- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 15,307
spudnut said:
I saw what you mean, but after looking at the photos when enlarged, I think it was due to the lighting and shadow/s of the photo and not a second touch hole.
Gus
-
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
LLP Parts Mix Up while re-stocking?
- Thread starter Ike Godsey
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I saw what you mean, but after looking at the photos when enlarged, I think it was due to the lighting and shadow/s of the photo and not a second touch hole.
Gus
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 15,307
As to the stock, there is no doubt the wood has been "cleaned" sometime in the past and some kind of oil or varnish may have been applied since the cleaning. I say this as the bottoms of some of the imperfections in the stock show age patina that is not evident on the clear wood surface around them.
Those sort of imperfections and especially the patina in the bottoms of them are darn near impossible to fake. At a minimum, it takes many decades for that patina to develop.
As to the lock, the threads of the top jaw screw are of the correct type for the 18th century, being more formed than cut like modern screws and the shape of the screw head is different than reproduction screws. The trefoil terminus of the feather spring is unlike those found on TOTW, Rifle Shoppe or Blackley castings. The shape of the hammer is also different than those found on TOTW, Rifle Shoppe or Blackley castings and some of the molded in features are not there. Same thing for the front end and "tip over area" of the frizzen. I suppose it is possible to take a TOTW, Rifle Shoppe or Blackley casting and do some or all of these things to them to make them appear authentic, but that would have been a great deal of work and more to get the lockplate to accurately fit a stock and inletting that is older than the castings of any of those companies. Further, the cost to do all that pretty much precludes fakers from going to all that trouble.
I would still prefer to examine it in hand and in natural sunlight before I made a final determination on the gun, though.
Gus
Those sort of imperfections and especially the patina in the bottoms of them are darn near impossible to fake. At a minimum, it takes many decades for that patina to develop.
As to the lock, the threads of the top jaw screw are of the correct type for the 18th century, being more formed than cut like modern screws and the shape of the screw head is different than reproduction screws. The trefoil terminus of the feather spring is unlike those found on TOTW, Rifle Shoppe or Blackley castings. The shape of the hammer is also different than those found on TOTW, Rifle Shoppe or Blackley castings and some of the molded in features are not there. Same thing for the front end and "tip over area" of the frizzen. I suppose it is possible to take a TOTW, Rifle Shoppe or Blackley casting and do some or all of these things to them to make them appear authentic, but that would have been a great deal of work and more to get the lockplate to accurately fit a stock and inletting that is older than the castings of any of those companies. Further, the cost to do all that pretty much precludes fakers from going to all that trouble.
I would still prefer to examine it in hand and in natural sunlight before I made a final determination on the gun, though.
Gus
Gus, I agree with your basic observations. I too believe it's a genuine 'antique' musket. Why it looks like it does is very puzzling and there's obvious signs of having been 'cleaned' at some point. The barrel stampings are also puzzling for their location and even their shape isn't British ordnance or inspector/viewer as we'd expect to see. The Dutch connection was what sprang to mind first to me as well. Though I've seen a couple through the years, though not in person, it's quite possible this may be one of that contract. It's just possible that the lock's been replaced with a British made one...I don't know for certain whether the guns made through the Dutch contract had locks provided from Britain or not.
The rammer hardware does appear to be from the P1756 series and if the lock is correct, they've been changed as well. This musket is really a challenge to figure out. The seller is obviously letting his imagination run amuck with the description and possible scenario about this gun's actual history. The basic musket probably predates the AWI, but all that's been redone and changed really makes identification a manure shoot!
The rammer hardware does appear to be from the P1756 series and if the lock is correct, they've been changed as well. This musket is really a challenge to figure out. The seller is obviously letting his imagination run amuck with the description and possible scenario about this gun's actual history. The basic musket probably predates the AWI, but all that's been redone and changed really makes identification a manure shoot!
If of dutch make if it went through any British trade it would have the relevant proof stamp ,it does not .If one can get perfect replacement parts made for a piece then logic would dictate (to most )that this ability could be used for criminal purposes , which is far more profitable by the way , and easily spotted by those with the knowledge to do so , the knowledge of these details are kept quite because these scoundrels are getting very good .
