• 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

Brown Bess Carbine...

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Very sagely said. I think we all should follow this wisdom. From now on everyone must work out, lift weights and when strong enough just throw the ball at your target. It will then be clear that a bigger ball will be more effective due to its mass. :rotf: :surrender:
 
Affirmative. Always remember the great physicist Alvin Epstein's formula E=MCsquared where E=Eggplant, M=mincemeat and C=Chocolate to the second power. While this doesn't have any thing to do with flintlocks or carbines, it will cause even more heartburn than this thread has and will force a reader to immediately order a longrifle from one of our forum builders and lead to complete amnesia regarding various amusingly named short barreled carbines. Sic Semper Carbinius! :rotf:
 
Very entertaining, but lackin any serious content. Things seem to be diminish to border on the snobbish here. Folks that seem to have a different opinion are rapidly "put in their place" by innuendo or ingenious use of language that adds nothing to the discussion.

Frankly it bores me that some folks find humor and take great delight in showing how they are such great wits....

So, by a consensus of those who have browbeatin' any forthcoming discussion, are you happy that you are limiting any new discussion, theory, or discovery that would force you to change your opinion....and are you happy that by using your "wit" that you are basically eliminating anyone who might be timid in joining the discussions...

The world is not always as "black and white" as you seem to believe...

Geeeeshhhh....

Giz
 
gizamo said:
Very entertaining, but lackin any serious content. Things seem to be diminish to border on the snobbish here. Folks that seem to have a different opinion are rapidly "put in their place" by innuendo or ingenious use of language that adds nothing to the discussion.

Frankly it bores me that some folks find humor and take great delight in showing how they are such great wits....

So, by a consensus of those who have browbeatin' any forthcoming discussion, are you happy that you are limiting any new discussion, theory, or discovery that would force you to change your opinion....and are you happy that by using your "wit" that you are basically eliminating anyone who might be timid in joining the discussions...

The world is not always as "black and white" as you seem to believe...

Geeeeshhhh....

Giz

Very well said. I guess their thinking is, if you have nothing to counter with, make fun of your opponent. :shake:
 
Have you read the first post recently? The one that started it all? The one where the original poster said he believed that the Pedersoli Brown Bess carbine "trade gun" was historically correct? Oh, wait! That was you. And for over three weeks people have been telling you that it isn't historically correct. That the Bess was never built as a trade carbine. Been stated many ways, but the message doesn't seem to get through. So, if at this late date, some of us decide to goof off a bit--well many of us have been down this long and winding road before and you apparently haven't. Enjoy yours and I am sure it is a fine gun. Pretend that it is a precise copy of a King' Musket built in carbine form as a trade fusil if that gets you through the day. I suppose that that is easier than admitting that it is a "nevawuz". Anyway, you have yourself a lovely day and keep on laughing. I just know that your zany sense of humor will be of great help to you in the days to come. :v
 
[/quote]
Very well said. I guess their thinking is, if you have nothing to counter with, make fun of your opponent. :shake: [/quote]

Carl, my brother. That would be the same as being in a gunfight with an unarmed opponent. :rotf:
 
WOW!!What a thread.When I first started practicing law an old time lawyer once told me that when trying cases the following rules apply:

If you have the law on your side argue the law

If,however, you have only facts then by all means argue whatever facts you may have

If you have neither then you pound on the table and attack your opponent as being the pawn of the Devil.

I've seen a lot of pounding on this thread mostly from people who desperately want to rationalize a "TYPE" of gun that never was.

To paraphrase Mark Twain."when a seeker after the truth found what he perceived to be the truth,he built a shelter over the truth,then got a soldering iron to tinker the leaks and a large bludgeon to reason with objectors.

Now having said that I am awash in anticipation of those carrying 4x4's, iron spikes and large hammers.
Cheers
Tom Patton
to whom Heresy is a virtue :bow: :v :hatsoff:
 
Good words from Russ and flintlock75, everyone should have a sense of humor.

Gizamo, you have a nice little gun, I personally like it. Why not just enjoy it for what it is?

Okwaho, I'll stand behind you (in support of course) when "those carrying 4x4's, iron spikes and large hammers" start coming over the hill.... :)
 
Russ T Frizzen said:
Have you read the first post recently? The one that started it all? The one where the original poster said he believed that the Pedersoli Brown Bess carbine "trade gun" was historically correct? Oh, wait! That was you. And for over three weeks people have been telling you that it isn't historically correct. That the Bess was never built as a trade carbine. Been stated many ways, but the message doesn't seem to get through. So, if at this late date, some of us decide to goof off a bit--well many of us have been down this long and winding road before and you apparently haven't. Enjoy yours and I am sure it is a fine gun. Pretend that it is a precise copy of a King' Musket built in carbine form as a trade fusil if that gets you through the day. I suppose that that is easier than admitting that it is a "nevawuz". Anyway, you have yourself a lovely day and keep on laughing. I just know that your zany sense of humor will be of great help to you in the days to come. :v

RTF,

There was a meaningful discussion going on throughout the thread. Several pages back you evidently decided to derail the topic. Cutting in with nonsensical posts does nothing to support your position.

I am new, but I still have questions that I would like to ask. You seem to think by acting like a Court Jester, it is equally funny to all who have posted and tried to add even a little content to the discussion.

So I will try my best to ignore your antics...

If I choose to explore gun collections here in Maine and find a few examples of short barreled smoothbores that can be dated back to the 18th century.....Why does it matter if they were made that way in England? If the barrels were cut off in the colonies they obviously existed here, at that time...And any representation of those guns would be a positive characterization.

Giz
 
Ignore away. Apparently you have some skill at it. You have been consistently ignoring the simple fact that there never was any such thing as a factory made Brown Bess Indian trade musket. An Indian trade musket is a very specific item: a trade musket deliberately made to be traded to Indians. Regardless of the barrel length, no Besses were made specifically for this trade. That should answer your first post just as it has already been answered by others. Please feel free to ignore this answer as you seem to have ignored or misunderstood all the others that have patiently pointed this out to you.

Now, there were short barrelled muskets in use in America going way back to the early days. No one is saying that they did not exist. Their barrels were shortened for several reasons, though it is unlikely that trading them to Indians was one of them. Short starting and blowing out the end of the barrel, serious muzzle wear, a major dent--these things would be likely causes for bobbing a musket barrel. Over the years there may have been quite a few of them. But they were not Indian trade muskets.

Given the level of obtuseness regarding this very simple subject--which at best should have required only a page to answer, perhaps two at most--I would say that the topic was derailed a lot further back than a couple of pages. Whether a post is nonsensical or deeply meaningful is of no matter, when a subject this simple cannot readily be grasped or is deliberately misconstrued by the person asking for information.


The reason it matters whether the short barrelled smoothbore was originally made that way in England is because YOU said that You believed that the short barrelled Brown Bess was historically correct especially as an Indian trade gun and then showed a photograph of Pedersoli's non-replica Bess "trade musket". English trade guns were made in England. You may very well find some short barrelled muskets on your trip to the museum and that will show that short barrelled muskets were used in America. It will NOT show that short barrelled Brown Bess muskets of musket bore were made in England specifically for the Indian trade. Perhaps you would have gotten a much different response had you not stated that you felt this gun to be H/C.

Anyway, I do hope you are enjoying your short Bess and getting a lot of use out of it. Perhaps if you use it rather than trying to justify it as an historically correct piece your sense of humor will eventually return--or not. :v
 
:hmm: Giz, being polite and in no way desiring to offend you or make you feel like you are being abused, how do you know if a musket from the 1750 period was cut off when new? Could it not have been shortened in 1810 when the gun had seen many years of use? The barrels muzzle could have been damaged or worn too thin and the only fix was to shorten it? Maybe in 1790 the gun was shortened to fit in a particular place and, since it was no longer the primary arm of the owner and only saw occasional use, it could have been cut off to fit in a smoke house for killing hogs once a year? These are all conjecture, they really mean nothing, it is at it is, when it was done we will never be able to prove. Again, no offense intended, you may well find several short guns in various museums with someone's family tradition stating that an ancestor carried against the Indians in 1750 and indeed the gun may have been used by him then, it is the right period of manufacture and certainly existed then. But when and why it was shortened or otherwise modified we can never be certain. We look forward to hearing about what you find.
 
