1730's Colonial Arms

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum:

Loyalist Dave

Cannon
Staff member
Moderator
MLF Supporter
Joined
Nov 22, 2011
Messages
10,498
Reaction score
4,238
Location
People's Republic of Maryland
Here is a reference a mere ten years after the thread title of 1730's...

[Maryland] Assembly Proceedings, April 23 – June 5, 1740

To the honourable Levin Gale Esqѓ One Musket with Bayonet and Belt two Broad Swords and Belts and two Pair of Pistols

Thirty Cartouch Boxes, a Trumpet two bags of Bullets and a quarter Cask of Powder

To Captain William Rogers forty Muskets two Drums the Colours, one half Pike a quarter Cask of Powder, a Cag of Bullets and a New Muskett with a Bayonett


To ditto nine Muskets

So notice the distinction in the reference, between "muskets" and "New Muskett"..., and since the LLP Bess was only about 12 years old at the time when this record was made..., I venture a guess that a "new" musket might be what We Today call a 1728 style LLP Bess. 🤔

So what might the other muskets have been?

Well the matchlocks, wheellock pistols, and snaphance muskets of seven decade prior are not likely. So perhaps the interim style lock is an educated guess. So perhaps something like this...

English Military Musket Lock... Pre "Bess"...c. 1714-1727
Yes the lock is marked "GR" for King George, but it's for King George I who reigned 1714-1727

DOG LOCK MUSKET Lock English 1710-1720.JPG


The design persisted into the 19th century as the Swedes really liked it. Here is a Swedish 1791 musket lock. Not the lack of a double throated cock and lack of tail at back of lock, unlike 80 year old English lock above...
DOG LOCK MUSKET Swede 1791.JPG


Luckily there are some repros made with the dog lock:

DOG LOCK MUSKET Lock.JPG


DOG LOCK MUSKET full.JPG


LD
 
Last edited:

FlinterNick

50 Cal.
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
1,425
Reaction score
535
Here is a reference a mere ten years after the thread title of 1730's...

[Maryland] Assembly Proceedings, April 23 – June 5, 1740

To the honourable Levin Gale Esqѓ One Musket with Bayonet and Belt two Broad Swords and Belts and two Pair of Pistols

Thirty Cartouch Boxes, a Trumpet two bags of Bullets and a quarter Cask of Powder

To Captain William Rogers forty Muskets two Drums the Colours, one half Pike a quarter Cask of Powder, a Cag of Bullets and a New Muskett with a Bayonett


To ditto nine Muskets

So notice the distinction in the reference, between "muskets" and "New Muskett"..., and since the LLP Bess was only about 12 years old at the time when this record was made..., I venture a guess that a "new" musket might be what We Today call a 1728 style LLP Bess. 🤔

So what might the other muskets have been?

Well the matchlocks, wheellock pistols, and snaphance muskets of seven decade prior are not likely. So perhaps the interim style lock is an educated guess. So perhaps something like this...

English Military Musket Lock... Pre "Bess"...c. 1714-1727
Yes the lock is marked "GR" for King George, but it's for King George I who reigned 1714-1727

View attachment 76297

The design persisted into the 19th century as the Swedes really liked it. Here is a Swedish 1791 musket lock. Not the lack of a double throated cock and lack of tail at back of lock, unlike 80 year old English lock above...
View attachment 76298

Luckily there are some repros made with the dog lock:

View attachment 76300

View attachment 76301

LD
That very early period of arsenal muskets has many patterns that Are very interesting and have made it into various by Arnes, Bailey and Moller.

The early English Infantry Musket some had dog locks, some didn’t It seems. Then theres the Queen Ann Pattern which is a unique blend of British and Dutch Characteristics. Giving rise to the eventual King’s Musket That Was made in significant numbers.

It always amazed me as to the similarities between British and Dutch Muskets, the Dutch types 1-3 are pretty much Brown Bess Muskets in most aspects.
 

Loyalist Dave

Cannon
Staff member
Moderator
MLF Supporter
Joined
Nov 22, 2011
Messages
10,498
Reaction score
4,238
Location
People's Republic of Maryland
It always amazed me as to the similarities between British and Dutch Muskets, the Dutch types 1-3 are pretty much Brown Bess Muskets in most aspects.
So I wonder did the Dutch "like" the design, and it influenced the Brits, OR did the Dutch use what the British "liked" as perhaps the British were their best customer? It was a rather large army at that time, and a lot of the regiments were still outfitted by a wealthy patron, rather than the Crown paying for the arms.

