Bess compared with Bess

[Ike Godsey]

Hi Ike,
With a lot of work you should be able to improve that India-made gun. I would remove the buffing wheel polish on the lock by stoning, which will crispen up the dished out screw holes. I would weld over the sear screw hole because model 1730 LLPs show only the sear screw hole behind the cock. I would reshape the tumbler bridle and clean up the inside of the lock plate. The frizzen and cock need a lot of cleaning up with files and stones. The frizzen in particular needs to be thinned and refined. I would re-engrave them. Unfortunately, the outline of the lockplate is very clumsy compared to original early LLP muskets but you cannot reshape it because of the lock inlet. The poor shaping causes the transition from the barrel tang to the wrist to look much too heavy and inelegant. At least reshaping the lock panels should help that issue a lot. Next, I would completely strip off the finish and reshape the stock. About 25-30% more wood can come off in virtually all dimensions except length of pull. There is enough extra wood to completely file off the lock panel moldings and beaver tails and reshape them properly so the lock area looks about right. The flat moldings around the lock should be no more than 1/8" wide and can be less. Hopefully, there is enough wood under the ramrod hole so you can reshape the bottom of the stock such that there is only about 1/4" of wood thickness between the lowest edge of the lockplate and the trigger plate. I would then re-inlet the trigger plate, reposition the trigger and drill a new pin hole (filling the old one), and then re-inlet the trigger guard. When looking down from the top of the barrel, you should see no more than about 1/8" of wood thickness on either side of the barrel. I would scrape finish the stock and use some sort of oil-based varnish if the teak will have it. These are some of the things I would need to do to fashion a pretty good repro from that India-made gun. I am curious, does the screw for the forestock sling swivel pass through a lug soldered or brazed on the barrel? I've not had one of these India guns apart in my hands to know.

dave

dave,

thank you for your hints, i really like them :thumbsup:

by all i have red about the use of LLP and other "issued" arms in the hands of militia men as well as the repairs and alternations some blacksmith, gunmakers and local colonial "repair stores" have made to the varius models, compared with the knowing that a military musket back then was a more or less "hand made piece", i wonder if there are two of the same type militia musktes that are exactly the same?

as for now, i will store the LLP til wintertime. right now we have meetings and reenactments coming up and there is no time yet to make such changes to a gun.

ike

 

[Ike Godsey]

... bear in mind that you are conversing with a couple of guys that are very,very well schooled on this subject matter. In a historical context and as users of the Brown Bess originals and repros in different countries where these muskets were predominantly used for over 120 years .

now thats funny - do you think we have nothing over here? :wink:

we also got access to original LLPs, SLPs, India Patterns and and and - there are museums over here too - one of them has a show in the moment about mohawk natives and the show a long house and some other very intersting native stuff, plus an original LLP - that by all of what i have seen on copies is larger (bigger in all directions!) than anything i have ever seen before!

we have access to the TOW made LLPs, which as i understand it - is a close (if not 100% correct) copy of an LLP (1746) - not even as big as the LLP in the above mentioned museums show :hmm:

i have been to the Imperial War Museum in London/England - there you can see more Besses as you could think of. :shocked2:

and i own an origianl India Pattern Bess, she is converted to percussion.

correcting misunderstandings: i REALLY enjoy the input from this forum and i do know that here are a lot of guys that have a great insight to the things they're talking about. the input i get from the discussion we already had are great and here are more "qualified people" in one forum then anywehre else - i am sure.
all i cannot understand is how someone could talk about a thing s/he never touched, owned or even handled :td:

again, no harms,

ike

 

[tiger13]

With all do respect 1601phil. I do shoot my Indian made 3rd model Bess with Live rounds. And I would put it up against any Bess out there. It is from Middlesex Trading Company. I have been saying all along that there IS a difference in the makers the importers use. Now as far as how PC it is, well... But it does shoot VERY well, all day long.

 

[dave_person]

by all i have red about the use of LLP and other "issued" arms in the hands of militia men as well as the repairs and alternations some blacksmith, gunmakers and local colonial "repair stores" have made to the varius models, compared with the knowing that a military musket back then was a more or less "hand made piece", i wonder if there are two of the same type militia musktes that are exactly the same?

Hi Ike,
You are absolutely correct that there was individual variation in guns and that was because they were handmade. But the ordnance system had standards and patterns and one of the salient features of the Brown Bess was that it was a very well made gun, particularly compared to some of the military weapons made by continental European makers at the time. Certainly there were regiments outfitted by private individuals that skimped on the quality of the weapons, but the Tower guns were typically very well made and held to a high standard. I think with some work, you can give your LLP a much more historically accurate appearance. The Pedersoli Bess can be similarly improved as well.