It absolutely amazes me on how many times this question or similar ones are asked here on the forums. It equally amazes me how the gentlemen who have taken the time to research these guns and know their history, take the time to answer every time, knowing full well that in most cases the original poster won't like the answer.
 
He didn't ask if there were FACTORY MADE short barreled bess guns in N. America, Russ. He asked if these are Historically correct for the period? You and other seem to want to insist that if a factory did not build such a gun it didn't exist, and therefore cannot be the subject of replication.

That's a nice idea, but that is not THE definition of Historically correct. Until you change your name to Noah Webster, I appreciate your ideas of what " HISTORICALLY CORRECT" might mean, but you are not God, and God did not appoint you to define these terms.

For example, I know of NO firearms that were made with Tacks put in the stocks for decoration at FACTORIES. But, its historically correct to have guns so adorned, because they did exist, and there are plenty of examples in museums all over this country.

By telling people that ONLY guns actually shown to have been made in a factory can be historically correct, you argue in the face of reality, and do much mischief here on this forum. A lot of new members look to you and others as " well-informed " and you are, to some extent. But, you are not Gods, and no one gave you the right to start calling people names, or sneering at guns you don't like just because the guns don't meet your idea of what guns might have been made in some factory.

My Lord, Man, you treat factory records as if they were an addendum to the Ten Commandments. There are all kinds of errors in Factory records, then, and now. How can you not agree with that proposition considering the Hudson Bay invoice that was reprinted here? Does it not show an order for short barreled guns? Was that not in the 18th Century? Does it matter if the guns eventually delivered had their barrels shortened at a factory in England, or if they were done at the Hudson Bay Company main Warehouse here in N. America, before being shipped West? Those invoices are a HIStORICAL Record of something that apparently did exist, no matter what the factory records may show.

As someone noted, several firms were contracted to produce Brown Bess guns, and these short barreled guns ordered by the Hudson Bay company may have been made by a subcontractor. If so, they may not show up in the factory records of the crown Armory.

Webster defines " Carbine " as a rifle with a shorter barrel".
car·bine Listen to the pronunciation of carbine
Pronunciation:
\ˈkär-ˌbēn, -ˌbīn\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French carabine, from Middle French carabin carabineer
Date:
1592

1 : a short-barreled lightweight firearm originally used by cavalry 2 : a light short-barreled repeating rifle that is used as a supplementary military arm or for hunting in dense brush

There is NO Fixed definition of what constitutes a " Carbine LENGTH barrel". There are some general definitions in modern manuals, but they refer to modern guns, and not the 18th century version of a " carbine". Note the second definition above.

I was pleased to learn here, for the first time, that the .65 cal. guns made later with a slightly smaller action, and with shorter barrels, existed. In looking at a collection of Brown Besses I would not have noticed the difference in either caliber or size of lock, unless two guns were put side by side for comparison. Since NO company is making replicas of this later model, but they are making this short barreled Brown Bess " Carbine", I think people who are portraying rangers, or scouts, can be armed with such a firearm replica, or with a full size Brown Bess as they choose, and still be Historically Correct.

I would not expect to see these short guns being used in a uniformed Re-enactment group demonstrating volley fire. I think you are absolutely correct that the ground pounders in the British Army would have used the longer barreled Brown Bess in formation fighting units.

I have no argument with what you have found as original records concerning Brown Bess production. There exist, however, too may guns in museums, and collections that don't fit those records, to believe that factory records then were kept any better than factory records are kept now.

My brother has a Winchester rifle that, According to Factory records, Never left the Factory. I know many collectors of Colts who have similar situations with guns in their collections. The Factory has NO record of that particular gun being made, for one reason or another, or of that gun leaving the factory. I don't see where denying what is obviously before our eyes furthers historical research, or historical truth. And putting blinders on so that ONLY GUNS that are shown in Factory records to have been produced, can be considered historically accurate arms is an artificial standard that is just silly. :blah: :hmm: :hatsoff:
 
Paul, the question was answered very early in the post. Gizamo's own words in the original post that started all of this discussion on August 7, 2008:

"I know these guns are the subject of some great debates....as in are they historically correct...

From what I have seen/read, I believe they are. Especially in terms of Indian Trade guns...