LD
 

FlinterNick

50 Cal.
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
1,425
Reaction score
535
So I wonder did the Dutch "like" the design, and it influenced the Brits, OR did the Dutch use what the British "liked" as perhaps the British were their best customer? It was a rather large army at that time, and a lot of the regiments were still outfitted by a wealthy patron, rather than the Crown paying for the arms.

LD
a little while back I had inquired to the Rifle Shoppe about purchasing a Dutch musket kit, one with a double bridled lock and stock with a good amount f drop. Jess suggested to overlook the Dutch arms and go with a with a 1728 Bess with a special casted plate with a bridal , or a 1742 Bess. Jess described the relationship between Dutch and British muskets as being all of Dutch origin because many British contractors had British muskets built in Holland/Belgium consequently that history was lost during WW2 With the bombing of Liege, Amsterdam and Rotterdam.

However, some author’s contradict that as the British had a strong influence in the German states as well As many German / Prussian muskets were very Bess like.

Original Dutch muskets are very hard to come by, the ones I’ve seen in books by Moller and Arnes look very Queen Ann to me.
 

Artificer

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
12,730
Reaction score
5,183
Gun building in Williamsburg, VA began with John Brush who arrived from London in 1717. He was a master in the Gun Makers’ Guild in England, before he was induced to come over and become the Master Armorer at the then pretty new Magazine (built in 1715) to store all the arms Virginia had recently acquired. (I have often wondered what the heck they offered a Master Gunsmith from London to give up a lucrative trade in "Civilized London" and come to Virginia? Grin.)

Magazine : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site (slaveryandremembrance.org)

John was a no doubt an accomplished gunsmith as there is a flintlock screw barrel pistol he built here, that is the only arm still extant attributable to him. We know he made fowlers here as well, but no rifles in case some are wondering. John did not live long here, though, as he passed in 1726.

Two computers ago, I had the text from one of his advertisements where he offered (and I'm paraphrasing) to convert matchlocks, dog locks and other arms to the latest fashion - meaning a true flintlock. He would not have advertised the services for guns with locks that were no longer in use or at least people still had them.

The then most recent British Military Musket was the Pattern 1703 Dog Lock that LD already mentioned. (Note: It was with this pattern musket the British gave up forever on Matchlock Muskets, as they still had been buying some matchlocks as late as the mid to late 1690's.)

Here is a pic of a Pattern 1703 Musket, though it has been modified with a "Nose Band."

1621233933373.png



Here is another:

1621234142118.png


More on this musket may be found here;
Pattern 1703 Land Service Musket 2946M, 372 | Skinner Auctioneers (skinnerinc.com)

As to Dutch influence on British Arms, the trigger guard on the P1730 British Musket was a direct copy of a rather elegant Dutch design. However, it proved much too weak in the hands of troops, so they changed to a much more robust design in 1740 that was used on British Muskets for most of the rest of the 18th century.

As to LD's quote above: "To Captain William Rogers forty Muskets two Drums the Colours, one half Pike a quarter Cask of Powder, a Cag of Bullets and a New Muskett with a Bayonett"

I would be extremely skeptical of it being a P1730 Musket as the only source Bailey has found of that pattern sent to America were the arms sent to Governor Oglethorpe in GA in the late 1730's (along with Naval Cutlasses as British Ordnance had no Infantry Hangers that Oglethorpe had requested.) Governor Oglethorpe was a personal friend of the King and between that and the fact the colony of Georgia was a buffer to Spanish held Florida, were the only reasons they got brand new muskets. All the rest of the British Ordnance owned P1730's were reserved to re-arm the Regular British Army.

Now it MAY have been a commercial/contract copy of the P1730 made by gunsmiths in England "for the trade," but I really doubt it would have been a British Ordnance Musket.

Gus
 
Last edited:

Major Tim

32 Cal.
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
73
Reaction score
19
From The Rifle Shoppe:

Dutch Arms

The Dutch and their weapons are a much overlooked part of American History. The Dutch were one of the leading world powers in the early 1600’s. They were also one of the largest arms producers in the world supplying weapons to almost all countries in the world at one time or another. In 1618, when the Dutch settled in New York along the Hudson River area and started establishing trading posts in America, they were the key nation in supplying arms to the Indians. By 1630, they were taking in 30,000 beaver skins a year in trade for guns, powder, balls and fish nets. It is also interesting to note that the Dutch were importing cartridge paper and cartridge thread for making paper cartridges to trade to the Indians in 1645. The Dutch captured New Sweden from the Swedish which is now Delaware, Western New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania. It would seem that the flintlock was more predominant in America at this early period than in Europe. There is literally thousands of Dutch gun related artifacts in the Rochester Museum and Science Center from this early period if one wishes to study this period. Later Dutch weapons are difficult to give a precise date to until more research is done on them. For this reason, we are using George Moller’s terminology on these weapons.
 

