We've probably all seen the fancy, light and sleek flintlocks labeled as 'officer's fusils'. I've seen and few and strongly believe that the lock plates were cast in lost wax to get so much detail. But - what is this gun's place in history? Were they ever actually give to military officers, and were those men expected to go to battle with them? Dove hunting with other officers, I can buy that (rich officers get luxury, poor soldiers get beans). But who knows for sure?
-
This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.
Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades -
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
the officers fusil - its place in history
- Thread starter mattybock
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Yes they were meant to use them , but their use came and went depending on time and location .Most were private purchase some were purchased by the regt. col. and the officers had to pay the cost back and according to De Witt Bailey some were purchased by the Tower and supplied and a very small number were made by the tower (Artillery Officers ).
Bill Bizoff
32 Cal.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2012
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 0
"His excellency (General Braddock) likewise recommends it to all the Officers to provide them selves if possible with Fuzies, as Espontoons will be extremely inconvenient and useless in the Woods".
March 27, 1755. Braddocks Orderly Books, p. VIII.
Bill
March 27, 1755. Braddocks Orderly Books, p. VIII.
Bill
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,808
- Reaction score
- 6
To take it one sidestep further. There would have ikely been cavalry officers who would have provided their own weapons. So there should also be a PC/HC justification for short barreled smooth guns of a military nature. I would think.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,777
- Reaction score
- 58
38 inches was considered short.
Many Klatch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 3,498
- Reaction score
- 265
At least one Hessian officer armed himself with a double barreled shotgun as his firearm during the AWI.
As noted, they were not issue. They were private purchases. Previously discouraged as an officer has more to do than futz with a musket or firelock. In the Americas warfare was a bit less civilized and even the camps and byways were unsafe so officers armed themselves (after the upper eschelons of the military and government allowed . . .and some before).
Carbine lengths and calibers were popular - like 42" or even 38" barrels and calibers of 16 or 18 bore. Some had small bayonets that stored in a butt trap. And they were invariably better fit and finish than the Land Patterns.
Carbine lengths and calibers were popular - like 42" or even 38" barrels and calibers of 16 or 18 bore. Some had small bayonets that stored in a butt trap. And they were invariably better fit and finish than the Land Patterns.
Similar threads