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 15,307
I may be wrong, but I think there is still some confusion on the barrel marks on the Musket that Ike linked. The marks that are down that far on the left side of the barrel, in the link Ike posted, were NOT the “King’s Proof,” that meant British Ordnance/Government Ownership. So, those marks on the barrel of the musket that Ike linked are “Maker’s” Marks. A “Dutch” made barrel would not have had English Maker’s Marks. “The King’s Proof” that proved British Government Ownership/Issue, were the TWO marks that were placed just slightly to the left of the VERY TOP of the barrel. These two marks were the Crown over The Sovereign’s Initials (GR) and the Crown over Crossed Scepters. The photo’s of the Musket that Ike linked do not show high enough on the barrel to see IF the two marks of the King’s Proof are there or not. To see a photo of how the King’s Proof (Two Marks) and Maker’s Mark/s were placed on British Ordnance Muskets in this period and to better understand what I am trying to relate, I recommend the photo on Page 6 of Bailey’s Pattern Dates for British Ordnance Small Arms 1718-1783.
I may or probably did not explain my earlier point that well on the Dutch Muskets and Barrels ordered and received from 1739-42. Allow me to ignore the 36,000 complete Dutch Muskets for a moment and concentrate on the 18,000 Dutch Barrels that were ordered and received in that time frame. That large of a quantity of separately listed barrels most strongly suggests, if not fully proves, British Ordnance was taking Dutch Barrels and using English locks, furniture and stocks to assemble hybrid British Ordnance Military Arms. These would have been close to and probably strongly resembled P1740 Pattern Arms due to the rest of the Ordnance approved/English made parts, BUT with a Dutch Barrel rather than an English Barrel. Of course those Muskets when originally assembled, like True Ordnance Pattern Muskets of the period, had Wood Ramrods. Steel Rammers were still a bit further into the future at that time.
Further research in Bailey’s Books has convinced me I was wrong about one possibility for the origin of this musket. According to Bailey, there were no very large orders of Dutch Muskets in the F&I War and he does not mention any orders of separate Dutch barrels. So it almost certainly cannot be an early production P1756 Musket with a left over Double Bridle, Banana Shaped Lock ”“ especially due to the Dutch barrel. That super long tanged buttplate was also not used from the P1742 muskets onward. But that is not a bad thing at all and it actually makes things more interesting. Grin.
I have to admit I am strongly intrigued by that very early Pattern 1730/40 buttplate with the super long tang. That buttplate and the rest of the furniture (except the rammer pipes and probably the entry pipe) could easily have come from a single musket. No one can absolutely verify the lock and barrel were originally mated to each other, but a cursory examination that can be done by only looking at photo’s seem to at least suggest that most of the parts for this gun came from one musket and then they added the updated entry and rammer pipes. If that is actually correct, then it is very possible the gun came from a Dutch barreled, British Ordnance assembled P1740 Hybrid. But that brings up a rather large question of how an almost complete King’s Musket (with or without a broken stock) came into civilian possession.
In different parts of Bailey’s Small Arms of the British Forces in America 1664-1815, he states some points on what British Ordnance did with Out-of-Date or damaged Muskets. Older pattern Brass Furniture was normally taken off the stocks and recast into newer pattern furniture. They no longer used the super long tanged P1730/40 buttplate from the P1742 Musket forward. Barrels and ESPECIALLY Dutch barrels were taken off and reworked for virtually all Sea Service Muskets through the end of the 18th century and some later pattern Carbines. So a huge hurdle an out-of-date or broken stock musket had to surmount was the normal cannibalization of parts by British Ordnance.
When the Ordnance Board reworked older pattern Muskets for the “Home Island” Militia’s, they re-stocked the guns in walnut in this time period because that is what they had. Also, the musket Ike linked does not look like a gun that British Ordnance reworked.
So if most of the parts on the Musket that Ike linked came from a P1740 Hybrid, then that gun was either sold off by the British Ordnance Department or it may have been broken in actual use overseas from the Home Islands or disposed of overseas and that could have meant while the musket was still serviceable to Colonial Governments. If that was true, then that opens the door to it having been restocked in America, but it does not absolutely mean that is correct.