FlinterNick

50 Cal.
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
1,425
Reaction score
535
Gun building in Williamsburg, VA began with John Brush who arrived from London in 1717. He was a master in the Gun Makers’ Guild in England, before he was induced to come over and become the Master Armorer at the then pretty new Magazine (built in 1715) to store all the arms Virginia had recently acquired. (I have often wondered what the heck they offered a Master Gunsmith from London to give up a lucrative trade in "Civilized London" and come to Virginia? Grin.)

Magazine : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site (slaveryandremembrance.org)

John was a no doubt an accomplished gunsmith as there is a flintlock screw barrel pistol he built here, that is the only arm still extant attributable to him. We know he made fowlers here as well, but no rifles in case some are wondering. John did not live long here, though, as he passed in 1726.

Two computers ago, I had the text from one of his advertisements where he offered (and I'm paraphrasing) to convert matchlocks, dog locks and other arms to the latest fashion - meaning a true flintlock. He would not have advertised the services for guns with locks that were no longer in use or at least people still had them.

The then most recent British Military Musket was the Pattern 1703 Dog Lock that LD already mentioned. (Note: It was with this pattern musket the British gave up forever on Matchlock Muskets, as they still had been buying some matchlocks as late as the mid to late 1690's.)

Here is a pic of a Pattern 1703 Musket, though it has been modified with a "Nose Band."

View attachment 77573


Here is another:

View attachment 77574

More on this musket may be found here;
Pattern 1703 Land Service Musket 2946M, 372 | Skinner Auctioneers (skinnerinc.com)

As to Dutch influence on British Arms, the trigger guard on the P1730 British Musket was a direct copy of a rather elegant Dutch design. However, it proved much too weak in the hands of troops, so they changed to a much more robust design in 1740 that was used on British Muskets for most of the rest of the 18th century.

As to LD's quote above: "To Captain William Rogers forty Muskets two Drums the Colours, one half Pike a quarter Cask of Powder, a Cag of Bullets and a New Muskett with a Bayonett"

I would be extremely skeptical of it being a P1730 Musket as the only source Bailey has found of that pattern sent to America were the arms sent to Governor Oglethorpe in GA in the late 1730's (along with Naval Cutlasses as British Ordnance had no Infantry Hangers that Oglethorpe had requested.) Governor Oglethorpe was a personal friend of the King and between that and the fact the colony of Georgia was a buffer to Spanish held Florida, were the only reasons they got brand new muskets. All the rest of the British Ordnance owned P1730's were reserved to re-arm the Regular British Army.

Now it MAY have been a commercial/contract copy of the P1730 made by gunsmiths in England "for the trade," but I really doubt it would have been a British Ordnance Musket.

Gus
That early 1700 era produced some very nicely made muskets by the British and its often very overlooked. With the beginning of the ordinance system.

The early Queen Ann musket is the only British musket pattern with a detachable Pan, which makes me wonder if they were made by the Dutch.

The early preland musket was not a dog lock but a very early Brown Bess style musket with an early flintlock and no internal or external bridals.
 

Artificer

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
12,730
Reaction score
5,183
From The Rifle Shoppe:

It is also interesting to note that the Dutch were importing cartridge paper and cartridge thread for making paper cartridges to trade to the Indians in 1645.
Wow, I wish they had supplied the reference documentation on the use of cartridge paper in 1645, as that is the earliest date I've ever read or heard of. I'm not doubting it can be or is correct, I just would love to see the documentation.

Since all paper was "hand laid" or hand made paper and varied so much in thickness and quality for various uses, special cartridge paper was always supplied by English and Continental countries for use in their military muskets.

Gus
 

FlinterNick

50 Cal.
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
1,425
Reaction score
535
Wow, I wish they had supplied the reference documentation on the use of cartridge paper in 1645, as that is the earliest date I've ever read or heard of. I'm not doubting it can be or is correct, I just would love to see the documentation.

Since all paper was "hand laid" or hand made paper and varied so much in thickness and quality for various uses, special cartridge paper was always supplied by English and Continental countries for use in their military muskets.

Gus
I don’t know about the English, but the French and Prussians used a specific type of paper that was very much like ‘onion’ paper and it was waxed. I personally use cooking parchment because of its non-stick and non-burn silicone properties.

A lot of reinactors seem to be convinced that brown packing paper is accurate however I have my doubts as it often leaks powder and breaks with the slightest yank.
 

