Brown Bess? Is this what I think it is?

[SirFrancis]

I picked this up at an estate sale in a rural area of New Hampshire recently. Old boy also had a curved butt cap lock rifle my friend bought that was definitely 19th century. He said both guns had been in his family as long as anyone could remember.

The condition of this piece is obviously not as-issued original. The stock seems to have been cut back, the barrel shortened by about 4”, a replacement ramrod fitted to correspond with the shorter barrel, sights fitted, and the lock converted to percussion. The hammer looks almost like a homemade job, or maybe a very rustic country gunsmith? The ramrod channel has chipped out at some point so there’s a hole in the forestock wood. And of course the sling swivels are missing.

I paid my yankee dollars for it, and figured for the price it would make a good wall hanger if nothing else. The more I look at it though… this thing appears to be legitimately old. I really think it’s a possibility that it’s a slightly cut down long land pattern Brown Bess. If true, that would make it a really fantastic piece of history. It would have marched into New England on the shoulder of a redcoat —and never marched out again, until I, the interloping midwesterner, happened to run across it some ~240 years later.


Now the next question. Do I shoot it?

 

[Artificer]

Unfortunately in the following pic, though it shows the "Touch" Mark and "View" Mark and another mark to the left, the Touch Mark area of the barrel has been filed so we only see a P over a broad arrow. The View Mark has enough of the Crown over crossed scepters, but I'm not sure if that is a star or what's left of a crown or something else over what looks like a "JW."

How long is the barrel right now and what size is the bore?

The lock is a 1755 Pattern used on 1756 Pattern Arms up until 1777 pattern arms, because there is a single screw showing behind the Cock (Hammer). Since it has the Crown and Cypher ahead of the Cock, it's definitely British Ordnance (Government) accepted. Willets is either the lock maker or overall contractor and the lock's date of 1762 does make it early enough for the entire Revolutionary War.

Gus

 

[Britsmoothy]

Shoot it, why not.

 

[Artificer]

OK, the JW on the Barrel is also for John Willets who made the lock, the only date/s on record for him are from 1762. So he is the contractor who made or at least assembled the parts in his shop.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Shoot it, why not.

I would NOT shoot it, at least yet. Did you notice the crack in the stock right at the breech and the tiny end of a brass nail or threaded screw near the barrel?

I would have to take the barrel off to inspect that area of the stock (at least) before I shot it.

I'd also want to give the bore a very good look over and especially the added percussion drum.

Gus

 

[Britsmoothy]

I would NOT shoot it, at least yet. Did you notice the crack in the stock right at the breech and the tiny end of a brass nail or threaded screw near the barrel?

I would have to take the barrel off to inspect that area of the stock (at least) before I shot it.

I'd also want to give the bore a very good look over and especially the added percussion drum.

Gus

Spoil sport.
It'll be fine.

 

[Artificer]

Spoil sport.
It'll be fine.

LOL! Yeah, I am, but at least only until that area of the stock is checked under the breech. I've seen WAY too many brass nails or screws used to close up cracks that failed utterly and further cracked the stocks when fired.

Gus

 

[Robby]

Looks like a fun project for a restoration.
Robby

 

[Loyalist Dave]

OK, the JW on the Barrel is also for John Willets who made the lock, the only date/s on record for him are from 1762. So he is the contractor who made or at least assembled the parts in his shop.

Gus

IF the Pedersoli Bess with "Grice 1762" is incorrect as by that time the locks for the LLP's were marked "Tower", and the SLP was not yet produced...., then how come "Willets 1762" is not also incorrect ???


LD

 

[Rudyard]

The right man confidently skilled enough to restore it fully with No other option. Save leave it be as an' evolved gun' . Meaning it wasn't recently vandalised or ' Bubba ed' (No offence to any reader who's called Bubba ) Since the alterations wretched as we might think them 'are a valid part of the guns long history.
.Which was the view of a noted Rev war ' student of arms' Herman Benninghoff I had some dealings with. Wether it could be shot or not is a mundane matter quite apart from the ethical aspect. It is what could be called an 'important piece' that it came cheap shouldn't alter that.
Im'e sorry if I come across as too academic on this .I did work for museums.
Regards Rudyard

 

[Artificer]

IF the Pedersoli Bess with "Grice 1762" is incorrect as by that time the locks for the LLP's were marked "Tower", and the SLP was not yet produced...., then how come "Willets 1762" is not also incorrect ???


LD

Hi Dave,

1762 appears to be the last year P1756 Long Land Muskets still had the Contractors' names and dates.

The Pedersoli Bess with "Grice 1762" is incorrect as it is an almost copy of a Short Land Musket, which did not come out until 1769.

Gus

PS If you were thinking of the 1757 and 1759 Marine or Militia Pattern Muskets; they did not have the thumbpiece, entry thimble, nor nose guard the Pedersoli Bess has.

 

[Robby]

Yes Rudyard, I have heard that side of the discussion on restoration many times, to me it depends on many factors, some guns might be better preserved as found, but for many guns I do not see its evolution stopping just because it ended up in a certain persons hands. It can be a tough decision.
Robby

 

[PathfinderNC]

That’s pretty cool.

 

[Juice Jaws]

Spoil sport.
It'll be fine.

What do you think, a fine grade of power??

 

[toot]

it is great that it served it's master into the 1800's, and kept up with the latest technology at the time! waste not want not. I wouldn't hesitate to make smock with it!! let me know if you do?

 

[cebusey]

Having over the years become rather fond of keeping my head and hands intact, I would caution you against shooting it without being fully checked out. Remember barrels of this vintage are usually made of strips of iron forge welded together. Corrosion can form over the centuries between the strips particularly when pitting is present weakening the welds. I have a Brit musket from the 1830s that I really want to shoot but for the same reasons I have hesitated at least until i can get it fully checked out

 

[Britsmoothy]

What do you think, a fine grade of power??

Absolutely.

 

[PathfinderNC]

If I HAD to shoot it (some people just can’t resist) I would have it carefully inspected first. But if it were mine I would not shoot it. Don’t you have a gun already?

 

[Britsmoothy]

Having over the years become rather fond of keeping my head and hands intact, I would caution you against shooting it without being fully checked out. Remember barrels of this vintage are usually made of strips of iron forge welded together. Corrosion can form over the centuries between the strips particularly when pitting is present weakening the welds. I have a Brit musket from the 1830s that I really want to shoot but for the same reasons I have hesitated at least until i can get it fully checked out

Sound advice.

Has anyone heard of a case recently where upon an old original blew up or apart by some one who did not know any better?
I have not. Only ones I've seen fail are from them being loaded wrong.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Ordnance stopped dating locks in 1764. As Gus wrote, the reason Grice 1762 on the Pedersoli is wrong is because there are no short land Brown Besses of the pattern 1769 copied (more or less) by Pedersoli that had dated locks. Grice 1762 is found on locks for other patterns such as the pattern 1757 Marine and militia musket. Willets was a documented contractor in 1762 and it is entirely plausible for a Bess lock to be marked Willets 1762.

dave