Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 14th September 2016, 06:42 PM

Excellent questions Fernando! Thank you.
My use of the term 'coach gun' was inadvertent in this case, as that particular term was not coined until 1858 with the well known Wells Fargo & Co. stagecoaches. While popularly associated with 'riding shotgun' as to the guard with shotgun in the seat next to the driver, these guards were actually referred to as 'shotgun messengers' . An odd term, the message must have been, '...don't even think about it!"

The blunderbuss enigma is complicated by the fact that these odd early 'shotguns' were actually in varying forms closely related, with different terms and characters in degree. The most significant of course was the shorter barrel and flared bell muzzle . The 'musketoon' was a closely related type but I cannot specify exactly what the differences are.

While the blunderbuss originated around second half of 16thc.it did not become widely known until mid century 17th. Its use militarily seems sketchy until military pattern of 1715 was established. Even then, its use seems limited.
The use of these aboard vessels appears more substantiated, and examples often used the 'pintle' swivel strapping them to the deck rails to absorb some of the notable recoil. These so equipped were termed 'boat guns' .

While the use of brass/brnze barrel would presume naval use, that feature seems characteristic of many of these guns, most notably of course, the Royal Coach blunderbusses (and accompanying pistols). There are many examples of naval blunderbusses with iron barrel.

Naval use of blunderbusses appears to have faltered c. 1810, with general military use slightly after.
However, the Royal Coach mail were still ordering and using these through mid 19th c.

I think that classification of most of these guns would be better done by those here with firearms expertise and they would be likely denoted by ignition system (i.e. flintlock, miguelet etc.) and as mentioned, they may fall into musketoon type vs. blunderbuss.

Thank you Fernando for the questions and I hope this might bring more dialogue to this topic. There is clearly a lot to learn and most of what I have added is purely from on call research I did before writing .

14th September 2016, 06:42 PM	#12
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,800	Excellent questions Fernando! Thank you. My use of the term 'coach gun' was inadvertent in this case, as that particular term was not coined until 1858 with the well known Wells Fargo & Co. stagecoaches. While popularly associated with 'riding shotgun' as to the guard with shotgun in the seat next to the driver, these guards were actually referred to as 'shotgun messengers' . An odd term, the message must have been, '...don't even think about it!" The blunderbuss enigma is complicated by the fact that these odd early 'shotguns' were actually in varying forms closely related, with different terms and characters in degree. The most significant of course was the shorter barrel and flared bell muzzle . The 'musketoon' was a closely related type but I cannot specify exactly what the differences are. While the blunderbuss originated around second half of 16thc.it did not become widely known until mid century 17th. Its use militarily seems sketchy until military pattern of 1715 was established. Even then, its use seems limited. The use of these aboard vessels appears more substantiated, and examples often used the 'pintle' swivel strapping them to the deck rails to absorb some of the notable recoil. These so equipped were termed 'boat guns' . While the use of brass/brnze barrel would presume naval use, that feature seems characteristic of many of these guns, most notably of course, the Royal Coach blunderbusses (and accompanying pistols). There are many examples of naval blunderbusses with iron barrel. Naval use of blunderbusses appears to have faltered c. 1810, with general military use slightly after. However, the Royal Coach mail were still ordering and using these through mid 19th c. I think that classification of most of these guns would be better done by those here with firearms expertise and they would be likely denoted by ignition system (i.e. flintlock, miguelet etc.) and as mentioned, they may fall into musketoon type vs. blunderbuss. Thank you Fernando for the questions and I hope this might bring more dialogue to this topic. There is clearly a lot to learn and most of what I have added is purely from on call research I did before writing .