• 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

Shiny old M.1742 LLP

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Wes/Tex

Cannon
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
7,787
Reaction score
43
https://www.collegehillarsenal.com/shop/images/D/FLA-2816-18.jpg

After twice not being able to gt this pic to post I'm going to cheat. I posted this pic by mistake in Dave Person's post about his new made American militia musket project. Since it's a good old 1742 LLP Bess, figured others might like to see it here! You can see it's proofs adn other markings as well as what appears to be owner's name adn possibly unit designation scratched in the butt stock. A Farmer made piece dated 1747, it's a good example of what came to North America during the French & Indian War and appears to have stayed and been in militia service during the AWI era.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wes/Tex,

Thank you for posting this here.

My eyes popped out when I saw this in another thread you posted this link. Even with the crack in the stock behind the lock plate, this is an exceptional example of a Pattern 1742 Land Pattern Musket in almost untouched and unmodified condition.

At the time this musket was made, it was called a “Land Pattern” Musket until the coming of the “Short Land Pattern Muskets” in the 1760’s. Thereafter these and all full 46” barreled muskets were called “Long Land Pattern Muskets” to distinguish them from the newer Short Land Pattern Muskets. I make this distinction only for those who do FIW reenacting, because during that conflict it would only have been known as a “Land Pattern” Musket.

James Farmer of Birmingham was one of the more prodigious makers of locks and complete firearms for the British Board of Ordnance during his working years into the 1750’s. The lock plate of this musket bears his name as it was required until the 1760's, when it was dropped in favor of British Muskets being engraved with the name of the Arsenal for which the locks/guns were purchased or assembled, I.E. "Tower" for the arms issued from the Tower of London and "Dublin Castle" for the arms issued from Dublin Castle in Ireland. (It may be interesting to some that slightly over half of the British Regular Army was stationed in Ireland during the 1750’s, and the Irish Parliament had to fund their pay and supplies.) When James Farmer and Samuel Galton formed their partnership, they made even more Arms for the Government as well as for the slave trade. At the height of their production, they were assembling/making 12,000 Arms a year, which is a staggering amount prior to the Interchangeable Parts System of manufacture.

There is no doubt this was a British Ordnance piece as the lock plate bears the “King’s Cypher” of the Engraved Crown over the initials “GR” for George Rex/King George. Thanks to Kings George I, II and III; this King’s Cypher was perhaps the longest used of any and throughout most of the 18th century and after the War of 1812, until King George III passed.

The P 1742 Musket had all the improvements or modifications as first used in 1740; with the less fancy carving on the stock around the lock and tang, the “beefed up/more robust” trigger guard that would be used for at least the rest of the 18th century and most importantly the P 1740 Double Bridle Lock. The added Bridle on the Pan of the lock plate meant the Steel/Frizzen was no longer supported by just a single screw. From this point on, all Land Service Muskets were “Double Bridle” Locks and they even began to apply this modification to the cheap Sea Service Muskets later on.

What is great about this example of a P 1742 Musket is the front of the stock is still “as issued” and never modified with either a Nose Band (as many were modified even here in the Colonies in the FIW) or later a Nose Cap.

I would be at least somewhat surprised if the Wood Ramrod was original, but even if it is not, it is fitted with the correct Brass Ferrule. The manner in which they fitted that rather thin sheet Brass Ferrule to the Ramrods was very ingenious in a time period when epoxy glue was not even a science fiction idea. What they did was saw/file a groove into the end of the Ramrod and add a wedge that would just fit inside the Brass Ferrule. As they tapped the Ferrule on, the wedge spread out the end of the grooved ramrod to hold the Ferrule in place. Even though they would have had to have tapped the Ferrule to the rear in use as the wood inside the Ferrule wore, it seems these did not come off all that often. Brass Ferrules and Wood Rammers were in the lists of repair parts for use by British Artificers/Armorers during the FIW, but not so many Ferrules to expect they came off easily. Of course being a Wood Ramrod, the Worms for these Ramrods looked like a Coiled Spring.

Dr. Bailey in his works on 18th century British Military Arms has documented that Pattern 1742 Muskets like this were the “Work Horses” of the Regular British Regiments here during the FIW, as Wes/Tex noted. When may not be generally as well known is the British Ordnance Department actually ordered that all British Regiments sent here during the FIW and most of the replacement Arms sent here were to be “Wood Rammer” Muskets and not the “Steel Rammer Muskets” that were first produced in 1748 in a small run and in almost all the P 1756 Muskets. Any Regular Regiment that was to be sent here and had Steel Rammer Muskets, actually had to turn them in and receive P 1742 Wood Rammer Muskets in their place. This because British Ordnance considered the Threat on the Continent to be much greater and thus Steel Rammer Muskets were saved for British Regiments serving there. Though we may not like it today, the fighting here was seen as “in the backwater” compared to the threat of the French and her Allies on the Continent.

Some of these muskets were converted here in the Colonies by British Artificers/Armorers or other gunsmiths to use a Steel Rammer, later on in the FIW. The British Ordnance Department actually had 5 or 6 thousand Steel Rammer Muskets made up as the Pattern 1748 Land Service Musket, but all these went either to the Continent or retained on the Home Islands. It seems they also came up with a modification to convert Wood Ramrod Muskets to Steel Rammer muskets around that time. The modification included bushings soldered into the Ram Rod Pipes to reduce the diameter of the pipes to better fit the smaller diameter Steel Rammers and a Spoon shaped spring that was riveted inside the Rear Entry Pipe. Though this modification was well planned, the Springs in the Rear Entry Pipe either broke off or broke in two, far too often. The P 1756 Musket would correct these problems with smaller diameter Rammer Pipes and Rear Entry Pipes.

Gus
 
Hi,
Thank you Wes/Tex for posting this musket. To add to Wes and Gus's comments, the pattern 1742 musket was a BIG gun. Goldstein and Mowbray in their book on Besses call it the "Mack Truck" of British muskets. If you ever get to see one in a museum, or better handle one, you will appreciate that description. Ordnance slimmed the musket considerably when they altered it to use a steel rammer and added the nose cap for the pattern 1748. Notice how thin and almost nonexistent the molding is around the lock. One feature of pre-1756 pattern Besses, is the stocks have more drop in the heel. As shooters, they fit much better than later Besses, which had much straighter stocks. My epitome is the pattern 1748 with cast thimbles and nose cap. To me that is the Bess for looks and shooting.

dave
 
Erik Goldstein's book "18th Century Weapons of the Royal Welsh Fuziliers from Flixton Hall" is a marvelous source of pics of many early LLP guns of the 23rd, including shortened and non-shortened versions, close-up pics of the various locks, detailed pics of what the actual shortening to 42" actually looked like, barrel and company markings and even several original bayonets over several decades and shows how they were marked to match the engraving thumb piece including 20/72 (second battalion M.1748 model) and 9/71 & 9/72 both issued in 1757. One musket, a M.1756 version even has it's matching 5/94 metal ramrod. Really interesting detail and quite a collection. When the Hall was demolished in the early 50's the collection was sold out and much of it now resides at Williamsburg.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/br...ket.com/albums/gg578/snidervolley/bess465.jpg
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/br...ket.com/albums/gg578/snidervolley/bess425.jpg
http://emuseum.history.org/internal/media/dispatcher/212233/resize:format=full
"E. Cooks 1729"
https://jamesdjulia.com/wp-content/uploads/images/auctions/327/images/org/46674x4.jpg
"Vaughan 1730"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WOW!! MORE Great Pictures!! I will enjoy adding these to my files as well. Thank you! :thumbsup: :hatsoff:

However, and please don't think I am trying to nitpick you; but the 1st, 3rd and 4th links are all of P 1730 or P 1740 (at the latest) Muskets as the pics clearly show the early P 1730 molding/carving around the barrel tang and lock aprons (panels).

Personally, I LOVE that P1730 carving and wish they would have continued it in later models, but British Ordnance deemed it as too expensive and unnecessary in the P 1742 Muskets.

Gus
 
Oh yes, I know, but good pics of surviving pieces can be 'take what you can find' and looks like the picture posters like older over newer! But, I'll look! :wink: :haha:
https://skinnerinc-res.cloudinary....flintlock-rifle-and-bayonet-with-scabbard.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...4RH1PhBG3rMbclTL_5VSZsupI_-RzL6tWJIyv3D-XkQzQ
This is what the inside looks like! :wink:
http://images.yuku.com/image/jpg/63f26786e417a67f2d4ceccf19640d98a392f812_r.jpg
When you do get later models it's this sort or view!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Something else about the P 1742 in actual use in North America in the FIW. Though Spence has shown and written about filing grooves into the end of a Wood Ramrod to use the Corkscrew/Coil Wire Shaped Worm that was issued with these Muskets and thus made them effective with Tow to clean the barrel; the Wood Ramrods with this style of Worm could not normally be used to pull a complete Paper Cartridge and Ball. So how did they do that?

It is documented that during the FIW with the P 1742 Musket, every morning British and British American Sentries from the night before had to report to the Regimental Artificer/Armorer to have the cartridges pulled. The Artificers used a long Steel “Armorer’s Rod” with a “Ball Screw” or Ball Puller to pull the cartridges. The balls were recast by the Artificers and they saved the powder to be “refreshed” by mixing with unused powder. Though it is not documented what they did with the Cartridge Paper they pulled, it may or probably was used with Emory or Brick Dust to shine the Brass on their Muskets or other accoutrements.

Like Dave, I also think the P 1748 Land Service Muskets were the epitome of the “Brown Bess” for looks and use with their stocks that fit better and their “Banana” shaped locks that just look more elegant and perhaps were part of the reason for more drop in the wrist and butt stock? However and MUCH to my chagrin, Dr. Bailey noted this Pattern Musket was never used on the North American Continent and not even issued to Loyalists in the AWI. Heck, when I was doing a Private Soldier in the Black Watch; I would have been strongly tempted to also do a Loyalist impression had these been issued to Loyalists, just so I could carry one.

My personal “Ultimate Epitome” in a Brown Bess would be a Land Pattern Musket that never existed, unfortunately. It would be a P 1748, but also with the early P 1730 Carving around the Barrel Tang and lock aprons/panels that Wes/Tex showed in a more recent post above.

Gus
 
Wes/Tex said:
Oh yes, I know, but good pics of surviving pieces can be 'take what you can find' and looks like the picture posters like older over newer! But, I'll look! :wink: :haha:

Yes, I knew you knew, but just wanted to make that distinction for those who don't know.

Just LOVE those pics, though!

Gus
 
The cock is a replacement and the barrel does not look to be from that stock :hmm:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top