that could be as early as the last decade of the 17th century. French hardware and locks, or hardware in the style of French parts, is far more prevalent than Dutch or even English hardware. Iād say thatās pretty good evidence for the existence of French arms in n goodly numbers through New England.
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalpedā¦
Posts: 979
|
Post by RyanAK on Mar 15, 2023 18:44:16 GMT -7
8 of 16 Club Butt fowlers made before 1780 in New England also use French parts.
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalpedā¦
Posts: 979
|
Post by RyanAK on Mar 17, 2023 6:49:12 GMT -7
Did a little more reading on New England arms in colonial times. Disregarding, for the moment, geographic considerations, the overwhelming impression Iām left with as far as civilian or militia arms go is one of obsolescence. The historical record seems to imply that throughout New England in the 18th century, arms carried by civilians, militia, provincials and even British regulars were at least a generation removed from the technology of the day. Old, sometimes very old arms - and parts - were kept in service. I donāt believe it would be uncommon to see an Englishman in northwest Connecticut c.1750, for example, carrying a Fusil de Chasse or Type D French trade gun that was brought to New France 60 years in the past. Grinslade shows colonial-stocked guns built in the 1740s with dog locks and one example with a barrel reused from a matchlock. Several colonial guns are wearing 1728 French military locks, which means at some point those guns were around and in use. I havenāt concentrated much of my research time on New York or New England, but it seems that the variety of arms in those regions was much more varied than in other areas of colonial America. Further research needed.  |
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Mar 17, 2023 7:21:09 GMT -7
I couldn't agree more, Ryan. The more research I have done, the more I revised my kit backwards in age. Hence my "go-to" PA provincial firelock is a King William doglock recycled into a .69 club butt fowling piece, in which I have done my best to replicate a half century of honest wear.
|
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Mar 17, 2023 8:09:12 GMT -7
Did a little more reading on New England arms in colonial times. Disregarding, for the moment, geographic considerations, the overwhelming impression Iām left with as far as civilian or militia arms go is one of obsolescence.Ā The historical record seems to imply that throughout New England in the 18th century, arms carried by civilians, militia, provincials and even British regulars were at least a generation removed from the technology of the day. Old, sometimes veryĀ old arms - and parts - were kept in service. I donāt believe it would be uncommon to see an Englishman in northwest Connecticut c.1750, for example, carrying a Fusil de Chasse or Type D French trade gun that was brought to New France 60 years in the past. Grinslade shows colonial-stocked guns built in the 1740s with dog locks and one example with a barrel reused from a matchlock. Several colonial guns are wearing 1728 French military locks, which means at some point those guns were around and in use.Ā I havenāt concentrated much of my research time on New York or New England, but it seems that the variety of arms in those regions was much more varied than in other areas of colonial America. Further research needed.Ā Truly excellent information my friend, thank you very much. Just as a thought, I'm wondering about the recycled French military locks. I've heard a couple historical researchers imply that there may a have been a fair amount of black market trade between parts of New England/Upstate New York and citizens/militia in Canada. I'm wondering if those locks weren't just sold/traded on that market instead of the guns themselves having been knocking about the area. |
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalpedā¦
Posts: 979
|
Post by RyanAK on Mar 17, 2023 8:54:13 GMT -7
Possibly. But remember that the French & Indian War was only one of many wars between France and Brittian on the North American continent and ay various times, very large numbers of French military arms were vacated from French forts in Canada. Too, in times of peace, the frontier between New England and New France was a fluid, gauzy sort of borderland. Trade was prevalent, and if you lived or trekked nearer to French supplied settlements than English, well...
In Of Sorts for Provincials - American Weapons of the French and Indian War (...which is essentially a beautiful book about the lack of arms...) there are several examples of colonial restocks or composite arms. Ditto Flintlock Fowlers, but I don't have Grinslade with me at work. I'll post a few examples below. Beyond just the French and Dutch hardware, a goodly number of New England-made arms followed French and Dutch stock architecture.
