1795 Springfield

[doug7]

Hi guys,
New here.
Would a Springfield 1795 musket be an appropriate gun for an 1826 western trapper impression?
Thanks.

[sean]

RodL might chime in here too, but I seem to recall him saying that flint military muskets were part of the armory at Ft. Union and IIRC 1795 lock parts have turned up there in archeological digs.

As far as military surplus arms go, I recall there are citations for that in Garavaglia and Worman's book. I've also seen 1807 contract rifles that were apparently surplussed likely for both for both white white and NDN use. Some were converted to percussion, others tacked up. Charlie Hanson also talked of a 3rd model Bess that was carried by an Iroquois voyager. I do think that the use of military surplus guns happened in the fur trade, but I wouldn't say that the choice of a 1795 musket as a primary long arm would be common by any means.

Sean

[jeffp]

Doug-

I would agree with Sean here, there were a few military muskets & rifles floating around for sure; but far from common as the primary longarm of the trapper.
There were 1792 & 97 pattern rifles ( I think Astor's men had some) and some
of Lisa's men were armed with British surplus military muskets, although I don't recall what model they were; II or III. They found the muskets particularly effective against grizzly bears. I'm sure there were some 1795 Springfields that found their way to the upper-Missouri and the Rockies, just as a few Mississippi rifles made their way across the plains on the overland trail.

[doug7]

Thanks. My primary gun will be a NWTG; I love those guns. But military muskets come in a very close second.

[Rod]

Old military muskets were in use, particularly at the fur trade forts---cheap firearms for issue to the engagés, who generally didn't own their own guns. The parts that were found at the Ft. Union digs were mostly M1816 muskets, although there was a smattering of other parts (including a 9-inch lockplate from a wall gun!) that were of military origin.

Isaac Cowie at Ft. Q'Appelle (straight north of Ft. Union on the Q'Appelle River in Saskatchewan) mentions the use of old Brown Besses there.

I'd say that a M1795 Springfield surely wouldn't be out of line, especially depending on what you're portraying and when---the earlier the time frame, probably the less likely, because they were still in service. But, as time went on, the likelyhood of seeing a 1795 in the hands of some one out west---especially a fort-based engagé---would increase quite a bit.

Rod

[sean]

On the subject of the Bess, there is a story that Manuel Lisa carried a Bess up the Missouri, but I've never been able to find a period citation of that. I suspect it is an apocryphal story that started in the 1940-50 era, but it is definitely possible. The old Bess would sure pack a wallop, but would be a pain to pack around compared to a NW gun or fowler.

Sean

[Rod]

I've never seen anything definative on that either--just the story that keeps being repeated. I'd surely think that Lisa could afford something better than an old Bess.

Rod

[sean]

By and large, I think the military muskets were not popular because the were so heavy compared to the NW guns. Somewhere I've got a citation of some letters between AFC and J. Henry where the latter was trying to hawk 'common smoothrifles' to the company in place of NW guns. AFC replied that their customers, the Indians, would not buy them because 'if they are to carry a heavy gun, it must be a rifle'. I do believe a portion of the old military arms were surplussed directly out to the tribes by the War Dept. as treaty arms. But to my knowledge, the fur companies did not buy surplus arms to sell. Their customers, both Indian and white, were very selective on buying firearms, and there are a lot of period letters in the literature stating that arms by 'thus and so' maker did not pass muster in the field in terms of quality and were not salable. In addition, I believe based on multiple sources that company trappers were often issued a rifle or NW gun at their signing or it was purchased off their individual accounts against future earnings. Generally that means that military muskets were most likely in the armory of the fort or less likely in the hands of some dirt poor soul who entered the trade from the east via some other route than the companies like an Eastern tribesman from the frontier. Note, what I'm talking about here is the 'likely' and the 'common'. The West was a big place with lots of room for exceptions and individuals.