Good luck and have fun re-enacting

dave

 

[Ike Godsey]

i was reffering to an article i red two weeks ago by Mr. Neumann:

Private Commercial Long Land Pattern 1736-1746

While the official Brown Bess muskets were being issued through the Board of Ordnance to Royal forces, a parallel business existed for similar patterns being produced and sold by private British contractors to individual regimental colonels, trading companies, local English defense units and to provincial colonies, towns and militias in North America. They normally included a reliable lock and barrel, but would reduce or simplify the furniture and other components to remain competitive in price. This example has a full-length .75-cal. barrel and a typical banana lock marked by its London maker, “J Hall.” Yet it reduced cost by providing a low-grade walnut stock and wooden ramrod, plus an abbreviated butt tang, side plate and trigger guard. The tail pipe, escutcheon and nose cap, in turn, have been omitted. Even the usual British cast ramrod pipes were changed to rolled sheet brass.

this and some other things i found even in the "Brown Bess" book that talked about some variations made to LLPs like putting copper nose caps on it or different hammers (if something broke) to make it serviceable again.

i am aware that the LLPs in general have been well made guns, the india LLP is made to the standards of the 18th century - so its a good start and yes, with a little work it sure will turn out to be a nice LLP.

ike

 

[Ike Godsey]

With all do respect 1601phil. I do shoot my Indian made 3rd model Bess with Live rounds. And I would put it up against any Bess out there. It is from Middlesex Trading Company. I have been saying all along that there IS a difference in the makers the importers use. Now as far as how PC it is, well... But it does shoot VERY well, all day long.

thats right!
if you look on the pics i have made (first post in this topic) and compare those with the ones Flintlock Repair got on their page, there are some differences in LLPs also.

there MUST be different makers, and so also different qualities.

ike

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

So, they are not manufactured to be fired. If they were they would have Indian government proof marks visibly stamped on the barrel and would be exported as safe to fire. As a matter of fact, it is specifically against Indian law to convert one to shootable condition without a license only given to those who qualify as specified in the documentation linked above. The maker is not responsible for your injuries or those caused by you to others since the imitation firearm is not, as sold in India to parties taking it out of the country as manufactured, capable of being fired. After conversion in another jurisdiction, you are on your own.

oh well - here we go again. i really wish you would read the things i wrote before that might help. :shocked2:

the gun i bought IS proofed for live firing by a official german proofhouse. that is shown by two different things:
1) official german proofmarks on the barrel
2) an official document with serial number, caliber, loading datas etc. telling you that this gun is safe to shoot with live rounds.

The fact is, we do not know that any of the makers use a quality steel in their manufacture or, if they do, is it consistent from one production run to another?

can you be sure of any other maker in the world? i mean, when you buy a gun form one of your US builders (he would maybe buy his barrels elsewhere) can you be shure that the quality of his barrels is always the same? and if yes, how do you know? and again, if yes, is he (the maker) in charge if your guns blows up?

and what about italian makers? Pedersoli for example? can you be sure the barrels are from a "quality" steel? its about 9 month ago when a brand new out of the box, italian proofed 1766 charleville musket made by Pedersoli blows up at the first shot - and nobody knows why.
do you consider this "safe"?

on the other hand, my Pedersoli Bess is from 1979 and it has many many many life rounds through it - nothing went wrong since then.
my friend from the reenactors club uses a Pedersoli Bess as well - and his got the third barrel in it! the other two had damages by shooting blanks!

so what does it tell you about "steel quality"?

One batch may be okay but the next may be flawed - there is no documentation.

is there any from italian makers? what do you think why so many voices could be heard from not hardened frizzens on Pedersoli guns? or main springs that broke, or barrels that blow up?

They build these "guns" to a price point, nothing more. If it works when someone outside the jurisdiction of Indian law, converts it to a "real" firearm, fine. If it blows and injures someone, also fine since you can not take them to court in India (or anywhere else) because, you have broken Indian law by converting it - or having it converted - to function as a real firearm, something it was not meant to be.

well that is your point of view and it is OK with me if you see things like this.
i see it different. as i stated eralier i have a gun builders license and i can asure you that no matter which gun blows up - you are always on your own, no matter if the gun is from india, italy, the US or even germany.

that is the reason we here do have an insurance that you have to pay everytime you will life shoot - here life shooting is only allowed by the law or a licensed and proof tested place.

you see the things are not only black and white as you might see them.

but you're right on one point - as i stated earlier - i bought this gun for a low price and the point was to have a "reenactor" gun. will i live fire this one? maybe - just to see how it performes. but the improtant thing is, i bought it with the knowing what i will get - a 90% finished kit in which i have to put work in it to make a LLP out of it that has a used look, browned steel parts, and is - because of its longer barrel - OK for F&I war period.
and thats what i have - not less, not more.

here is a pic from my rocklocks, yu can see that i know about the difference in quality. from the top:

the india made LLP - my Fowler 12GA made out of india made parts plus a spanish barrel - 1734 TVLLE de Grenadier made for the Canada parkservice - Pedersoli Bess

no harms :v

ike

As you said Ike, "No harms." If you read and comprehend what I said, the discussion would take another turn. I said (and I quote) "... they are not manufactured to be fired." As manufactured. That is a fact. Yes, you have paid to have yours proofed and it is likely safe to fire. But there is no guarantee that others are. Once you have removed large amounts of extra wood from the stock - especially around the lock mortice, the wrist and the forearm - it may even look like an original Long Land Pattern.

