Brown Bess, Stock Wrist, Thumb Piece (Plate) Questions

[Artificer]

I put this thread in the Gun Builders Section because the question is more about stock strength and fixing a broken wrist than historic authenticity.

British Ordnance called this Brass part the “Thumb Piece” on top of the stock wrist.

Here is the best pic I could find showing it installed, though it is a reproduction: http://www.militaryheritage.com/images/shortland4.jpg

Here is a dual pic of an original showing both sides. The right pic shows the threaded “boss” that the machine thread screw comes through the trigger guard, through the wrist and into that threaded boss, though it is filled with mud and hard to see the machine threads in the boss. https://i.pinimg.com/236x/79/fb/3b/79fb3b103f4d8924de646f60ff6888ff.jpg

The engraving on this Thumb Piece “fraction” stands for the “13” being the Regimental Number and the “89” being the rack number assigned to an Individual Soldier. Sometimes there is a “3 part” fraction such as 23/2/51 which would mean the 23rd Regiment, 2nd Company, 51st rack/soldier number.

The Thumb Piece held by a machine bolt going vertically through the stock wrist was common on British Ordnance (Government Military) Muskets from the Pattern 1730 Musket well into the 19th century. They were also found on “Para Military” East India Muskets and Officers Fusils. The interesting thing is Thumb Pieces are not found nearly as often on Ordnance Pattern Carbines intended for Dragoons and Cavalry.

Does anyone know the reason why the otherwise at times downright stingy British Ordnance Department went to the added expense of having the Thumb Piece as part of the Pattern for so many Military Arms? They surely could have engraved the Regiment/Company/Rack number on the long forward tangs of the butt plate, as they did do after the Thumb Piece was no longer used.

I have often wondered if they thought the Thumb Piece on Top of the Stock Wrist with the long tail of the trigger guard below and a bolt holding them together might have been a way they figured would strengthen or reinforce the stock wrist, though in fact it made the stock wrist weaker than without a bolt running vertical in it?

This question has often come to my mind after I shattered the wrist of my Brown Bess Carbine stock, much to my surprise at the time for the amount of force the wrist actually took. I wound up repairing it with Accra Glass and two threaded brass rods I also glassed in on each side of the Thumb piece bolt and just far enough away that you can’t see them even when the Thumb Piece Bolt is removed. When the repair was cleaned up, the stock slightly dyed and oil finish applied, it was extremely difficult to tell the stock had even been cracked, let alone shattered. Of course, the two long threaded brass rods will never be seen unless the wrist is deliberately broken again.

Any information would be appreciated.

Gus

 

[dave_person]

Hi Gus,
The first and probably most appropriate answer is that Pedersoli used some lousy wood here and there. Even Parker Hale used some crappy wood. My Whitworth rifle broke at the wrist after falling over gently on a carpeted floor. All production guns have incidents of bad wood because the wood selection is done at an industrial scale and there is always pressure to cut costs. All of the Pedersoli Besses that I reworked had lousy walnut. None had a good grade like I use on my own guns. I'll be honest, despite my work to refurbish them, I will never own one. The wood quality is well below what I would ever accept for my own work. There are plenty of original Brown Besses out there with wrist plates that did not break at the wrist. Ordnance would not accept wrist failure just to allow the brass plates. If it was a problem, they would have changed the design.

dave

 

[Artificer]

Hi Dave,

That is interesting, thank you. Never thought it might have been or was a wood problem, though it could well have been. You are correct that British Ordnance would not have continued something so long that would have caused a lot of stock wrist failure, though, and I probably took better care using that Musket than many period Soldiers did. That Musket also was not subjected to as much stress as most Military Guns in Service.

I shot that Bess in live fire of round ball and shot almost as much as I shot my maple stocked Rifle Gun. After I fixed that wrist, I pulled the barrel and the barrel was still tight with no appreciable looseness of the side wall or breech area fit of the stock to the barrel that would have indicated a “too soft” stock. So I had pretty much ruled out a “too soft” stock as a possibility.

I also don’t recall noticing the grain running through the wrist was bad, as I knew how to look for that even when I bought that Bess.

