Did any Brown Bess muskets make it out west ?

[Librarian]

How do!

To the extent of my knowledge...

No, not in the 18th century. As I understand it, the markings are post 1830ish, if not later 19th. (Much of the stock stamp coding info being post 1850's)

[Dan'l Hickham]

I once had a pretty decent re-worked 2nd Model from Italy. It was a thumper - both me and whatever I aimed at.

Manuel Lisa carried a Bess, according to several books I have read and it would make sense to have one if you wanted to do early fur trade (what I am attempting to do)

I think if I didn't get walloped in the cheek everytime I shot the thing I would still be using it - it was accurate and destroyed ANYTHING it hit.

[Rod]

The major fur companies used surplus military muskets for fort defense guns----NW guns and the like were for sale, not for in-house use. Isaac Cowie mentions the use of old Brown Besses at Ft. Qu'Appelle in the 1860s. At Ft. Union, Larpenteur writes of guns mounting bayonets, and using cartridges [paper, not metallic] in the 1830s and 40s. During the archeaological digs at Ft. Union, a fair number of US M1816 parts were found, leading to the conclusion that the M1816 was probably the old surplus gun of choice there.

It's also interesting that these guns were issued out to the engagés when needed---they didn't have their own weapons, either couldn't afford them or didn't think they were necessary---contrary to modern belief that everyone out west went armed to the teeth with their own personal weapon. Issued out when needed, and to be returned and accounted for when not needed.

At Ft. Union, the powder magazine and the northeast bastion (where the guns were kept when not in use) were fenced off from the rest of the fort---probably to keep the employees out of where they weren't supposed to be.

Rod

[Librarian]

How do!

With the decision in 1842 to end production of flintlocks for the US, the government called for an inspection of all arms made prior to 1832.

With a time out for the Mexican War, the survey was finished in the late 1840's, and divided guns into four classes.
Supplementing the new percussion guns of the 1840's, the four classes were:

1. Made since 1831 kept in store for issue as needed
2. Made between 1821 and 1831 (issued or held for conversion to percussion)
3. Made betrween 1812 and 1820 for emergencies
4. Made prior to 1812, or damaged or unserviceable later arms.

4th Class arms were condemend and sold off to the public at prices ranging from $3.00 down to .40 each.

[Rod]

"The arms of the regiment are old and of various patterns and are unfit for the Regiment, very probably inferior to those of any other Regiment in the Service. The Rifles of the Rifle Company are particularly bad, altho in firing order; they are old ones very hastily manufactured in the early part of the war. There are several hundreds of this description in store. If pains were taken they could be sold at this post to Indians and traded for their full value." Col. Wooley, 6th Infantry, Fort Atkinson, 1826

The Colonel is referring to the M1803 & 1814 Harper's Ferry rifles, which had been superceded by the M1817 'Common Rifle'. Now, whether he sold them off or not is unknown--no records yea or nay.

By the way, the River Press [Ft. Benton, MT newspaper] issue of Feb. 19, 1890, carried an interview with the old frontiersman Charles Mercier dit Rondin. Around 1830, Mercier had joined the AFC, and was posted to the Upper Missouri. He was at Fts. Union, Pierre, McKenzie, and Benton. He worked as a carpenter all his life, going to work for I.G. Baker at Ft. Benton when Pierre Chouteau Jr. & Co. sold off the post. He had married an Indian girl, 13 years old, in 1831, and they were married for 50 years until her death---they had 11 children. He died at Ft. Benton, December 1891. Rondin Street in fort Benton is named for him.

Here was a guy who saw the fur trade of the Upper Missouri almost in its entirety, was at every major post on the river at one time or another. Yet, the newspaper carried this quote:
"Mr. Mercier was always employed in and around the trading posts of the Fur Companies, as a mechanic, and never went out as a hunter or trapper. Therefore he has no account of battles with the savage Indians or encounters with wild beasts to relate."

I always like that quote to illustrate that not all---or even most--of the guys involved in the fur trade, especially the fort-based trade, were wild and wooley mountain man types. Instead they were engagés, hired to do a job. If they carried a gun at some point, it was probably issued to them by their employer. I've been asked any number of times what kind of gun to bring out to Ft. Union. My usual reply is that none at all, if they want to portray the average engagé. Not that I'm against guns--far from it, one can never have enough--but, to drive home the point that not everybody back then had or even needed a gun. It all depends on who, what, when , and where.

Rod

[steve56]

Back to the Bess...Britain went to percussion in 1839 & the large sales to Mexico were in the 1820's,so I think it's more a case of clearing post-Napoleonic surplus rather than them being outdated........?

Steve