Sean

[doug7]

I can envision a scenario where an 1826 western trapper might have acquired a 1795. A simple trade with an NDN might have been one way or perhaps the issuance of one by a fort that was never returned?
The same with a Bess. Perhaps the Bess (1st or second LLP) was a war prize from the AWI, kept in a closet and given to a son or grandson as a gift before he headed west?
Or am I all wet?

[Rod]

Might be as simple as buying one directly as surplus. I don't have my copy of Russel's "Firearms, Traps, and Tools" handy so I've got to go from memory, but in it he references the commander at a military fort (Atkinson? Leavenworth?) as writing to his superiors about selling off the old M1803 Harper's Ferry rifles as surplus, since his command had been outfitted with the new M1817 Common Rifle. This was mid-1820s, if I'm recalling this correctly. Digging into the military records might yield a similar situation with the 1795, especially as newer models came into use.

Rod

[Chuck Burrows]

"In March of 1825 government officials authorized the sale of unserviceable military arms, and between that year and 1848 sold more than 106,000 muskets, 2,000 rifles, 600 carbines, and 400 pistols. Depending on condition the muskets brought from $5 to $0.13, the rifles from $5 to $0.30, the carbines from $4 to $0.50, and the pistols from $3 to 22 cents."

Garavaglia & Worman page 76 sources:
George Douglas Brewerton, Overland With Kit Carson (New York, 1930), 59-60.
Albert Pike, Prose Sketches a Poems Written in the Western Country, ed. David J. Weber (Albuquerque, N.M., 1967), 243.
Gregg, Commerce of The Prairies, 155.
Senate Ex. Doc. 54, 3oth Cong., 1st Session, Serial No. 509.

I'd surely think that Lisa could afford something better than an old Bess

Wouldnt have to be an old one since at that time they were still being made new. Also Lisa wasn't a hunter and may have preferred the Bess as more of an anti-personnel weapon....

[doug7]

"a fort-based engagé"

Is a what?

[Rod]

Engagés---literally French for employees (they were hired or "engaged")---were men hired on by the fur companies for labor forces at the upriver posts. They were from places such as the St. Louis area for the American trade, and Quebec in the Canadian trade. Usually hired on for 3 to 5 year contracts if they stayed upriver (not to be confused with those hired on to transport goods upriver, then immediately return), they were paid according to skills. An unskilled common laborer would earn on average $132.84 from the American Fur Co., plus an outfit cosisting of 1 3-pt. blanket, 1 1/2 yds. blue stroud, 1 handkerchief, 1 scalping knife, and 3 lbs. of tobacco (total cost $7.20).

The average engagé working for the HBC would earn £17/16/07 ($94.68), and had an outfit of 1 3-pt. blanket, 1 2 1/2-pt. blanket, 2 striped cotton shirts, 2 yds. common cloth, and 6 to 9 lbs. tobacco. The outfit was discontinued in 1830, part of Governor Sir George Simpson's "oeconomy" measures.

The above figures are taken from an article by Bill Swagerty published in the Montana Historical Society magazine.

If the engagé had some skills, they could get a better wage, for instance; a skilled tradesman in the AFC earned an average of $160.29, while a patroon in charge of a keelboat made $284.50, and a hunter made $250 (plus the hides of whatever he killed). Learn a native language, and the pay could go up to $380.33--good interpreters being absolutely vital to trade.

On the HBC side, a semi-skilled voyageur who could hunt could get £19/00/02 ($100.94), while a very skilled voyageur (who would be either an avant or gouvernail---in the front or very rear of the canoe, and thus steering the thing) would earn £22/00/00 ($116.82). In contrast, an interpreter would earn an average of £45/00/00 ($238.95).

In short (which I haven't been ), an engagé was an unskilled or semi-skilled laborer who worked at a fort, doing whatever building, repair, or other work needed to be done---which often also meant pushing or pulling a boat upstream, paddling a canoe, portaging goods, and building a fort when they got to where ever they were going.

Rod