However, if it was a poor grade of European Walnut, I would not have known then how to judge that on a finished gun and am not completely sure I could tell that on a finished gun today other than the things I already mentioned.

I do know that British Ordnance figured the Service Life of an 18th century Musket to have been 10 to 12 years, before requiring replacement. I have never been able to figure out how they came up with that figure, other than reports of the various Regimental Commanders and inspections of Arms in Service when those Units that were stationed close enough that British Ordnance Inspectors may have gone to the Regimental Garrison Sites and examined the muskets? I guess I assumed the Service Life was mostly due to wear or damage of the wood stocks?

Also, by examining the Tool Lists and Spare Parts lists (and quantities of those parts) that British Ordnance sent for Artificers to repair Arms here in the FIW and AWI; it seems they expected more wear of lock parts than we do or might expect today, though not an inordinate amount considering the metallurgy possible in the Iron and Steel parts available to them and how often those muskets may have been fired in combat. There is also the matter they may have sent more parts both in kinds and quantities than might be needed, because of the time it took for repair parts to cross the Oceans in those days AND because they did not have the system of interchangeable parts manufacture. Since many of the repair parts would have needed rather extensive hand fitting, they would have lost at least some repair parts to human error in fitting, or some of the parts were too small in critical dimensions, to work as received or after fitting.

After a 26 year career in Ordnance Small Arms in the Modern Military and even with wood stocked Service Arms, I also realize that Marines and Soldiers can come up with some truly inventive and even bewildering ways to break their service weapons.

So it remains a mystery to me why they considered the Service Life of a Brown Bess to be 10 to 12 years.

Gus

 

[dave_person]

Hi Gus,
I would expect wear to affect the stocks, certainly but also the muzzle may be worn from the ramrod, the touch hole corroded too large, and perhaps internal lock parts worn particularly since they were case hardened. Since they used a linseed oil varnish, I bet the stocks eventually were damaged by water and humidity and the undersides of the barrels corroded unless they frequently removed the barrels for cleaning. I hope the soldiers took better care of their guns than most of the re-enactors I know. Every Bess I reworked for re-enactors was a mess and my work gave it a much longer lease on life, just in time. With respect to wood quality, remember the part in my Bess tutorial where I use a "V" chisel and bottoming chisel to reshape the butt stock? On the Pedersoli's I simply propel those tools with hand pressure. On English walnut blanks that I use for my own work, I have to use a mallet to tap the chisels. By the way, I have a Bess inspired American militia musket stocked in curly maple almost done. I'll be posting it soon.

dave

 

[Col. Batguano]

Just a hunch, but my guess is that the Brits being Brits, and militaries all over the world being pretty much the same, taking care of your issued weapon and passing numerous inspections generally means that, while they might get worn, they were generally attended to almost daily. To the foot soldier, their weapon was their whole life, and, their issued "spouse".

 

[Artificer]

OK, so the wood in the Pedersoli's is not as tough as English Walnut. That doesn't surprise me, but it is good to know.

British Soldiers in the 18th century certainly did take good care of their muskets, they had to or the punishment was often severe. First thing they did in the morning was clean any rust off the barrels and locks, then oil them correctly, then polish them and the brass parts. Then if in garrison, they spent quite some time getting ready for the formal muster of the day. When that was over, then they did work details, etc. and may have gone on Sentry Duty that night, with no special time off the next day. I know that had to have been sorely draining, but keeping the soldiers busy kept them from getting into trouble. Even on campaign, the first thing the soldiers did in the morning was clean and polish their muskets, then they were expected to go over the uniforms to look presentable before a march or a fight.

