Hunting Washington Forum

Other Activities => Trapping => Topic started by: AL WORRELLS KID on March 18, 2019, 11:34:01 AM

Title: Why those Flintlocks were so Tall?
Post by: AL WORRELLS KID on March 18, 2019, 11:34:01 AM: I once heard, that in the old days "Long Guns" were traded for Beaver Pelts by stacking them up until they reached the top of the barrel.
By making the Gun Barrels longer than before, it would take more pelts being stacked up to reach the top of the Barrel. (sounds like they might be related to some of our modern day Traders). :rolleyes:

From its beginning in 1670, the Hudson’s Bay Company traded long guns on a large scale. By 1742, beaver pelts were valued at: one pelt for one pound of shot or three flints; four pelts for one pound of powder; ten pelts for a pistol; twenty pelts for a trade gun.
Doug
Title: Re: Why those Flintlocks were so Tall?
Post by: Trapper John on March 18, 2019, 12:09:59 PM: I hear that too. Talk about ripping off the Fur Trapper. :yike:
JC
Title: Re: Why those Flintlocks were so Tall?
Post by: Pathfinder101 on March 18, 2019, 02:38:20 PM: Quote from: Trapper John on March 18, 2019, 12:09:59 PM

I hear that too. Talk about ripping off the Fur Trapper. :yike:
JC

Uhh, I think that was less for the fur trapper and more for the indians they traded with. White people laying their own traps was more of an 1800s thing.
Title: Re: Why those Flintlocks were so Tall?
Post by: jackson7 on March 18, 2019, 02:41:44 PM: thx for the education!
Title: Re: Why those Flintlocks were so Tall?
Post by: JimmieD on March 18, 2019, 07:55:33 PM: Saw flintlock in the trapping section and got so excited I couldnt stand myself! Thanks for posting some of this history you heard! :tup: