Brown Bess Carbine

[pargent]

:wink: :grin:

 

[OcelotZ3]

I also haven't heard how the fact that folks were quite a bit shorter (on average) in those days would affect loading... It would seem that a shorter musket would work better for them, or conversely, an even longer musket would be more appropriate for a more modern shooter...

 

[Ike Godsey]

I also haven't heard how the fact that folks were quite a bit shorter (on average) in those days would affect loading... It would seem that a shorter musket would work better for them, or conversely, an even longer musket would be more appropriate for a more modern shooter...

do not think that the "shortness" of people in those days was an issue.

in those days they had gund as tall as the hudsonvalley fowlers and as short as the 43" barreled muskets from the hessian soldiers (M1740) and even shorter.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

i addition to what dave said, here is a sketch, showing the three variants dave mentioned in his post:

Thanks for that illustration Ike, that's very nice.

Add to that the problem of gun sellers cobbling parts from dissimilar guns together long after they are taken out of service and selling them as "originals". It has always been my contention that Pedersoli got a mismatched Short Land Pattern bess, mostly 1777 version, with a 1756 lock that had been modified to fit, and copied that and thus entrenched numerous mistakes.

Actually the "average" height of a European or North American Colonial man three centuries ago was only about 2" - 3" shorter than today's average of 5' 10" (based on unearthed human remains)..., but with malnutrition you get a bit wider range of "shortness" in your samples. The length of the original bess was for three rank firing, and in tight defensive positions, four ranks. When they got rid of all but two ranks..., the bess got shorter, but it took decades for the idea to get adopted...another problem of the day was once you had armories trained to produce a specific arm... it wasn't very easy to introduce dramatic changes in the design.

LD

 

[Alden]

My understanding is that Americans weren't actually any shorter than us today on average. Skinnier, to be sure -- what we'd probably consider too skinny.

 

[Ike Godsey]

My understanding is that Americans weren't actually any shorter than us today on average. Skinnier, to be sure -- what we'd probably consider too skinny.

cannot talk about the 18th century, but i got a collector freind here in germany - CW exclusively - and he's got a bunch of oirginal CW uniforms (mostly US) and all those jackes and vests and overcoats fit well, if you are an 15 or 16 year old. but as a "well grown" german, the stuff is to small to fit.

ike

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Funny, I can say the same thing about US WWII and Wermacht WWII uniforms that folks have here in the US. Try to find fitting modern military surplus items from Sportsman's Guide and it's the same story. Could it be that the really nicely preserved uniforms were those that were not issued out because folks of those sizes were not very prevalent? :grin:

:hmm:

I had been under the impression that folks were a lot smaller back in colonial times, based on the sizes of doorways and beds that I had seen (which would've made Washington a freakin' giant), but found that from measurements of human remains, they were pretty close to modern sizes, though you do find a more toward what we today consider "short", probably from malnutrition as a kid. Some archaeologists say the average height was 5' 08" some say 5' 07", which is about 3" under today's average.

The length of the musket wasn't due to verticle use... it was due to the thickness of the bodies of the men over whose shoulders it was leveled to fire in ranks when it was held horizontally.

LD

 

[Ike Godsey]

well, all that leads me to a totally different question:

How long does it take (in the first half of the 18th century) to arm an empire?

the Bess came in use roughly around 1730. at those days, there have been two french & india wars already in america, King Willimans War and the Queen Anne War.

british troops have been armed with doglocks in both wars.

britian has been involved in wars all over the world - the need of weapons was great and here comes a newly aprooved gun called Long Land Pattern.

so what do you think, how long would it take back then, to arm an empire with such great numbers of arms, to have enough firelocks to be shipped to the 13 colonies instead of shipping them to a (british) war (anywhere in the world) where they would be in need?

so when did "the Bess" arived in the 13 colonies? and how much Besses came?
what happened to the older doglocks?
replaced by the bess and then shipped to other british units all over the world?
or sold as surplus in the colonies?

any answers out there?

ike :hatsoff:

 

[Wes/Tex]

Not an easy question to answer, for sure. British "regular" units came in fits and spurts as crisis arose and fell or lingered. In times of war, arms and ammunition would have been sent over but even in the regular regiments Britain sometimes had to buy muskets from Dutch sources to take up the slack. You can be sure what got sent to colonial armories were the older patterns from whatever sources could be found. Some of the guns that have survived are a hodge-podge of parts form different sources, many called "Committee of Safety" muskets, though I'm not convinced they are all of such an origin. Many could well be cobbled together well prior to the AWI by colonial gunsmiths for private sale.