This was one thing that I rather enjoyed about doing a Private Soldier of the 42nd RHR, our members did a rather good job of daily Musket Maintenance.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

I wonder if there were other reason for replacement then worn out.
1) government was a milch cow then as now and there was money to be made
2) in time of war they needed a lot , to keep skill set up they had to keep workers in practice and employed for government and not in private sector.
3) cosmetic changes, a third model, has no real advantage over a first or a sea service, but boys love their toys. And styles change.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Tenngun,
While I can easily understand the points you made, I don't believe they applied very much if at all to British ordnance. Producing muskets was a government and private contractor partnership with funds ultimately controlled by Parliment. The power in Parliment during the 18th century was controlled by 3 groups: King's or administration supporters, prominent politicians (a mix of professional politicians and wealthy businessmen), and landed gentry. The gentry was the largest group by far and they were not necessarily attached to any business interests related to ordnance. Moreover, ordnance stockpiled parts to eventually be made into muskets by the Tower and they usually used up the old parts before moving on to the newer components regardless of trends and fads. Cost to the government was always a main consideration and changes in the patterns for Brown Bess muskets reflected maturing ideas on the handling qualities of the gun and cutting costs. The entire justification for adopting the India pattern musket ordered by the East India Company as the official pattern for British Army muskets was an effort to cut cost, not fad.

dave

 

[tenngun]

Interesting :thumbsup:

 

[Artificer]

I wonder if there were other reason for replacement then worn out.
1) government was a milch cow then as now and there was money to be made
2) in time of war they needed a lot , to keep skill set up they had to keep workers in practice and employed for government and not in private sector.
3) cosmetic changes, a third model, has no real advantage over a first or a sea service, but boys love their toys. And styles change.

1. First of all, there were a huge number of Wars the British Empire got involved in during the 18th century. That means the most damage/wear on the issued Military Arms and shortens the average service life dramatically. Here's one list of the wars in that century:

War of the Spanish Succession (1702”“13) - England and Scotland, later Great Britain, Holy Roman Empire, Portugal and the Dutch Republic, were allied against France and Spain Queen Anne's War (1702”“13)

Jacobite Rebellions (1715”“16; 1719; 1745”“46) - Civil War Clifton Moor Skirmish, near Penrith (1745) - last land battle in England
Battle of Culloden (1746) - last land battle in Great Britain

War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718”“20) - Great Britain, France, Austria and the Dutch Republic v. Italy and Spain
War of Jenkins' Ear (1739”“42) - Great Britain v. Spain
War of the Austrian Succession (1742”“48) - Great Britain, Austria and the Dutch Republic v. France and Germany
Seven Years' War (1756”“63) - the first "World War" French and Indian War & Seven Years' War is the same War (1754”“63) - Great Britain, Hanover, Portugal, and Prussia
Anglo-Cherokee War (1759”“63) - Britain v. Cherokee nation

Pontiac's Rebellion (1763”“66) - Britain v. American Indian coalition
First Anglo-Mysore War (1766”“69) - Britain v. Kingdom of Mysore
American Revolutionary War (1775”“83) - Britain v. United States, France, Netherlands & Spain
First Anglo-Maratha War (1775”“82) - Britain v. Maratha Empire
Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (1780”“84) - Britain v. the Dutch Republic
Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780”“84) - India
Third Anglo-Mysore War (1789”“92) - India
Australian frontier wars (1788”“1930s) - Britain v. Australian Aborigines
French Revolutionary Wars (1793”“1802) - Great Britain, Austria, Spain, Russia and Germany v. France War of the First Coalition (1793”“97)
War of the Second Coalition (1798”“1801)

Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1798”“99) - India
Irish Rebellion (1798) - Britain v. United Irishmen and France

2. Second, the British Gun Makers often had their hands full with supplying Arms for Commercial Ships, the Slave Trade, the NA American Trade, the Trade with their Colonies and with the Para Military East India Company when there was no war time muskets needed.

3. Even with breaking the gunsmith trade down into at least 18 to 23 different "sub-trades" to make arms as fast and as economically as possible for profit, they did not have the system of Interchangeable Parts of Manufacture - so they could not make Military Arms as quickly as was often needed.

4. Manufacturing was not only slowed so much due to hand work involved, but also available energy to power grinding wheels, rolling mills and trip hammers that were affected by the climate. If there was not enough rain, then water powered trip hammers and grinders could not be operated.

It was almost a catastrophe when the Winter of 1739-40 was so cold it froze all the rivers and streams and almost brought Arms production to a standstill and in a period when there was a desperate need for new Arms. The British were forced to purchase something like 36,000 Muskets and 12,000 barrels from "The Dutch" over that and the next two years to satisfy emergency War Time needs.