I can easily envisage an older Patter P1740 Hybrid sent here during the F&I War to help with the Colonial Provincials and Militia’s. There are references to “Dutch Muskets” coming to some of the Colonies at that time. It is also possible the Musket came over with some of the early British Regulars whose regiment had not yet been issued the latest P1756 pattern muskets. Then the stock was damaged and the Musket sold off rather than shipping it back to England or lost in military action or issued to Colonial Troops and never returned. Then when it was restocked, whenever that was, they used Rammer Pipes and an Entry Pipe for an “Up to Date” Steel Rammer.
The important thing to my mind though, is that this is a really neat gun even if it is just a collection of parts from various muskets and once again made into a Musket that was serviceable. The Very Early buttplate is especially interesting.
Gus
I may or probably did not explain my earlier point that well on the Dutch Muskets and Barrels ordered and received from 1739-42. Allow me to ignore the 36,000 complete Dutch Muskets for a moment and concentrate on the 18,000 Dutch Barrels that were ordered and received in that time frame. That large of a quantity of separately listed barrels most strongly suggests, if not fully proves, British Ordnance was taking Dutch Barrels and using English locks, furniture and stocks to assemble hybrid British Ordnance Military Arms. These would have been close to and probably strongly resembled P1740 Pattern Arms due to the rest of the Ordnance approved/English made parts, BUT with a Dutch Barrel rather than an English Barrel. Of course those Muskets when originally assembled, like True Ordnance Pattern Muskets of the period, had Wood Ramrods. Steel Rammers were still a bit further into the future at that time.
Further research in Bailey’s Books has convinced me I was wrong about one possibility for the origin of this musket. According to Bailey, there were no very large orders of Dutch Muskets in the F&I War and he does not mention any orders of separate Dutch barrels. So it almost certainly cannot be an early production P1756 Musket with a left over Double Bridle, Banana Shaped Lock ”“ especially due to the Dutch barrel. That super long tanged buttplate was also not used from the P1742 muskets onward. But that is not a bad thing at all and it actually makes things more interesting. Grin.
I have to admit I am strongly intrigued by that very early Pattern 1730/40 buttplate with the super long tang. That buttplate and the rest of the furniture (except the rammer pipes and probably the entry pipe) could easily have come from a single musket. No one can absolutely verify the lock and barrel were originally mated to each other, but a cursory examination that can be done by only looking at photo’s seem to at least suggest that most of the parts for this gun came from one musket and then they added the updated entry and rammer pipes. If that is actually correct, then it is very possible the gun came from a Dutch barreled, British Ordnance assembled P1740 Hybrid. But that brings up a rather large question of how an almost complete King’s Musket (with or without a broken stock) came into civilian possession.
In different parts of Bailey’s Small Arms of the British Forces in America 1664-1815, he states some points on what British Ordnance did with Out-of-Date or damaged Muskets. Older pattern Brass Furniture was normally taken off the stocks and recast into newer pattern furniture. They no longer used the super long tanged P1730/40 buttplate from the P1742 Musket forward. Barrels and ESPECIALLY Dutch barrels were taken off and reworked for virtually all Sea Service Muskets through the end of the 18th century and some later pattern Carbines. So a huge hurdle an out-of-date or broken stock musket had to surmount was the normal cannibalization of parts by British Ordnance.
When the Ordnance Board reworked older pattern Muskets for the “Home Island” Militia’s, they re-stocked the guns in walnut in this time period because that is what they had. Also, the musket Ike linked does not look like a gun that British Ordnance reworked.
So if most of the parts on the Musket that Ike linked came from a P1740 Hybrid, then that gun was either sold off by the British Ordnance Department or it may have been broken in actual use overseas from the Home Islands or disposed of overseas and that could have meant while the musket was still serviceable to Colonial Governments. If that was true, then that opens the door to it having been restocked in America, but it does not absolutely mean that is correct.