I wish you luck, I am finished with the discussion.

And :v to you as well.

 

[Ike Godsey]

As you said Ike, "No harms." If you read and comprehend what I said, the discussion would take another turn. I said (and I quote) "... they are not manufactured to be fired." As manufactured. That is a fact. Yes, you have paid to have yours proofed and it is likely safe to fire. But there is no guarantee that others are. Once you have removed large amounts of extra wood from the stock - especially around the lock mortice, the wrist and the forearm - it may even look like an original Long Land Pattern.

I wish you luck, I am finished with the discussion.

And :v to you as well.

well i try to give the best i could.

i disambled the musket yesterday and discovered the following:

- there are three screws that hold the trigger guard - one under the lock, inside the lock mortise, two behind the trigger - none of the later two holds the thumbpiece.

- the thumbpiece is secured by a screw thats under the trigger guard, covering the screw compleatly.

- the trigger itself is poorly made. it could be pushed sidewards. the problem is, if i push it sidewards to the right (in firing direction) it will lose contact to the lock and the musket could not be fired - push it to the left and everything is fine - and indian safety? :hmm:

- the lock needs to be polished inside (same as many italian locks need this also).

- there is too much wood were the hammer falls on the upperside of the lockplate. that will reduce the hammers speed.

i have checked the barrel it is clean and the muzzle is on a 90° angle as espected.

like i said this will be a work i will start when the meeting and reenactments here are over, so i plan not to start earlier that october this year.

any suggestions welcome.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Ike,
Clearly it was not made to 18th century standards. If the trigger can slide sideways it is improperly installed. You have to narrow the wide slot by gluing in a sliver of wood. You also probably have to make a new trigger plate with a narrower slot. Trigger plates and triggers are easy to make. There should be no sideways play.

Good luck,

dave

 

[Ike Godsey]

Hi Ike,
Clearly it was not made to 18th century standards. If the trigger can slide sideways it is improperly installed. You have to narrow the wide slot by gluing in a sliver of wood. You also probably have to make a new trigger plate with a narrower slot. Trigger plates and triggers are easy to make. There should be no sideways play.

Good luck,

dave

thats one opition to fix the problem.
i would think, to drill two holes in the triggerplate, threatig them and screw two brass screws in it to reduce the sidewards play.
when the screws are cut and plished, no one will see them.

ike

 

[pargent]

Just throwing this out there for you Ike as Iam aware that most on this topic know what Iam on about there is buggerall variation in the ordnence muskets ( of the same pattern ) as they were made to a pattern and then accepted if they meet the requirements , muskets for private sale were made by the same manfuctures BUT were made to their patterns or the requirements of the customer ,it can be hard at times for most to get their head around this .
Tiger I know that some use their Indian guns hunting and in comps. and these guys are pretty switched on , so there was no slur intended your way it is just that at times newbes need to be steered straight right at the start so they don't fall off the edge.When I was looking to buy a musket I did seriously look at the Indian guns , but because of my location returning a dud would be impossible so I went with an old Pedersoli kit that had been put together by someone with the mechanical skill level of Clovis Man , 75 hours later Ihad a real gem .

 

[Ike Godsey]

thanks 1601phill!
would you provide some pics please?

 

[pargent]

Go to photos forum title Pedersoli Bess

 

[Loyalist Dave]

the lock of a 1742 could be droped in to your 1756 musket??
hoe could that happen, one has a banana shape, the other got a straight edge???

No :haha: . No lock should transfer from one original to another and "drop in" without some huge luck. What I meant was that the lock is dated to when it alone was made. Then it was provided to the person adding it to the Bess stock. As they changed patterns they didn't stop production or assembly. So as they begin to change the lock plate shape, those locks were dated in the years they were made, perhaps a few years before the Board of Ordinance "accepted" the new pattern. So you might find a newer lock dated two or three years prior to the "pattern date" on the new pattern gun, or a lock dated a few years after the pattern date. Also if an armory had a large stockpile of older style locks they didn't toss them out if the difference was a minor one, so you might find a previous pattern lock on a newer pattern gun, plus even after the new patterns were instituted, the previous pattern was not always immediately stopped. I am told that even today the Tower of London has unused Bess locks stockpiled. They didn't throw anything away.