5. Cosmetic changes were not made by British Ordnance to make the Arms "prettier," but rather to make them either Better or Cheaper or Both. For example, dropping the Aprons that were carved around the lock panels and down onto the underside of the stock on the P1730 Muskets and the fancier carving around the tang, were dropped to save money by the P1742. However at the same time on the P1742, they went to a Double Bridle Lock which was more reliable and sturdy and also upgraded the P1730 trigger guard to a more robust one that stood up to wear and damage much better in use.

6. Arming even the necessary British American Troops during the FIW proved an all but impossible task. They sent 10,000 used muskets that ranged from poor to downright junk to the Colonies. Had they armed British Americans with the bare minimum numbers of Arms that were really needed, they would have had to have sent 50,000 Muskets. Even if the King and British Ordnance wanted to do that, they only that many muskets to Arm all British Regiments World Wide. Capturing Fortress Louisbourg brought something like 15,000 French Muskets into hands of British Regulars and British American Troops and that was between 3,000 and 5,000 MORE Arms than Britain had sent to arm BOTH the Regular and Colonial Regiments/Miltias.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

sure food for thought :thumbsup:

 

[Artificer]

Tenngun,

There is a long and IMO a fascinating story to how Britain procured military arms in the 17th and particularly the 18th century. We have to throw out much of what we know of modern methods of military arms procurement and manufacture to somewhat understand what they went through.

In the 17th century and very early 18th century, the Government Officials at the Tower of London would go mainly to the gunmakers in London with ideas of what they wanted and the gunmakers submitted examples for approval. The Tower Officials chose between what was available and would sometimes specify some improvements, then Tower Officials dickered over the price and finally accepted what would become a or the “Pattern” for Military Arms for some contracts for a few years at a time. However, at this time Tower Officials did not purchase all the Arms for the British Military or even have all the Arms come through the Tower for Inspection before contractors were paid. The Arms purchased and stored at the Tower seem to have been a sort of “Emergency Reserve” in case the “Old Enemy” France or some other European power attempted invasion and there would be Arms ready to hand out to both Regulars and Militia to defend the King and Parliament.

At this time, British Regimental Commanders were given the money for Arms, Uniforms, Equipment, etc., IOW everything to outfit their Regiment. This because so many of the Regiments were far away from London and would have to procure many/most of the items locally made. The Regimental Commanders could have sent to London to buy arms from the Tower, but transportation costs would have to be paid by the Regimental C.O.’s, out of their funds. The Regimental C.O.’s got to keep any money left over after outfitting their Regiments and that turned out to be a real problem in many cases.

It never seems to be mentioned how many Regimental C.O.’s did it, but too many wound up buying second, third and even fourth rate equipment for their Regiments and pocketing the rest of the money. This also seems to have been very lucrative. It sounds like after they bought their Commissions as Colonels and pocketed the extra money from the outfitting of their Regiments, they hoped to sell their Commissions before their Regiment had to go to War. I think some may even have expected the Tower or Dublin Castle to replace their arms before they went to war, which sometimes was done. This problem was severe enough in the British Army that the Government had to make some major changes. The problem, though, was such changes could not come quickly before the age of major industrialization.

So beginning around 1715, the Government set up the Ordnance Bureau with Ordnance Departments at the Tower of London, Dublin Castle (in Ireland) and at Plymouth for the Navy and Marines. They had to learn as they went along, though. Their first “trial run” of Arms was the P1718 aka the “Pattern of 10,000” Land Pattern Muskets at the Tower and Dublin Castle. This was the first of the Arms that would be recognized as a “Brown Bess,” though they were initially made with Iron rather than brass furniture. The Ordnance Departments purchased barrels, locks, “walnut tree plank” and other materials and then set up work places and hired/trained work forces to assemble/finish the arms to the Pattern. Actual production seems to have begun around 1722. It took them a rather long while to complete the contract, but in part it was because they had to set up the shops and hire/train the workmen. OK, so making those arms led to an even more ambitious project. It was discovered through inspections that Arms in the hands of the Regiments on the Home Islands were so poor, that ALL Muskets and other arms had to be replaced and that was a really daunting project in that period.

