Recoil Spring wrote:
Did the Indians clean their guns?
Having learned to shoot with black powder guns and used them for many years I often wondered if the Indians understood that you need to clean them to prevent corrosion? As they spoke a different language than French or English back in the day when they received a "Trade musket" or battlefield pickup, and lived outdoors, I have wondered if they just shot them and not cleaned the bores, etc?
Does anyone know if the surviving Indian used guns are in average condition compared to the guns used by the White settlers, or in worse shape?
I have read that the Mexican guns (antiques) are often in poor condition from a collector's point of view.
Thanks.
g.willikers wrote:
The first natives who encountered firearms might have not understood much about them, being essentially still in the stone age.
They had water, oils and grease, so it's not too unlikely they could care for their rifles after understanding the necessity.
Beagle333 wrote:
I have read in a few articles that the government would send gunsmiths to live in the villages and teach them how to maintain and repair their firearms properly.
I would imagine that once acquiring their new smoke pole and impressing their friends and enemies alike, the next thought would be how to get that smoke pole to repeat the task again and again.
Hawg wrote:
I've read stories of them dunking them in streams stocks and all to remove fouling but that was during the fur trade era. I'm sure later on they learned to take better care of them. Most genuine Indian rifles have cracked stocks repaired with wire or rawhide or both.
T O'Heir wrote:
Most of 'em did nothing. Didn't know it was required. Just having a firearm(that wasn't high end kit to start with. Lower quality than any military musket.) was a giant status symbol. Even if it didn't work either from being damaged or you having no ammo. Meant you were a good hunter/trapper. Also meant you were wealthy.
Those long barrels were there because a musket was worth a pile of furs the same height as the firearm.
B.L.E. wrote:
Photo from:
Photo found in:
http://www.truewestmagazine.com/weapons-of-the-indian-wars/
g.willikers wrote:
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 9,897
How many "Sitting Bull" rifles were there?
As many as "Jesse James" and "Bat Masterson" sixguns, do you suppose?
B.L.E. wrote:
As many as "Jesse James" and "Bat Masterson" sixguns, do you suppose?How many "Sitting Bull" rifles were there?
Probably as many as there are Billy The Kid's graves.
But that smoothbore trade gun was featured in an article in the NRA's "American Rifleman" magazine some time ago.
4V50 Gary wrote:
Good question and I'll have to ask at Bowling Green
The Indians preferred rifles over smoothbores and they did force Daniel Boone to trade his longrifle for a trade gun. Since rifles foul easier, they must have known to clean out the barrel.
Pathfinder45 wrote:
I would expect that they generally were lacking in maintenance. But I have no doubt that there were exceptions. Like they generally had a reputation of being poor marksmen that wasted a lot of their ammo on missed shots, as borne out in the eye-witness accounts of the Little Bighorn encounter. On the other hand, eye-witness accounts at the Battle of the Bear Paw Mountains indicate that the Nez Perce were dangerously excellent marksmen that knew how to handle a rifle well. They likely knew how to maintain them.
Fivesense wrote:
This is one of the most interesting and intriguing posts I've ever seen in a gun forum.
Pathfinder45 wrote:
Looky here what I found on Wikipedia:
They say it's Chief Joseph's rifle. For all it has probably been through, it doesn't look too bad to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NEPE_Rifle_Chief_Joseph.jpg
drobs wrote:
Some interesting reading here:
http://www.truewestmagazine.com/weap...e-indian-wars/
Seems flint locks were more popular than percussion rifles as flint could be found more easily.
B.L.E. wrote:
It looks like they really loved to decorate their rifles with tacks. Maybe I'll have to "Indianize" one of my rifles.
Hawg wrote:
If you do don't use modern tacks. Find a sutler that sells original style tacks.It looks like they really loved to decorate their rifles with tacks. Maybe I'll have to "Indianize" one of my rifles.
Irish Jack wrote:
They removed serpentine side plates. Bad medicine. They removed the butt plates as they made valuable hide scrappers. Using flint locks did not cause the corrosion of percussion caps. Black powder was higroscopic attracting moisture causing rust.
freedom475 wrote:
Another reason indians used the flintlock was that it was "high treason" to transfer them 'any' rifle, other than the flintlock Trade Gun... you would find yourself hanging from the bad end of a good rope if you were even suspect of such a crime.
4V50 Gary wrote;
Flints were free for the Indians. All they had to do was knap it (or find a broken arrow head and knap that). Percussion caps on the other hand cost $$$ (or pelts).
drobs wrote:
Some interesting reading here:
http://www.truewestmagazine.com/weapons-of-the-indian-wars/
Seems flint locks were more popular than percussion rifles as flint could be found more easily.
B.L.E. wrote:
It looks like they really loved to decorate their rifles with tacks. Maybe I'll have to "Indianize" one of my rifles.
Hawg wrote:
It looks like they really loved to decorate their rifles with tacks. Maybe I'll have to "Indianize" one of my rifles.
If you do don't use modern tacks. Find a sutler that sells original style tacks.
Irish Jack wrote:
They removed serpentine side plates. Bad medicine. They removed the butt plates as they made valuable hide scrappers. Using flint locks did not cause the corrosion of percussion caps. Black powder was higroscopic attracting moisture causing rust.
Another reason indians used the flintlock was that it was "high treason" to transfer them 'any' rifle, other than the flintlock Trade Gun... you would find yourself hanging from the bad end of a good rope if you were even suspect of such a crime.
Lucas McCain wrote:
Many of them gathered sulfur and charcoal and they made their own Black powder and also lead for balls. I can only imagine how primitive it was and the learning curve that it took.
Do you think the fur trader, taught them how to clean them good. I bet he bypassed that knowledge so he could trade more rifles for pelts.
I have seen a couple early trade rifles, French muskets, that the plains Indians had and they were in very bad shape. They were flint lock. Cloth was a real treasure and they used it for or ornamental purposes. I doubt they cleaned guns with it.
4V50 Gary wrote:
Flints were free for the Indians. All they had to do was knap it (or find a broken arrow head and knap that). Percussion caps on the other hand cost $$$ (or pelts).
That crescent shaped buttplate makes me wonder if Chief Joseph shouldered his gun or did he place it against his arm?
To put it another way - let's think about the Battle of the Little Big Horn (and I had a g-g-uncle who served under Custer and was killed in Virginia in 1864 - Co. B, 7th Michigan Volunteer Cavalry) and another ancestor who was killed at the Little Big Horn. The Army, in all their wisdom, equipped their soldiers with single shot Springfields . . . . hmmm . . . a number of the attacking "Indians" had Winchesters . . . . of the two different ethnic and social groups, which one appears to be smarter and better armed?