I'd love to see that debate fired up again and view the current thinking...

So is it Deal, or No Deal


Here's one ~ Pedersoli Brown Bess Trade Gun..."

The Brown Bess modified to a trade gun never existed, let's get that out of the way. Do some shortened Brown Bess Muskets exist today? Yes, they do. Are they true carbines in the 18th Century sense of the word? No, they are not. British and French carbines of that time were made with proportionately smaller locks, furniture and stocks and (wait for it) barrels with smaller caliber than the standard musket. Also, carbine barrels were longer than this "Brown Bess Trade Gun", all in the neighborhood of 37 inches. Were they used by "rangers" or "scouts"? Doubtful, very doubtful, of course, possible. More on that later..

You state "There is NO Fixed definition of what constitutes a " Carbine LENGTH barrel" ". Well, yes there is. The Government did not have the Tower armory or the contractors make just any old gun and then deliver them into storage, they were made to a pattern, a very specific pattern. And all "carbines" in British service were made with barrels of 37 inches in length - those are carbines for cavalry and artillery. The French of that era used barrels of 27 to 31 inches in length but the gun shown is by no means French and looks to have a barrel shorter than that as well.

We are left with the above question that I asked:

"Do some shortened Brown Bess Muskets exist today?"
And my answer:
"Yes, they do."

My question then is, when were they shortened? At the risk of boring everyone, since I made this statement in my last post, we don't know. No one can say but the odds are better than even that they were shortened well into the gun's life after many years of use, possibly when the gun was no longer needed for serious work. And why were they shortened? We will never know but, again, better than even that they were shortened because of barrel damage and/or wear.

Now, for those that do not agree with me, it is simple to fill in the blanks with different answers and I have no doubt that some will do that.
 
Va.Manuf.06 said:
:hmm: Giz, being polite and in no way desiring to offend you or make you feel like you are being abused, how do you know if a musket from the 1750 period was cut off when new? Could it not have been shortened in 1810 when the gun had seen many years of use? The barrels muzzle could have been damaged or worn too thin and the only fix was to shorten it? Maybe in 1790 the gun was shortened to fit in a particular place and, since it was no longer the primary arm of the owner and only saw occasional use, it could have been cut off to fit in a smoke house for killing hogs once a year? These are all conjecture, they really mean nothing, it is at it is, when it was done we will never be able to prove. Again, no offense intended, you may well find several short guns in various museums with someone's family tradition stating that an ancestor carried against the Indians in 1750 and indeed the gun may have been used by him then, it is the right period of manufacture and certainly existed then. But when and why it was shortened or otherwise modified we can never be certain. We look forward to hearing about what you find.


Thank you for a post that was both well thought out ~ and well meaning. All good points. I am just trying to get my head around the differences between all these intrinsic versus historic references. Many folks have put forth some wonderful information that you would spend years trying to gather. Collectively there is a awful lot of grey matter in these good folks heads.

I still have many questions and think others do to. To have someone abrubtly try to end this discourse serves no purpose, and is a disservice to those that are trying to learn and understand.

Again, much appreciated...and I will try sooner then later to share what I find at the State Museum... :wink:

Giz
 
I'm not really clear what is being argued about :confused: :confused: :confused:

Carbine was a bore size favored by the cavalry. Carried on a horse they also wanted short barrels and a sliding ring fixed to the side plate.

The cavalry traditionally used lances, sabres and horse pistols. Making their long arms in pistol ball calibre made sense because they carried those anyway.

Much later the word carbine was resurrected with a new meaning, short barreled.

Squire Robin :surrender:
 
Squire Robin said:
I'm not really clear what is being argued about :confused: :confused: :confused:

Carbine was a bore size favored by the cavalry. Carried on a horse they also wanted short barrels and a sliding ring fixed to the side plate.

The cavalry traditionally used lances, sabres and horse pistols. Making their long arms in pistol ball calibre made sense because they carried those anyway.

Much later the word carbine was resurrected with a new meaning, short barreled.

Squire Robin :surrender:

Squire Robin...

In all seriousness...
You just made my day. :thumbsup:

So a Carbine is not a Carbine, depends on the true definition! :rotf:

Giz
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top