So an improved Pattern of 1730 Land Pattern Musket was adopted to re-arm the entire British Army and the Ordnance Bureau for the first time would be responsible for assembling all of them for the “Peace Time” Army. Fortunately for them, it was in a relative period of peace. Production numbers vary, but they barely finished rearming the entire Peace Time Army world wide when the War of Jenkins Ear broke out and they all of a sudden needed a huge additional number of Arms. This because the British Army had to have all Regiments brought up to full War Time Manpower and more Battalions added to existing Regiments. That meant that all of a sudden, they needed many more thousands of muskets immediately and they did not have the locks, barrels and other materials to make that many. It would take time to contract for and receive those parts and again, the Winter of 1739-40 “froze” most British Production.

It has been said that British Ordnance was barely up to their task during some periods and “completely broke down” during the Napoleonic Wars. I don’t believe that is a truly fair, though, considering how larger wars hurt the economy so much that military spending went down so far after wars and they never had the funds to get ready for “the next war.” Here in the U.S. and even after a century of the Interchangeable Parts System, we were never ready “for the next war” as far as Arms went, until the Korean War. Finally during that "war" there were enough Arms already made and rebuilt, that we were not in a critical shortage of small arms then or since.

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Gus,

Please note in the following Slide Show that several of the Fowlers, are sporting thumb pieces, aka escutcheons, which are mostly quite ornate, and thus are decoration. Most seem to be attached on the surface of the piece, and are not held by a screw that pierces the wrist of the fowler.

So perhaps it simply is a decoration, that they also used to mark the musket's regiment and rack number? Could be purely arbitrary since the same could be done on the comb of the butt plate, BUT not as easily altered if the musket changes units?

LD

 

[dave_person]

Hi Dave,
On most of those fowlers the wrist plate is anchored by a screw through the wrist and concealed under the trigger guard. Some are pinned from above but all are inlet in the wood. Baily states that the plate was intended to reinforce the wrist, be an ornament and provide another surface on which regimental markings could be engraved. They may also have thought it provided a solid screw anchor for the trigger guard, a part that would see a lot of abuse. Not all early Bess patterns had the wrist plate. For example, the 1757 marine and militia musket did not which was considered a cost saving measure. The initial marine muskets also had no rear ramrod entry thimbles.

dave

 

[Artificer]

Baily states that the plate was intended to reinforce the wrist, be an ornament and provide another surface on which regimental markings could be engraved. They may also have thought it provided a solid screw anchor for the trigger guard, a part that would see a lot of abuse.

dave

Hi Dave,

I obviously missed where Bailey wrote that the Thumb piece was intended to reinforce the wrist. :redface:

However and with many thanks to you and Loyalist Dave for the slide show he linked, I may have had somewhat of a personal epiphany. So I went back and studied some Brown Besses as to the length of the rear trigger guard tang. Let's see if this makes any sense?

Perhaps the Thumb Piece was more of an anchor and the long tang of the Trigger Guard was the real wrist reinforcement since on most Brown Besses and some of the New England Fowlers, that tang goes well beyond the wrist towards the buttplate? So if the stock wrist did crack, they could "field repair" the wrist by wrapping it with wire, or copper or brass sheet stock? Both of these repairs were common enough on civilian guns along with wrapping a cracked wrist with wet rawhide and when it dried, it would shrink. The long tang of the trigger guard would hold and align the cracked wrist and also help support such a repair.

What do you all think of that idea?

I know when my old Brown Bess Carbine wrist shattered and I actually had to finish breaking off the butt to repair it, the trigger guard was extremely helpful in aligning and holding the butt stock to the wrist as the fiberglass set up and cured.

