Fredericksburg/Rappahanock Forge Muskets

hawkeye2 · Nov 9, 2018

patriot said:
Many years ago (I bet over 20) Pedersoli did manufacture a few locks engraved with Fred on the lockplate. At the time, I had no idea what/why it was there. I was just beginning to get involved in muzzleloading and I was more interested in the Hawken rifles and that time period. These Fredericksburg locks were installed in their Brown Bess. I was told that they were a limited run, but I don't know how many were made. They were sold by and featured in Track of the Wolf. They are no longer available. I even contacted Pedersoli to see if they would be willing to do a run. It had to be orchestrated through one of their importers. Cost prohibitive for what you get. I thought it would be nice to have one, since I live in Fredericksburg, VA. It's not going to happen.
Instead, I went ahead and purchased a Militia Musket from ERA and am completely satisfied with that decision. Now I have a generic musket that will pass muster for a Rev weapon.

Patriot

I suspect it was over 30 years ago and were avaliable for a few years. Quite possibly they only made the one run. They featured a walnut stock and the flat faced lock. I can't remember for sure but seem to believe they lacked the forearm swell. There may have been some other small detail changes too but honestly they were too expensive for me to have taken a really detailed look. Had the price been in line with the Bess & Charleyville they might have stayed on the market.

Hornguy · Nov 9, 2018

Steve Blancard said:
I thought I'd start a new topic on these, since the "Contintal Army Musket" topic has evolved towards these guns.

I went down to the Fredericksburg Area Museum and Cultural Center this morning and took some photos of the two muskets on display. One was made at the Fredericksburg Manufatuary of Arms in 1776, the other at the Rappahonnock Forge around 1780. Photos are not normally allowed, but I received permission from the museum director. The muskets are inside a plexiglas display case, so it they were difficult to photograph. I appologize for the reflections in some of the photos.

I know almost nothing about these, other than they are obviously patterned after the Brown Bess. I'd really like to hear your comments regarding their features. How close are they to a Brown Bess? What unique features do they have?

Fredericksburg and Rappahannock Forge Muskets

Thanks,
Steve

Hornguy · Nov 9, 2018

Can you repost the pictures of the Fredericksburg musket? I have heard that the few specimens that are in the museum were cut down to 37 and 39 inch barrels. I assume the original length would have been 42 inches. Thanks, Hornguy

Jock Ellis · Nov 10, 2018

Hello, new guy here. May I ask a question about the Brown Bess on this thread? In one of the 17 books on George Washington I’ve read the author stated that the British only correctly loaded their muskets for the initial volley. After that the purpose of firing was to create a smoke screen which would unnerve opponents seeing bayonets protrude from the smoke and herald the dreaded bayonet charge. The round ball would have been rolling on the ground after a flight of 25 yards or so.
Does this sound correct?

Grenadier1758 · Nov 10, 2018

The rate of fire by the British was 3 to 5 rounds a minute. They practiced to get more rounds off than the other line. Often the British Line would have one or two more volleys fired and the opposing line getting pretty well shot up. By the third round the British line would be ready to prepare for the bayonet charge. All the rounds would have been driven by the same amount of powder.

There is a case for the back line of cartridges to be smaller in diameter so that they could be loaded after firing several volleys and not have to force the ball past the fouling.

Jock Ellis · Nov 10, 2018

Five rounds a minute would seem to require a minimum of precision in loading and, therefore, a degradation of accuracy. I can see some truth in what I read because no one wants to get skewered so after a few volleys the Brits could start their charge facing frightened and/or wounded enemies.
Next question is how do I put something under my name?

Grenadier1758 · Nov 10, 2018

At the top of the page you will see a torso shape to the left of the envelope. Click on the torso to get to the personal section. Click in signature. Enter your desired signature and make a statement.

Welcome to the Forum, Jock.

FlinterNick · Nov 11, 2018

Steve Blancard said:
I thought I'd start a new topic on these, since the "Contintal Army Musket" topic has evolved towards these guns.

I went down to the Fredericksburg Area Museum and Cultural Center this morning and took some photos of the two muskets on display. One was made at the Fredericksburg Manufatuary of Arms in 1776, the other at the Rappahonnock Forge around 1780. Photos are not normally allowed, but I received permission from the museum director. The muskets are inside a plexiglas display case, so it they were difficult to photograph. I appologize for the reflections in some of the photos.

I know almost nothing about these, other than they are obviously patterned after the Brown Bess. I'd really like to hear your comments regarding their features. How close are they to a Brown Bess? What unique features do they have?

Fredericksburg and Rappahannock Forge Muskets

Thanks,
Steve

flintlock75 said:
Nice Pictures,
They are very close to the brown bess design.
The thing that stands out to me is the lock shape.
It appears smaller in size and a very different shape, the bess lock is more bannana shaped. the locks pictured look more like up sized rifle locks.Kind of humpy vs curved and more streamlined. Also smaller frizzens. These lock plates are also flat vs a rounded surface for the bess. I dont know what the barrel length of those muskets are but they look shorter than 42" barrels on the bess, hard to tell from picture.
The .75 caliber is the same as a bess. the other features appear to be the same, ie. swell at forearm, steel ramrod, brass nose cap, sling swivels, the buttstocks are same and the but plate looks simalar as well. By the appearnce they are overall the same pattern as the brown bess. I think if you changed the lock on a bess to one with a flat surface it could easly pass for the american version.

American muskets were pretty much a hodge of recycled parts and forged parts. Round vs flat lock plate .... you could use old French musket parts .... Dutch locks etc. the one factor that stands out is most locks are 6-7 inches by 1-1.5. Some contractors like Wilson or Rapp had borrowed heavily from Brown Bess patterns but many styles omitted key parts such as wrist plates, steel ramrods, stepped butt plates and turned bauliater breeches.

FlinterNick · Nov 11, 2018

Carteret Kid said:
Lack of documentation ,records or a coherant system of markings make research on this catagory of guns SO frustrating . And the stories they come with make it more confusing. Does anyone know when historians started to do real research on Rev war weapons ?

Thats because American muskets were mostly forged from surplus parts provided by British contractors and weapons captured in Conflicts.

FlinterNick · Nov 11, 2018

Nicholas A. Genda said:
American muskets were pretty much a hodge of recycled parts and forged parts. Round vs flat lock plate .... you could use old French musket parts .... Dutch locks etc. the one factor that stands out is most locks are 6-7 inches by 1-1.5. Some contractors like Wilson or Rapp had borrowed heavily from Brown Bess patterns but many styles omitted key parts such as wrist plates, steel ramrods, stepped butt plates and turned bauliater breeches.

The incarnation of the 42 inch barrel came in the later years of the war .... most muskets of the American Revolution were 44-46 inches. Long lands were more common as were French 44-45 inch muskets.

Most early 42 inch muskets were originally 46 inch and redressed at the muzzle.

Elnathan · Nov 13, 2018

Jock Ellis said:
Hello, new guy here. May I ask a question about the Brown Bess on this thread? In one of the 17 books on George Washington I’ve read the author stated that the British only correctly loaded their muskets for the initial volley. After that the purpose of firing was to create a smoke screen which would unnerve opponents seeing bayonets protrude from the smoke and herald the dreaded bayonet charge. The round ball would have been rolling on the ground after a flight of 25 yards or so.
Does this sound correct?

No. The Brits actually favored slow(ish), accurate fire - it was the French that favored the bayonet, and the Prussians that sought to get as much lead downrange as rapidly as possible. The French tended to consider their troops to be emotional and unstable - they would charge forward with great courage and elan, but if they tended to panic if forced to stand and take fire. The Prussians treated their troops as automatons - don't think, just shoot as fast as they can. The British and the Dutch were thought to be phlegmatic - not the guys to get keyed up for a death-or-glory charge, but hard to panic - so they concentrated on shooting fast but accurately. These same ethnic stereotypes, what was referred to as the "national genius" back in the day, extended into discipline - the French seldom flogged their men, but appealed to their sense of honor; the Germans tended to rely on physical punishment; and the British sought a balance between corporal punishment and appealing to their men's better instincts.

The problem for the British was that when facing Americans, they had a foe that could shoot as accurately as they could and usually had more men. On top of that the British could not easily replace losses, so keeping their own casualties low was a high priority. The British commanders responded by using speed to outmaneuver the Americans, attack only part of the American army at a time (usually by outflanking them), and to close the gap quickly so they didn't get bogged down in a protracted firefight in which they would lose large numbers of men. The reliance on the bayonet in North America was part of that emphasis on speed and aggression to outmaneuver more numerous but less trained opponents.

Oh, and their muskets were certainly lethal at ranges far beyond 25 yards.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0806141522/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

Steve Blancard · Jan 8, 2019

It's been a long time since I was here. Someone asked about photos of the Fredericksburg musket I photographed. Here are a few. In the photo of two muskets, the Fredericksburg is on top.

Hornguy · Jan 9, 2019

Thank you for sharing the pictures. It looks like the hammer on the musket is a replacement. I base that guess on the color and the new looking hammer screw. The rest looks OK.

Robby · Jan 9, 2019

oreclan said:
Many Klatch,
The British were also trained to aim and fire at targets, this is a common misconception (a reenactorism). There are numerous original accounts of deliberate aiming with long and short land pattern muskets.
YMH&OS
Ron M.

Years ago I read that King George put out an edict that anyone caught aiming would receive the death penalty. Now, maybe I am mis remembering, I don't even remember which George. The idea was to have every man pointing straight ahead. It was thought aiming would be detrimental to good discipline, and if allowed to aim too many would pick out an oddity in the opposing line, like a real tall guy or someone with odd features, there by concentrating fire instead of cutting a wide swath.
I'm not trying to be contentious, just trying to reconcile what I have been carrying in my head.
Robby

Artificer · Jan 10, 2019

Steve Blancard said:
It's been a long time since I was here. Someone asked about photos of the Fredericksburg musket I photographed. Here are a few. In the photo of two muskets, the Fredericksburg is on top.

Steve,

GREAT Pics! Thank you. Do you remember where you took those pics?

Gus

Artificer · Jan 10, 2019

Robby said:
Years ago I read that King George put out an edict that anyone caught aiming would receive the death penalty. Now, maybe I am mis remembering, I don't even remember which George. The idea was to have every man pointing straight ahead. It was thought aiming would be detrimental to good discipline, and if allowed to aim too many would pick out an oddity in the opposing line, like a real tall guy or someone with odd features, there by concentrating fire instead of cutting a wide swath.
I'm not trying to be contentious, just trying to reconcile what I have been carrying in my head.
Robby

Robby,

There was a period when British Soldiers were taught to point their muskets straight ahead, but turn their heads to the right when they fired. This was done to shield their eyes from the "fire" from an Overly Worn Touch Hole on the musket to their left. However, at least during the FIW and later, British Soldiers were taught to take deliberate aim when firing in volleys. As Loyalist Dave has pointed out on more than one occasion, some British Officers went as far as offering prizes of a little money or a pouch of tobacco to the best shooters, when competitions were held at the Company or Regimental levels.

Gus

Robby · Jan 10, 2019

Thanks Artificer.
Robby

Steve Blancard · Aug 8, 2019

These original muskets are in the Fredericksburg Area museum collection. I got permission from the curator to photograph them after hours.

hawkeye2 · Aug 8, 2019

patriot said:
Many years ago (I bet over 20) Pedersoli did manufacture a few locks engraved with Fred on the lockplate. At the time, I had no idea what/why it was there. I was just beginning to get involved in muzzleloading and I was more interested in the Hawken rifles and that time period. These Fredericksburg locks were installed in their Brown Bess. I was told that they were a limited run, but I don't know how many were made. They were sold by and featured in Track of the Wolf. They are no longer available. I even contacted Pedersoli to see if they would be willing to do a run. It had to be orchestrated through one of their importers. Cost prohibitive for what you get. I thought it would be nice to have one, since I live in Fredericksburg, VA. It's not going to happen.
Instead, I went ahead and purchased a Militia Musket from ERA and am completely satisfied with that decision. Now I have a generic musket that will pass muster for a Rev weapon.

Patriot

Pedersoli did these in the early 80s (possibly very late 70s) and they sold for considerably more than their Bess and they wern't on the market long. They had a flat lock and a walnut stock which was probably European but looked nice. I seem to recall them being called a Committee of Safety musket. There was one in the store in what was at that time the Yorktown Victory Center, now the American Revolution Museum. That was the only one I have ever seen to this day and i can't seem to find any info on the net about them. I have thought about them from time to time and can't remember if they had the swell on the forearm or if it was eliminated. I would have loved to have owned one but my Bess was paid for and there was no way I could afford another gun back then. I had thought of modifying my Bess to a Committee of Safety configuration but never did it though it wouldn't have taken much work.

toot · Aug 9, 2019

it looks like that the flint is way to small for the musket lock also? looks like a rifle flint.

Fredericksburg/Rappahanock Forge Muskets

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

Cannon

32 Cal

32 Cal

32 Cal

Cannon

32 Cal

Cannon

69 Cal.

69 Cal.

69 Cal.

50 Cal.

40 Cal.

32 Cal

62 Cal.

Cannon

Cannon

62 Cal.

40 Cal.

Cannon

32 Cal.

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!