I can easily envisage an older Patter P1740 Hybrid sent here during the F&I War to help with the Colonial Provincials and Militia’s. There are references to “Dutch Muskets” coming to some of the Colonies at that time. It is also possible the Musket came over with some of the early British Regulars whose regiment had not yet been issued the latest P1756 pattern muskets. Then the stock was damaged and the Musket sold off rather than shipping it back to England or lost in military action or issued to Colonial Troops and never returned. Then when it was restocked, whenever that was, they used Rammer Pipes and an Entry Pipe for an “Up to Date” Steel Rammer.
The important thing to my mind though, is that this is a really neat gun even if it is just a collection of parts from various muskets and once again made into a Musket that was serviceable. The Very Early buttplate is especially interesting.
Gus
Ike Godsey
45 Cal.
I still think the above discussed musket is a typical musket restocked by the patriots during the AWI. By all thats said, it could be possible.
I ran across another example, but a very crude one:
This is the description to that musket:
:hmm:
Ike
I ran across another example, but a very crude one:
This is the description to that musket:
:hmm:
Ike
If that barrel came to the USA just before ,earlier or during the AWI it would HAVE TO HAVE A British FOREIGN MADE British proof stamp, different to a PROOF STAMP for British made barrels ,it does not have this stamp .FYI the lock is modified TOW as is the trigger guard and butt plate the ramrod pipes are from IMA , the barrel ? ramrod IMA ? 
The wood was cut from at tree on the eastern side of the smokey mountains in late spring 5 years ago :wink: :grin:
The wood was cut from at tree on the eastern side of the smokey mountains in late spring 5 years ago :wink: :grin:
Ike Godsey
45 Cal.
1601phill said:
Just to bring a bit more light in my confusion...
How do you know THIS musket is made during the AWI and the other is not?
You also stated, on the musket in the original post, the lock is a TOW lock - how do you know this? Is there anything I (we) cannot see?
Thank you in advance.
Ike
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 15,307
1601phill said:If that barrel came to the USA just before ,earlier or during the AWI it would HAVE TO HAVE A British FOREIGN MADE British proof stamp, different to a PROOF STAMP for British made barrels ,it does not have this stamp .FYI the lock is modified TOW as is the trigger guard and butt plate the ramrod pipes are from IMA , the barrel ? ramrod IMA ?
In Small Arms of the British Forces in America 1664-1815, on page 225, Dr. Bailey mentions that only one of the muskets of the Dutch 1740-1 period Muskets has been found, but there is no further information on it.
However, on page 227 there are photo's of Liege made Muskets held by the Royal Armouries at Leeds of Pattern 1778-83 type. One photo clearly shows the normal "King's Proof" marks of (1) the Crown over the GR and (2) the Crown over the Crossed Scepters. Then there is the Maker's Mark lower down on the left side of the barrel of an "IG" (or maybe an "LG") inside a rectangular background.
If as you mentioned twice now that "The wood was cut from at tree on the eastern side of the smokey mountains in late spring 5 years ago" - then that could be discerned by taking the lock and barrel off stock as I have mentioned. There would also be tell tale signs on the underside of the trigger guard and most likely the butt plate that would be missing as well. Just to be clear, are you saying you have personal knowledge and experience with the first musket that Ike linked in this thread?
Gus
Now this second one is a beauty Ike! That's got to be about the biggest hodge-podge of parts I've seen in some time! Dutch barrel, Irish lock, French stock and a grab bag of hardware...God, I love it. No idea how you could ever determine just when it was "put together", but built for militia from parts has got to be the answer to the $64,000 question. I live for seeing pieces like this, it's just hilariously awesome! :thumbsup: Thanks for posting this photo...the closest thing I"ve seen to being as "shade-tree" gun smithed was a '94 Winchester rifle that had the barrel of a '93 Mauser "fitted" by one of Pancho Villa's gang! This is great! :v
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 15,307
Ike Godsey said:
Ike,
OK, I think I understand the point you are trying to make now. However, there are different correct answers for different guns.
On Muskets or other guns put together by Civilian Gunsmiths, there could be quite a mix of different time period parts and parts made in different countries. If such a gun was made for the AWI, it would be “correct” or HC/PC accurate as long as no parts on that gun were made AFTER the time period the Musket or gun was assembled. IOW, let’s say the gun had a 1790’s or 1800’s India Pattern Buttplate, then that gun could not have been used in the AWI in that configuration. Maybe some of the parts of that gun were used in the AWI, but not the complete gun with that late of a butt plate.
