Did the Indians Clean Their Guns? (salvaged thread)

[4V50 Gary]

Accidentally deleted the Did the Indians clean their guns thread. My apologies to the members as it is a very good thread. I've got it on the screen right now and am trying to find a way to salvage it. Stand by.

[4V50 Gary]

Here is the material from Recoil Spring's thread asking, "Did the Indians clean their guns?"

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/weap...e-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?
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:N...ief_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.

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/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:

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).

[Hawg]

Good salvage job,

[drobs]

I don't know how much of a scholarly work this is but, this article here states the Indians wouldn't buy a gun that didn't have the snake / dragon:

http://thefurtrapper.com/home/indian-trade-guns/

"By the early eighteen hundreds, the trading companies had established rigid requirements for the Northwest guns. The full-stocked, smoothbore trade guns varied little in shape and style, but under went changes in barrel lengths. By the late 1820’s, the 30-inch barrel had become popular. The overall length of a standard Northwest gun with a 30-inch barrel was 45.5 inches. A distinctive feature of these guns was the dragon or serpent shaped side plate. Most Indians would not trade for a gun that did not have the serpent plate. Hansen states that the earliest record of the Hudson’s Bay gun with its distinctive dragon ornament is dated 1805."



I figure the French trained the Indians to clean their rifles.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

Just saying
I'm pretty sure native Americans knew how. I do believe many Natives were not only taught but shown how by those early Rocky Mountain Trappers who traded with and married into such Native Tribes.
One battle West of the Mississippi that confirms my suspicion.
Battle of the Little Bighorn.

[Don Fischer]

I'm pretty sure they used Hoppe's #9! :-)

[Buzzcook]

American Indians were involved in warfare both against and beside colonial European settlers and militias.
By the time of King Phillips war the Eastern tribes were probably familiar with the care and feeding of firearms. As tribes were pushed West, that knowledge probably came along with them.

The Buffalo Bill Museum in Cody Wyoming has a large collection of firearms owned by Native Americans. iirc they all looked fairly serviceable.

[Model12Win]

Chief Joseph's rifle is really short. Is that a canoesman's rifle?

[4V50 Gary]

That crescent shaped buttplate makes me wonder if Chief Joseph shouldered his gun or did he place it against his arm?

[Hawg]

That crescent shaped buttplate makes me wonder if Chief Joseph shouldered his gun or did he place it against his arm?

I'm pretty sure he put it against his upper arm. Indians weren't stupid.

[bedbugbilly]

I have a percussion rifle that came off of a Reservation here in Michigan - a full stock about the size of a Leman but not a Leman - barrel was recycled at least three times from the barrel lugs on the underside and bore is clean.

Some folks seem to think that the Native Americans were somehow mentally incapable of knowing how to clean a firearm - which kind of surprises me. Why would they be any different than any other section of society of the time, regardless of race, which consisted of those who took care of their possessions and those that didn't? Part of this way of thinking is influenced by what we saw on Hollywood creations depicting "Indians" as "savages" who all wore breechclouts and used bows and arrows and carried a knife for scalping.

I'm sure that when firearms were first introduced, there was a learning curve in regards to them the same way as when they became available to the
Anglo societies. Study your history . . . yes, there were tribes that were nomadic, tribes that hunted, tribes that migrated each year to the banks of water for the fishing and tribes that were agrarian. And, due to the pressure of the Anglo westward movement from very early Colonial times onward, as a result many of the "native Americans" adapted to the ways of the white man - and not all ran around in buckskins and feathers but blended in to white society as far as dress and adapting due to necessity - they weren't lacking in intelligence.

Much of what is passed on as "fact" is an interpretation through the eyes of the
anglo society and just like today, the observance of one or a number of individuals attributed to a specific segment of society does not reflect what is practiced by all of that society. I have a neighbor who mows barefooted - so Iif he mows barefooted, I assume all of those he associates with as a social group or ethnic group must mow barefooted? One person tells his observance, it gets passed on and embellished and by the time it is retold a half dozen times it does not even remotely resemble what is true but it is accepted as "true".

I am not Native American nor am I trying to be "politically correct" (something which I detest with a passion) . . . I am just saying that while the question is valid, it also seems like it assumes that a Native American could not be capable of mastering something as simple as swabbing a bore or greasing his weapon to keep it form rusting.

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?

An interesting thread and just my 2 cents worth which probably isn't worth a plug nickel.

[B.L.E.]

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?

I think the biggest factor may have been that Custer's men were vastly outnumbered.
A few of them had repeating arms but the vast majority had muzzle loaders, surplus Civil War muskets, smooth bore trade guns, and bows and arrows.

[Bishop Creek]

Archeologists did find a lot of .44 Henry rim fire cases on the Indian lines at the battlefield after the fire at Little Big Horn in the 1980s.

[Gaucho Gringo]

Custer's men had only recently been rearmed with the Trapdoor Springfield's, turning in their Civil War Spencer repeating carbines for them. I have often wondered how many of the were cursing this as they fought the battle being vastly outnumbered and being outgunned in firepower in some instances. Lets see going from a repeating rifle to a single shot, having limited or no experience in firing of said rifle and with ammunition that was not the best. What is there to go wrong?

[B.L.E.]

Underestimating the enemy has been the downfall of many a military leader. (also known as believing your own propaganda)

[shafter]

I'd say anyone smart enough to make from scratch a bow that is powerful enough, and an arrow that flies straight enough, to kill a buffalo is probably smart enough to use water to wash away powder residue. More than a few probably observed first hand the white guys cleaning theirs.

[Model12Win]

I want Chief Joseph's gun. Looks like a good brush gun.