Interesting Article

[Cattywompuss]

https://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/washingtons-mystery-firearm/
Makes more sense than Rose's assertion that Washington's portrait contains a rifle- which while possible due to his ownership of several, doesn't seem to be what is in the portrait. Unfortunately seems to blow apart Rose's prologue.

 

[smoothshooter]

A lot of unknowns in that painting.
The standard practice among portrait painters in those days was to only have the subject present while doing details of the face, and possibly a few other intricate details of jewelry or military insignia. The rest was done from memory and maybe a few notes over following days in the studio without the subject being present.
It is very possible Washington never posed with a gun in this painting, and it was just added as some generic type at Washington’s request.

Am I the only one to notice the awkward way the gun is shown having the forward part tucked in front of the arm while the rest of it is hidden behind the back? A very unnatural posture for the subject, and I think a dead giveaway that the painter was familiar enough with firearms that he either simply copied a prop he had in his studio, or just made it up.
My point being, with a few exceptions, don’t get too invested in trying to ascertain too many details in these old portraits. Especially anything pertaining to weapons or accessories related to them. It usually leads to nowhere, or leads to false or inconsequential assumptions.

 

[Cattywompuss]

I'm not invested in it. It just showed up in my news feed. And reminded me of Alexander Rose's prologue to his book asserting that it is a rifle. It's of historical interest if you have read that prologue because of the implications of Washington intentionally inserting a rifle into a portrait asserted by Rose.

 

[Jim Wag]

It was a good
Article

Jim in La Luz

 

[Notchy Bob]

Thanks for that link! The article was interesting. It was pretty cool the way he used the computerized analysis of visual representations of ramrods, muzzles, and forend caps. The photo of gorgets also shows an intact neck cord, for those of us who have wondered exactly how these were suspended.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[Rató:rats]

Did you guys notice that what was claimed as a 1742 LL Bess has a double throated cock?
Did such abominations exist?

 

[Notchy Bob]

Did you guys notice that what was claimed as a 1742 LL Bess has a double throated cock?
Did such abominations exist?

I saw that, as well as the flat lockplate. I’m not much of an authority on the different Besses, though.

I’m glad you commented. There was a lot to see in that article.

Notchy Bob

 

[Rudyard]

Sea Service muskets had throat hole cocks from very early days it was a common17c style .So' Abomination' might be a little strong .
Rudyard

 

[Rató:rats]

I say abomination because I’ve never liked the look of them. I did a quick image search and found two sea service muskets with the lock as you describe, one 1738 and another with the lock marked FARMER 1745. I’d be curious as to why the admiralty went with this lock design but the army did not.

 

[Rató:rats]

And here’s one from Of Sorts For Provincials pg 23 marked I VAUGHAN 1745

Learn something new everyday

 

[Rudyard]

Well the reinforced 'throat hole 'cock might to you seem ugly it was stronger & re adopted in the Windus /' India pattern' about 1810 and all subsequent flint arms . I too like the grace full' Swan necks' but beutey as ever is in the eye of the beholder.
Regards Rudyard

 

[Rató:rats]

I’ve no doubt it’s stronger. That being said I’ve never broke or bent a swan neck cock. The Charleville had it as did the 1795 Springfield and the model 1816 so it would seem the military preferred it. Maybe in battle guys yanked the cock back hard and bent it throwing off the alignment and the reinforced cock prevented this?

 

[Cattywompuss]

I’ve no doubt it’s stronger. That being said I’ve never broke or bent a swan neck cock. The Charleville had it as did the 1795 Springfield and the model 1816 so it would seem the military preferred it. Maybe in battle guys yanked the cock back hard and bent it throwing off the alignment and the reinforced cock prevented this?

I have an "Early Leman" with a "Late English" double throated lock. Modern, not original. The lock suits that particular gun, as it is a bit of a thick wristed pig of a short longrifle suited to Plains use in the 1820s or 30s. I agree that the double throat isn't beautiful, but at least it is strong. Not so dissimilar to many martial arms.

 

[Artificer]

https://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/washingtons-mystery-firearm/
Makes more sense than Rose's assertion that Washington's portrait contains a rifle- which while possible due to his ownership of several, doesn't seem to be what is in the portrait. Unfortunately seems to blow apart Rose's prologue.

OK, while I agree the firearm could have been stuck there as an afterthought OR Washington asked for it to be somewhat unobtrusive and thus the awkward way it is held. It may also have been because it "lent" something to his military portrait and that's part of the key to the identification of the firearm.

Folks, that's a Military or Para Military (commercially "made for the trade") MUSKET and not a civilian fowler and of course not a rifle. The dead giveaway is how far back the front of the forearm is in relationship to the muzzle. That was done SOLELY to allow the fitting of a socket bayonet, as civilian fowlers were stocked much closer to the muzzle. For example, here's a link with various civilian fowlers of the period:

Hunting Guns in Colonial America (ladybemused.com)

Military Muskets STILL were generally fitted with WOOD Ramrods in this period, as the British kept their brand new Iron/Steel Rammer P1756 Muskets back home for the Regular Regiments for use against the greater threat of France. By far THE most common musket sent here during the entire FIW was the P1742 and to a lesser extent the P1730 Muskets, both of which had Wood Rammers.

As to firearms and equipment in portraits not being reliable in the period, that may be true here in the colonies, BUT British Sporting Portraits of the period show VERY accurate depictions of the guns and gear. After all, the British Sportsmen were all wealthy and were showing off their guns, so normally those portraits may be relied on.

Gus