Specifically, the LLP Bess went through several pattern changes, of which, even the collectors and historians don't always agree with timing. The different parts were contracted out and held in storage till needed and is the probable reason muskets of a certain appearance may have locks dated a decade sooner or later than the accepted date of the style of the musket itself. I realize this doesn't directly address your question about actual dates but I'm not sure if you'll get a specific answer. From appearances, the need for military muskets in North America may not have been extremely pressing until the various wars ot the 1700's started and stopped. Later units like Roger's or Gorham's needed muskets and probably got them from whatever source they could find or have made. Sorry to be vague, but your question is a tough one to actually give you a firm answer to.

 

[Ike Godsey]

my question points to the fact, that not the newest guns have been send to the colonies. we had a discussion about the french 1728 the other day and i think we all agreed on the fact, that this musket did not appear in the colonies earlier than the 1740s - as stated in many books.
and here is one of the key sentences you wrote:

You can be sure what got sent to colonial armories were the older patterns from whatever sources could be found.

in the 1730s and 1740s Oglethorpe fought on various fights along the fronier, armed by the english govt. - but does he received the newer Brown Bess or the older doglocks?

when the last F&I War break out the british raised highland regiments to be sent to the americas. they wrote, the men have been disapointed 'cause they received the older model kings musket, meaning not the actually newly aprooved one but the older style brown bess.

keep in mind that "America" was not the only new country england kept an eye on. so i think there are other, maybe more important wars to send newer guns to.

maybe some of the specialists here on the board does have an information on when the Bess did arrived in larger numbers in the 13 colonies?

ike

 

[schizuki]

Recently it was posted that a Brown Bess Carbine was a "fantasy weapon". I didn't reply to that because I didn't have my reference handy. Brown Bess Carbines did exist and they were more common than might be recognized today...

Obviously, the common foot soldier carried the standard full sized Bess. However, something shorter called a Carbine was likely carried by almost everybody else.

The "something shorter called a carbine" was a carbine. Not a hacked-down Long/Short Land Pattern musket. I've got a shelf groaning with books full of photos of actual British military arms, including plenty of carbines. There is not one picture of a drastically cut-down musket unless it has a grenade cup at the end.

Your argument is analogous to someone in 2150 saying, "Recently it was brain-beamed that an M1 Garand Tanker was a "fantasy weapon". M1 Garand Tankers did exist because there are numerous references to M1 Carbines... Obviously, the common dogface carried the standard full sized M1 rifle. However, something shorter called a Carbine was likely carried by almost everybody else."

M1 Garand Tankers could have existed in World War II. But except for a few experimental models doing field-trials in the Philippines in '45, they didn't. And they weren't M1 Carbines.

There were carbines and "fusils" which took a smaller ball than the Bess and had a passing external resemblance to it. There were no 30" barrel "Brown Bess carbines."

 

[Wes/Tex]

Agree totally that original LLP or SLP muskets with shorter than standard barrel lengths are NOT "carbines" by ordnance definition. The 1967 volume "The History OF Weapons Of The American Revolution", if fact shows several surviving Bess variations with barrels as short as 27+/-" barrels. Whether these were shortened during their actual service life or later is probably impossible to say, though a couple were probably done at that time.
M.6: A pre-1730 Model LLP musket with barrel shortened to 40". Maker "T. Green" and still having faint remains of colonel's name(denoting the regiment); probably a damaged muzzle cut back.
M.22: Naval model with barrel cut to 40". Lock marked "Tower 1742" but probably assembled later due to slightly heavier than normal stock; another probably muzzle damage shortening.
M.23: Naval model with barrel shortened to 37". Has SLP features and is marked "No.23 Massachts Bay". Captured musket and possibly restocked with shortened barrel, reason unknown.
M.94: M.1730 LLP musket with the stock cut between the middle two ramrod pipes and barrel shortened to 34". The lock is marked "Nickson" and the bayonet lug and forward sling swivel have been re-installed. Barrel still has Birmingham private proofs and initials "TP" in rectangular cartouche. Appears to have been deliberately made into a short musket for infantry or ranger service.(?)
M.100: Another naval musket(Sea Pattern) with "MG" stamp on barrel. This gun has had it's barrel bobbed back to 26.5" and has had the slide bar and ring installed for cavalry use. Not surcharged, but probably done in the colonies for some mounted unit.
M.103: This LLP has been deliberately shortened to 27.5" barrel and the stock slimmed to make a cavalry weapon. Brass blade front sight installed, though no bar/ring added...may have been carried in bucket. Lock surcharged "US" and originally stamped "Tower".