Artificer

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
12,730
Reaction score
5,183
I don’t know about the English, but the French and Prussians used a specific type of paper that was very much like ‘onion’ paper and it was waxed. I personally use cooking parchment because of its non-stick and non-burn silicone properties.

A lot of reinactors seem to be convinced that brown packing paper is accurate however I have my doubts as it often leaks powder and breaks with the slightest yank.
I know very little about English Cartridge Paper except it was required for British Soldiers to have at least two opposing teeth on one side of their mouth to tear the cartridge paper.

They found some original Napoleonic War Cartridge Paper in England over a decade ago and offered it for sale by the sheet. Since it was still hand laid, it should have been at least somewhat similar to the 18th century cartridge paper. However, I found out about it just a week or two too late and they had just ran out when I inquired about it.

Gus
 

Artificer

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
12,730
Reaction score
5,183
I don’t know about the English, but the French and Prussians used a specific type of paper that was very much like ‘onion’ paper and it was waxed. I personally use cooking parchment because of its non-stick and non-burn silicone properties.

A lot of reinactors seem to be convinced that brown packing paper is accurate however I have my doubts as it often leaks powder and breaks with the slightest yank.
I got to thinking more about your question and though I can't tell you anything specific about the texture and weight of British Cartridge paper, I can tell a little of what it wasn't.

When I got a personal epiphany a while ago that they HAD to have had some kind of special paper for cartridges, I did some research into 18th century paper. Though they didn't have quite the range we do, they did have a pretty fair selection.

The lowest grade of paper must have been not that hot as the second lowest was used for newspapers - this was just good enough to withstand using in a press. Yet there is evidence even this was used during the AWI. I get the feeling, though, it was seen as "good enough," but not ideal.

Broadsides were made of tougher stuff. The paper in most books, whether blank books for accounting or journals, was close to that quality, if not a bit better.

I've seen a number of references to where hymnals and some other books were stripped down to make cartridges during the AWI. This suggests at least that quality of that paper was either "good enough" or better than required to make cartridges.

Finally I found references to British Ordnance supplied special Cartridge Paper. Actually the first reference I found was from the British Ordnance Bureau in Portsmouth, which handled Naval Goods and Stores. I imagine that paper was designed for "Sea Pattern" Muskets and for those Muskets used by the British Marines.

At that point and since I had found the British Ordnance term "Cartridge Paper," it was easier to find more references. When I found a reference to 1st Lt. James Wolfe had ordered Cartridge Paper for the War of the Austrian Succession (known as King George's War here in the colonies, 1742–48). I stopped there because I had gone as far back as I needed for personal use.

Gus
 

FlinterNick

50 Cal.
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
1,425
Reaction score
535
I got to thinking more about your question and though I can't tell you anything specific about the texture and weight of British Cartridge paper, I can tell a little of what it wasn't.

When I got a personal epiphany a while ago that they HAD to have had some kind of special paper for cartridges, I did some research into 18th century paper. Though they didn't have quite the range we do, they did have a pretty fair selection.

The lowest grade of paper must have been not that hot as the second lowest was used for newspapers - this was just good enough to withstand using in a press. Yet there is evidence even this was used during the AWI. I get the feeling, though, it was seen as "good enough," but not ideal.

Broadsides were made of tougher stuff. The paper in most books, whether blank books for accounting or journals, was close to that quality, if not a bit better.

I've seen a number of references to where hymnals and some other books were stripped down to make cartridges during the AWI. This suggests at least that quality of that paper was either "good enough" or better than required to make cartridges.

Finally I found references to British Ordnance supplied special Cartridge Paper. Actually the first reference I found was from the British Ordnance Bureau in Portsmouth, which handled Naval Goods and Stores. I imagine that paper was designed for "Sea Pattern" Muskets and for those Muskets used by the British Marines.

At that point and since I had found the British Ordnance term "Cartridge Paper," it was easier to find more references. When I found a reference to 1st Lt. James Wolfe had ordered Cartridge Paper for the War of the Austrian Succession (known as King George's War here in the colonies, 1742–48). I stopped there because I had gone as far back as I needed for personal use.

Gus
That’s some great information Gus.

Continental Army accounts often show that their paper was of poorer quality. For example, they thousands of rounds they lost in the battle of the clouds after Brandywine, while I don’t think there was never ever really a water proof method of cartridge making, but the British certainly suffered that issue with far less spoiling of cartridges. British military cartridges were made with good enough to quality paper that when waxed provided a resistant type of paper (not water proof) but can dry far easily. Of course the much poorer continental army had to to make do with what was available, at teh battle of springfield NJ they were literally tearing pages out of books.
 
Top