A lot of the discussion comes on Reproduction British Ordnance Pattern Firearms and some on French Military Muskets. Leaving the French muskets aside and thanks to information that has come out in the last 20 years or more recently, it is much easier to say if a Repro of a British Ordnance Pattern Musket or Arm is HC/PC correct for different time periods and locations, because there is a lot more information available on the original guns.
Bottom line, if you are doing a Civilian Persona of a particular time period and here in “the Colonies,” there is a much wider range of variations for an HC/PC reproduction than what you would find on Military Pattern Arms.
Gus
Now compare the two posts by Ike and the differences should jump straight out at every one , at first find one thing then look for others , good starting point is the differences in the execution of the engraving on the lock plates , yes they were done in different places but look for the method of application , now the cock and screw may be real on the first but they can be easily retro fitted , look at the sharp edges on the stock after 240+ years , now look at the last one ,all the mismatches and how they were put together with period methods and tools .
Ike Godsey
45 Cal.
So what you're basicly telling me is the "sharp edges" of the stock and the difference in engraving of the lock are the points that catches your eye and yell "FAKE!"
I can see what you mean - and must say - I can follow that.
Especially when it comes to the lock. The engraving on the first musket is more "clear" then that on the second one - and also differnt in lettering.
Thanks for clearing this points. :hatsoff:
Ike
I can see what you mean - and must say - I can follow that.
Especially when it comes to the lock. The engraving on the first musket is more "clear" then that on the second one - and also differnt in lettering.
Thanks for clearing this points. :hatsoff:
Ike
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 15,307
Ike,
One interesting thing I found while searching for information of British Ordnance buying so many "Dutch" Muskets and separate "Dutch" barrels in the early 1740's was a real bone of contention between British Ordnance and some of the Suppliers of the barrels.
It seems it was common practice with many of the "Dutch" barrels to NOT drill the touch hole when they proof fired the barrels. This put the British Ordnance department in "quite a tiff" even after they found out the barrels had been proof fired using special breech plugs that had a touch hole drilled through the breech plug.
The "Dutch" thinking was a pre-drilled touch hole could have been drilled in the wrong spot for some locks when a gun was assembled. So they proof fired the barrels this way so the touch hole could be accurately drilled for the individual lock pan when the lock was mounted. Actually, that seems like a pretty good idea to me before the age of precision gauges or measuring instruments, but WOW, it was not popular with British Ordnance!
Gus
One interesting thing I found while searching for information of British Ordnance buying so many "Dutch" Muskets and separate "Dutch" barrels in the early 1740's was a real bone of contention between British Ordnance and some of the Suppliers of the barrels.
It seems it was common practice with many of the "Dutch" barrels to NOT drill the touch hole when they proof fired the barrels. This put the British Ordnance department in "quite a tiff" even after they found out the barrels had been proof fired using special breech plugs that had a touch hole drilled through the breech plug.
The "Dutch" thinking was a pre-drilled touch hole could have been drilled in the wrong spot for some locks when a gun was assembled. So they proof fired the barrels this way so the touch hole could be accurately drilled for the individual lock pan when the lock was mounted. Actually, that seems like a pretty good idea to me before the age of precision gauges or measuring instruments, but WOW, it was not popular with British Ordnance!
Gus
Ike Godsey
45 Cal.
VERY interesting information Gus.
Thank You!!
Ike
Thank You!!
Ike
Oh, I bet! Ordnance guys are a bit 'touchy' about anything not the way they consider best. I've read some to the correspondence between George Washington Hockley, chief of ordnance for the Republic of Texas and many who walked the wrong side of the line...in his view. Bit of a narrow minded old dude...one inch wide note pads! :rotf: When his views were overridden about purchasing percussion guns for the Republic (he was a "flint & steel" man from the word GO!) poor geezer nearly had a stroke and called everybody involved everything short of their own mother's sons! Lot of ordnance's ideas, around the world, seem to be along the line of "Don't confuse me with the facts now that my mind's made up!" :haha:
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 16,892
- Reaction score
- 15,307
Something else on the Proof Marks that is germane to the discussion of "Dutch" Barrels on British Ordnance Board Military Muskets during the 1740 to 1742 period they bought those 18,000 separate Dutch Barrels.
