Not really: there were murders galore, of course, but those were different.
Here is a possibly-useful comparison: serial killers.
Historians have long recognized that serial killers are a 'modern' phenomenon. Sure, there were brutal murderers in the past (Vlad the Impaler, etc.) But a serial killer represents a new phenomenon--namely, an imagined relationship between the killer and "the public" through (and this part is key) the media.
Put differently: serial killers as such only came into existence after the mass media emerged. (circa 1870s).
(see the chapter on Jack the Ripper in Judith Walkowitz' City of Dreadful Delight, for instance, where she elaborates on the imagined relationship between the perpetrator and the public through the media reporting on the murders.)
Think of the serial killer as the flip side of the celebrity--also a modern invention, where someone becomes famous simply for being in the news, rather than for specific heroism, martial valor, devout piety, etc.
In a similar vein, the mass shootings by lone (mentally disturbed) assailants is very much in line with serial killers, in that the modern mass media plays a pivotal role that is easily overlooked.
first, media saturation of mass shootings supplies the idea that this is a viable path to fame and notoriety. Every American knows "Columbine", for instance (the same way we all know "Ted Bundy"). And that knowledge presents a model for future action.
secondly, because of expected media coverage (based on massive media coverage of prior shootings), a would-be mass shooter can 'imagine' that he is communicating through the media.. that he is making a 'statement' that will be 'heard'. This is true: this deranged individual in Orlando was literally a nobody a week ago--an anonymous, easily forgotten disturbed individual. Now everyone in the United States is reading about him, having an emotional response to him.
The mass media is crucial. Without it, there is no "model" circulated...but more importantly, there can be no expectation of fame/notoriety and a 'message' communicated to 'the world'.
(this leads me to believe that if there were a 100% media blackout on mass shootings--if there were complete, strict censorship--then they would stop happening... but of course, that's speculation, counter-factual history, and a tangent to your question.)
While there are innumerable massacres of innocents in the annals of history--and sometimes carried out by individuals--the socio-cultural context was profoundly different. The mass shooter of today's America depends on a modern innovation, namely the mass media.
A mass shooting by a lone assailant, such as that which occurred over the weekend, would appear to be a relatively recent phenomenon. As such there is very little in the way of historic research surrounding the topic.
However, if we take the question to mean mass killings involving the mentioned weapons, then yes, they were known to occur, but generally they would be committed by more than one person; however, these are often labeled 'massacres'.
Even then it is difficult to say if the only weapons used were the ones mentioned above. The one example I could find which seems to suggest that only muskets were used was the Boston Massacre, as detailed in Zobel's The Boston Massacre , in which a number of British troops fired upon a group of colonists with their muskets, resulting in 5 deaths. This was however perpetrated by 6 soldiers.
TL;DR Little evidence of 'Lone Gunman' style shootings; however there were multi-person massacres involving the weapons you mentioned (though often alongside others)