Each of these is an exampled of shortened ordnance LLP or SLP muskets, but whether any of them was done during service with the King's forces is speculative, at best. That guns were cut back is obvious, but "when" and "by who" will never be known.

 

[KHickam]

So, which is the most accurate Kings Arm available to reenactors in quantity now?

 

[Wes/Tex]

If you disregard the Indian made guns(no, I'm not trying to start that argument again)about all that's out there is the Pedersoli quazi-SLP. Some things can be done to make it more esthetically pleasing and it's probably the safest to shoot with heavier charges. :2

 

[Salty_Possum]

So what your saying is, something like this may or may not have been seen in the 18th century? (Ranger Musket from MVTCo, just as a reference)

 

[Loyalist Dave]

To answer KHickam's question, the MOST accurate from appearance is probably the India made LLP Bess, with a lock having an external bridal on the pan, plus there is some debate over having a nose cap or not. They are merely closer to what should be used, as I think the wood choice is poor.

I reject the assertion: if they [the Pedersoli's Bess] had to be hc you would be looking at 2500 or more, unless you are talking about something made to fool experts when you say "hc". I think the complaints are not that the Pedersoli is not perfect, but that the Pedersoli is so far away from what was actually used plus the added cost.

A simple retooling of the lock plate into the right shape as well as the stock, and replacing the sideplate to a rounded version would not change the cost for the item in any manner. True the barrel would be shorter by 4" than a true LLP, but regiments were shortening the barrels on their LLP's when the AWI started, so again, not pefect, but closer to what they should look like by an order of magnitude (imho).

As for the "Ranger" guns, um..., no there is a lot of evidence that what the Rangers of the F&I carried may not have been shortened Bess muskets from British supplies.

Sergeants Carbines and Artillery Carbines were not only shorter... the calibers were from .62 to .65. So IF you are getting a shorter "Bessish" gun from any source, it should be smaller caliber too. The Pedersoli "carbine" merely amplifies inaccuracy.

LD

 

[Alden]

Wes, how DARE you mention the imperfect Pedersoli in the same breath as the Brown Bess. Don't you KNOW that if you have a micrometer, a loupe, and you want to self-proclaim you're an all-knowing all-seeing God you have to parrot negative internet posts that the excellent, ubiquitous-for-good-reason, Pedersoli is incorrect carp?

Middlesex (MVTCo) has taken a BIG step backwards -- they just started selling their products on an internet gun brokering auction site and do NOT say that the country of origin is India on ANY of the products.

This is shady and they just dropped a whole level of trustworthiness in my book. When I wrote and asked them why they weren't relating these were "made in India" they responded "I don't understand..." Really!? MVTCo has made the conscious decision to intentionally mislead prospective buyers through obfuscation to sell more. I would put them at the bottom of my list just above "seconds" selling Discriminating General/Military Heritage...

 

[Wes/Tex]

I agree totally. I f I were to buy any of the East Asian firearms, I'd go through Loyalist Arms to make sure I got what I was paying for and from someone who is allowed to select the better pieces made and then checked and regulated by Loyalist. I'd also want to thin the rather bulky stocks and refinishes that come on these guns, I'd feel much safer with any of these compared to MVT Co. or Discriminating General/Military heritage.

 

[nwtradegun]

I am 5 foot 7 inches tall, my bess has a 30 inch barrel and I do not have to bend over or squat to load either paper cartages or patch round ball.

 

[tiger13]

Most people when they invest in the purchase of a firearm of considerable amount of money, would do a little bit of investigation into the seller first. By going to MVTC website, under the FAQ, question #6 tells you right off that their guns are made in India. So I don't see how you feel that they are hiding anything. I have sold things on the internet before and have not written volumes about the item that was for sale, I gave a good description and answered any questions fully when they were asked. When I am looking to purchase something on the internet, I do my due diligence also, if the seller has a website, I go to it and look around, check for reviews, feedback etc. But there was full disclosure that those guns were made in India on the MVTC website.