LD

 

[Ike Godsey]

LD,

if i understand you correctly, it could be possible, that a LLP was made with a 1730 type stock and some features, but with a reinforced 1742 type lock?
this same gun could also be converted to a steel rammer and there could be a nosecap added?

is that correct? so in other words there is nothing that is not possible? what about repairs?
by all that i red about the guns in the hands of colonial militia - those muskets are not the newest nor the finest guns in stock.
since those guns have been used before by the regulars, i assume that some number get demaged and so, if could, repaired. there maybe some wood inlays on lock edges, or a piece of wood glued in the stock or...

the way i look to it, that all could happen to a musket.

am i right or wrong?

ike

 

[Grenadier1758]

It was a common field modification to update a LLP with a wooden rammer to the steel rammer. The front thimble would be replaced with one of the reduced diameter boring. Sometimes the entry thimble would be modified with a flat spring to put tension on the rod.

My unit has regimental records during the SYW showing the transition from predominantly wood to steel. Notably of inventory records of ramrods. One of the last modifications was the addition of the brass nosecap.

That's the problem with individual unit documentation. Anything is possible.

 

[pargent]

I have a pipe set of a very late India Pattern and the entry pipe still has the spoon spring , the relic fore end they came off showed definite signs of machine inletting

 

[Ken Cormier]

Thanks tor this post learned more about Besses than e v er thought I would. Thanks again Ken

 

[Loyalist Dave]

No,

What I mean is, you might find a 1742 LLP Bess with an "improved" lock dated 1740, 1741. This is because the armories may have started to make the locks prior to 1742 knowing that the Board of Ordinance was going to "officially" approve of the design changes. Then as the years went on the lock dates might advance as new locks were made and used, so 1744, 1745 ect.

You would not find the older lock on a newer Government musket without the bridle on the pan, as that was a very important innovation. What they did for private orders is a whole different story...

You might find a Government 1742 LLP Bess with a metal rammer, and you might find the same musket with a nose reinforced with a band or even a nose cap, for these were minor innovations, and quite easy to do, and would have begun in 1748. That's 6 years prior to the Seven Years War here in the states, so who knows how many, if any, of the muskets in Colonial Armories were switched over?

So as the 1756 lock was modified only slightly, and it appears from what we know that this began a few years prior to 1756, ..., then you could find a 1756 LLP Bess with a lock dated a few years prior to the official "pattern" date. You would expect to find some locks dated after 1756..., until they stopped putting dates on the locks. The 1756 musket had a simpler brass trigger guard, a lock plate that was less "banana" shaped, and the nose cap and metal rammer with a special front ramrod tube, were made standard equipment.

During the Seven Years War, and following it, it appears that some of the 1756 LLP Bess underwent shortening of the barrels down to 42", with a corrisponding shortening of the nose of the stock, and the nose cap was reinstalled as well as the bayonet lug, and the forward ramrod tube. We also know that Rogers' Rangers contracted for an order of muskets, which meant they could modify the muskets that were ordered as they saw fit.

When the 1756 lock plate was further simplified, the barrel length was set at 42", and side plate was made flat, this then became the SLP Bess, first accepted in 1769, and then modifed again in 1777.

Even after 1769, some of the armories produced a few hundred more 1756 LLP's (probably as they had a bunch of the older parts in inventory, so they finished their "run" and switched over).

Then you have the East India Company around 1795 introducing their own pattern muskets. Shorter barrels, different side plate, smaller lock (iirc), and they worked so well that the Board of Ordinance accepted the modifications and they were made in Government arsenals beginning around 1797.

I have seen five 3rd Model Bess, and they all had a "French" style cock. On one of these the musket had been converted to percussion, AND the side plate was from a SLP Bess..., so at least one 3rd model was made using the older sideplate. Also, if the cock was modified on the Government 3rd model (as opposed to the EIC model) then the 3rd Model reproductions on the market may not be correct.


LD

 

[Ike Godsey]

hmm...

i have a book by Bill Ahearn "Muskets of the Revolution and the French & Indian Wars" - and there on page 37 is a LLP shown (fig. 54) which is termed "Transitional Pattern 1730 - 1740 muskets" - showing the "old" stock - with the large carvings around the lock and sideplate - and the "new" reinforced lock.
as i understand it, some had new, some had old triggerguards etc. etc. - in other words, it was a kind of mix of parts (maybe of which the suppliers had on hand).

by all thats said here and by all those pros and cons i believe that type of LLP is the best i could get out of my india made LLP. thats what i am aiming for and i do think i could get close to that goal.

ike