The Ordnance Board was not buying those barrels to be made up into Muskets or guns for civilian use, those barrels were purchased to be used on British Ordnance Muskets. This because they could not get enough barrels fast enough and especially with the extreme winter that shut down boring and grinding mills in England as already noted. (When the water was frozen, they couldn't run water mills for power to grind/bore gun barrels.) The Ordnance Board needed more barrels so fast that even if the winter had not been bad, not enough barrels could be made in England fast enough in the emergency. Thus when those barrels were assembled by The Ordnance Board into Muskets, they would have had the King's Proof of the Crown over GR and the Crown over Crossed Sceptres denoting it as government property.
Now, had the Ordnance Board used any of those barrels for civilian use, as in guns assembled for use by their Indian Agency, then the barrel would have had the "Private Proof" on them and not the King's Proof. As of 1740 at The Proof House near the Tower of London, that "Private Proof" was one mark of a Crown over Crossed Sceptres with a second mark of the same Crown over Crossed Sceptres. IOW, TWO marks of the Crown over the Crossed Sceptres and NO Crown over GR mark. Information on "Private Proofs" done at the Tower of London may be found in the PDF "The Crossed Sceptres & Crown mark and its association with the gunmakers Ketland" By Brian Godwin & John Evans. A Photograph is shown with the title "Fig.3 Tower Private Proof marks ”“ the crossed sceptres and crown stamped twice ”“ used from c1740 until c1810." I am not sure this link will work, but if not, one can google it with that title information. (Edited: I do not know how to link a PDF and the link I posted would not work. My apologies.)
Now of course the Maker/s' Mark/s were lower down on the left side of the barrel and those would have not been British Marks as the barrels came from the Countries or German States already mentioned in this thread as then generally called "Dutch" by the English.
It is a real shame Dr. Bailey did not get a picture of that one 1740 British Ordnance Musket with the Dutch barrel that still exists. Many people interested in the FIW time period would find it fascinating.
Gus
The Ordnance Board was not buying those barrels to be made up into Muskets or guns for civilian use, those barrels were purchased to be used on British Ordnance Muskets. This because they could not get enough barrels fast enough and especially with the extreme winter that shut down boring and grinding mills in England as already noted. (When the water was frozen, they couldn't run water mills for power to grind/bore gun barrels.) The Ordnance Board needed more barrels so fast that even if the winter had not been bad, not enough barrels could be made in England fast enough in the emergency. Thus when those barrels were assembled by The Ordnance Board into Muskets, they would have had the King's Proof of the Crown over GR and the Crown over Crossed Sceptres denoting it as government property.
Now, had the Ordnance Board used any of those barrels for civilian use, as in guns assembled for use by their Indian Agency, then the barrel would have had the "Private Proof" on them and not the King's Proof. As of 1740 at The Proof House near the Tower of London, that "Private Proof" was one mark of a Crown over Crossed Sceptres with a second mark of the same Crown over Crossed Sceptres. IOW, TWO marks of the Crown over the Crossed Sceptres and NO Crown over GR mark. Information on "Private Proofs" done at the Tower of London may be found in the PDF "The Crossed Sceptres & Crown mark and its association with the gunmakers Ketland" By Brian Godwin & John Evans. A Photograph is shown with the title "Fig.3 Tower Private Proof marks ”“ the crossed sceptres and crown stamped twice ”“ used from c1740 until c1810." I am not sure this link will work, but if not, one can google it with that title information. (Edited: I do not know how to link a PDF and the link I posted would not work. My apologies.)
Now of course the Maker/s' Mark/s were lower down on the left side of the barrel and those would have not been British Marks as the barrels came from the Countries or German States already mentioned in this thread as then generally called "Dutch" by the English.
It is a real shame Dr. Bailey did not get a picture of that one 1740 British Ordnance Musket with the Dutch barrel that still exists. Many people interested in the FIW time period would find it fascinating.
Gus