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalpedā¦
Posts: 979
|
Post by RyanAK on Mar 17, 2023 8:56:10 GMT -7
Note the early French lock. This is actually on a rifle and has the stock architecture and much hardware from an English infantry musket.  French stock profile and a hodgepodge of early parts.  Dog lock.  |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Mar 22, 2023 14:23:09 GMT -7
For the life of me, I can't figure out how to copy/paste the images of the two guns below, so I'll have to provide the link below the second description. Hunting Fowler, c. 1730-1760 The profile of this long, lean fowler has a close resemblance to the French Fusil de Chasse. It was a popular form in the American Colonies, which provided the balance and light weight so appreciated by hunters. The walnut stock reaches from a Roman nose butt to the muzzle and holds a wooden rammer in three cast brass pipes. English-made components include a rounded two-screw lock signed by its maker, āheckstallā (no outer bridle), a stepped butt tang, and a common export trigger guard that ends in a pointed front finial and bears a snowflake design on the trigger bow. Its sideplate is a colorful serpent form with incised decorations. The 463ā8ā (.68-cal.) pinned round barrel is octagonal for 81ā2ā. Length: 61 1/2ā Barrel: 46 3/8ā, .69 caliber Lock: 6āx1 1/8ā Trigger Guard: 9 3/4ā Butt Tang: 4 1/4ā Sideplate: 5 1/2ā Furniture: Brass Weight: 6.8 lbs. Though made from a famous English Gunmaker's barrel and some other parts imported from England, the stock of the following piece still yells "French" to me. American Hunting Gun, c. 1730-1760 In addition to importing compete firearms, the Colonists also ordered parts for assembling and repairing guns themselves. This long fowler with its American cherry stock having a fore-end reaching to the muzzle and a Roman nose butt, is fitted with typical period components from the mother country. Its flat trade lock displays a panoply of arms on the tail, as well as a gooseneck cock. A generic game bird, in turn, is engraved on the stepped butt tang and the pinned octagonal/round smoothbore barrel bears two circa 1702 London Gunmakers Company proofs plus the maker Richard Wilsonās stamp (*/rwā). The popular English trigger guard form included a ātulipā front terminal and the snowflake design on its trigger bow. An engraved triangular sideplate adds a rear wood screw. Length: 66 3/4ā Barrel: 50 3/4ā, .67 caliber Lock: 6āx1 1/8ā Trigger Guard: 10ā Butt Tang: 4ā Side Plate: 5 3/4ā Furniture: Brass Weight: 8.3 lbs. www.ladybemused.com/jaeger/NRA/Hunting%20Guns%20in%20Colonial%20America.htmGus |
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalpedā¦
Posts: 979
|
Post by RyanAK on Mar 22, 2023 15:51:18 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Mar 23, 2023 23:45:43 GMT -7
Thanks, but I got the first link corrected and it now works. I find the first link easier to use, but others may not.
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Mar 24, 2023 8:39:43 GMT -7
A sometimes to often overlooked source of French guns in Colonial New England came from the British American "shopping trips" or when they captured Fortress Louisbourg, Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia in both 1745 and 1758. Fortress Louisbourg was the largest and most significant Fortress in North America when it was first built and continued to be for long after it was taken. It was built as a huge Arsenal to store Arms and equipment that would be parceled out to New France where needed and ordered. Fortress Louisbourg was also a "stick in the eye" to New England fishermen and also seal hunters, the latter a much larger source of income than many of us think about today. During "King George's War of 1744-48," as the conflict in North America as part of the War of the Austrian Succession was known, the Fortress was taken almost exclusively by New England Militia in most likely the first major amphibious operation in North America. While the Fortress was designed well against enemy ships and their guns pointed towards the sea, it seems the French never thought about protecting it from land attack, so no guns pointed landward. (This rather amazed me, because the French were already well known for building well planned fortresses.) After the War, France got the Fortress back in trade for other things the British wanted. Remarkably, the French completed re-supplied the Fortress and did not think to bolster their defenses against amphibious land attack. In 1758 during the FIW (actually the fourth French and Indian War), a combined force of British and British American Troops took it again, the same way it had been taken 13 years before. It remained in British control until 1785, when it was pretty much just abandoned. I've not been able to find complete inventories of what was captured there either time, but it was reported 15,000 French Arms were taken when the British emptied it out in 1758. There doesn't seem to be much information when the New England Militia's took and emptied it in 1745, but seeing how it was the MAIN Arsenal for New France, no doubt there were some "Tulle Hunting Guns (Fusil de Chasse) in storage for the French Irregulars (Militia) and for use as gifts with French allied Native Americans. Again I can't copy paste the image, but the description from the below linked source should be interesting: These light, well-balanced firearms intended for wilderness use were favorites of New Franceās woodsmen, militia and their Indian allies. The long, slender walnut stock had a Roman-nose butt and extended to the muzzle. Its flat/beveled lock, in turn, mounted a swansneck cock and a faceted pan, but lacked an exterior bridle. Raised stock carving surrounded the barrel tang, sideplate and lock. The French naval ministry controlled New France and contracted for most of these arms from the independent manufacturer at Tulle, plus some from St. Etienne. Tulle-style iron furniture included a flat, āLā sideplate with an oval center, a double-pointed trigger guard and a butt tang ending in a pear-shaped finial. This example has a 44 1/2", .62-cal., smoothbore pinned barrel, a wooden ramrod and no sling swivels. Length: 60 3/4" Barrel: 44 1/2", .62 cal. Lock: 5 3/4"x1" Trigger Guard: 11 1/2" Butt Tang: 3 1/4" Sideplate: 3 1/2" Furniture: Iron Weight: 6.8 lbs. www.ladybemused.com/jaeger/NRA/The%20Revolutionary%20Charleville.htmI have not been able to find out what happened to the arms captured from Fortress Louisbourg in 1745, but I imagine something similar happened when it was captured again in 1758. At the second capture, every soldier was allowed to pick out a gun for himself and the rest were brought back and divvied up among New England Colonies. I have no way to document this, but I imagine most New England Militiamen would have grabbed a Fusil de Chasse rather than a military musket, at least as long as supplies lasted. Gus |
|