Gus

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Interesting thread. On many upscale English fowling guns, the thumbieces are held by their threaded boss by means of a bolt going thru the rear of the trigger plate upwards to the thumbpiece. The front hook of the rear of the trigger guard fits in a slot at the rear of the trigger plate as well.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Perhaps the Thumb Piece was more of an anchor and the long tang of the Trigger Guard was the real wrist reinforcement since on most Brown Besses and some of the New England Fowlers, that tang goes well beyond the wrist towards the buttplate? So if the stock wrist did crack, they could "field repair" the wrist by wrapping it with wire, or copper or brass sheet stock? Both of these repairs were common enough on civilian guns along with wrapping a cracked wrist with wet rawhide and when it dried, it would shrink. The long tang of the trigger guard would hold and align the cracked wrist and also help support such a repair.

AH..., so the escutcheon/thumb-plate acts as the "nut" plus "washer" on the end of the bolt that passes through from below, through the tail of the trigger guard, with that trigger guard tail acting as a support for the wrist of the musket.

Ye gods, I think he's onto something lads.... :wink:

LD

 

[Buffyshine]

Enjoyable reading,so what do they anchor the trigger screw to on the models that don't have a thumbplate?

 

[Artificer]

OK, to test the theory of the long rear tail of the trigger guard was in fact actually the true wrist support; I examined a number photo's of 18th century French Military Muskets, American Military Muskets copied off the French Patterns, and the 1757 marine and militia musket Dave Person mentioned above. All of them had the very long trigger guard tail that went further to the rear beyond the wrist, which would have supported the stock wrist. Then I thought of perhaps the "acid test" for the theory, the British Sea Service Muskets of the early to middle 18th century.

Most of us have heard the term “No expense was spared,” when talking about a quality item. Well, even as late as 1756 when British Ordnance was upgrading the Long Land Pattern Muskets and Carbines with new P1755 Pattern “flat bottomed” locks and Steel Rammers, the Sea Service Muskets had “Almost EVERY expense spared possible” and still wind up with a Musket that was “serviceable enough” for use aboard ships by the Navy. These Muskets were made with the much cheaper flat lock plates and hammers, NO bridle on the pan (even though this had been common on Land Pattern Muskets since the P1742 LLP Musket), no thumb piece, no ramrod entry pipe and other cost saving measures. Remember all the “Dutch” Muskets and barrels I mentioned that British Ordnance had to purchase because of the winter of 1739-40 had frozen the rivers and streams? Though serviceable, those Muskets had definitely; not been fully up to British Ordnance “regular” standards. So British Ordnance took any remaining separate “Dutch” barrels and barrels from any unserviceable “Dutch” musket from that period to make ALL the Sea Service Muskets from slightly before and during the “upgrades” of 1756 and until the AWI period.

Now to be fair, British Ordnance had an almost unbelievable task in 1756 of getting enough Arms in production necessary for what became the First World War. Further, Sea Service Muskets were not “first line Arms” because Sailors used the “Big Guns” as their main offensive weapon and only used Muskets on boarding parties and landing parties. (The British Marines were armed with the slightly more expensive and somewhat better quality Marine and Militia Musket, even though that was not as expensively made as the LLP Muskets.) We also can’t forget in those days that ships were lost to storms and sometimes foundered when “working inshore,” though the latter was normally from bad seamanship. So when one thinks of that period Sea Service Musket, think “Bargain Basement/Just Serviceable enough” quality ”“ compared to the much higher quality of the Land Pattern Arms.

So, even the British Sea Service Muskets from the P1717 Pattern all the way up to the AWI had very long tailed trigger guards that would also support the stock wrist in heavy hand to hand/combat use.

It seems that on all the British, French and American Flintlock Muskets that did not use the Thumb Piece, had the rear tang retaining screw rearward enough on the tang that the screw went into the larger section of the butt stock to the rear of the wrist. This so the wrist would not be weakened by the wood screw going into it, I think?

Gus

 

[dave_person]

Hi Gus,
My mention of Bailey comes from his book "Pattern Dates for British Ordnance Small Arms" page "X" of his glossary of components. British ordnance certainly was concerned about strength with regard to the trigger guard, which is why they discarded the weaker design used on the first pattern Brown Bess when designing the stronger pattern 1742. They really beefed up the guard's bow and wrist strap.

dave