Land Pattern 1740 Musket from Loyalist Arms, Halifax, CAN.

[Artificer]

Well said Gus.

I must admit, I have two more of these India LLPs – that makes three all together.
One is the one in my first post here in his thread.


The second one is really a piece of trash, - it was the first one I bought years ago, has a German proof, but is covered in a deeply brown varnish.
It turns out, after I removed the varnish, which took me four days(!!), the stock is about 40% woodfiller – so I stored it in my shop to maybe make something out of the parts (a COS Musket or so) when I do have the chance to get my hands on good a stock…

The third one is just on the way to my house. I found her on a website of a German dealer.
From what I can tell so far, the LLP has a single bridled lock (1730) and the stock is oiled just as the LLP from Loyalist Arms.
I bought it for very small money and it is already proofed by the German Proofhouse – so it is safe for both, blanks and live fireing.

I have some (rather poor) pics of the later one, and I gladly share them with you:

I will post some better picture, when I have it in my hands.

But as to what I can tell from those poor pics, ist got a wooden rammer, the lock is banana shaped and single bridled, aprons around the lock are looking a bit smaller than the ones on the Loyalist Arms LLP – but again, I can’t really tell without seeing the Bess...


EDIT:

I think you must understand, here in Germany, we do not have much things to choose from when it comes to guns.
We do not have TRS and/or TOW and if we try to order, they do not take PayPal plus the fact that gun parts could not be shipped outside US.

So the only options we have is either the (what ever it is) from Pedersoli, or any India made gun.
So if you like to have a 46" full size LLP - India made guns are your only choise.

I have been at the proofhouse to get the official test and proof on one of those India muskets that I have ordered for my brother. He and his men are reenacting the Ansbach-Bayreuth Troop of soldiers, send over to the AWI to fight for the British King.

Bad thing - since FEB this year, we have a new, stronger gun law in Germany. This also means new rules for the gun proof.

What they did was measureing the barrel, then they put 300 grain FF powder plus 2 patched round balls into the barrel and fired it from the musket 5 times!
They measured after each shot. Well the musket made it. Proofstamps on it tells you it is considered "Safe to shoot".
No cracks in the stock, no harms to the barrel – no harms to the breech plug - everything is fine.

Hey Ike,

Something I didn't ask before was do the Loyalist Muskets have a lug soldered to the barrel to support the front sling swivel?

Before anyone takes that as a dig, neither my old Pedersoli Carbine nor my more recent Pedersoli Musket has the bayonet lug installed at the factory.

The reason I ask is because I saw a lot of both Pedersoli and Miroku Muskets that were seriously chipped and some cracked in that area because they didn't have those lugs, in the hands of other reenactors. Now the funny thing is I have actually slung and used the sling as a "hasty sling" when shooting my carbine in live fire a lot and never got the chipped out area or cracks from the lug not being there. Most reenactors I'm familiar with never used their slings even to "sling arms," so I am a bit mystified how so many stocks got damaged there. Perhaps they did it by mistake when drilling the fore arm for the front sling swivel, but I don't know for sure. Yet, I have that on my "to do" list to add the lug to my Pedersoli Musket so the next owner doesn't have to worry about it.

Gus

 

[tworoosters]

Good looking piece. Are the breaches on these Loyalist guns threaded or welded or???

 

[Musketeer]

Breech plugs are threaded on my two India pistols (one from MVTCo and one from TOTW from the same manufacturer). The couple India muskets I've seen taken apart on different forums also have threaded plugs, so I'd assume Loyalist's guns would be the same.

 

[Ike Godsey]

Welcome back to the forum.

Thank you.

Is the stock on your new firelock oiled, or stained?
Thanks.

On this one in the pics, the stock is oiled.

 

[Ike Godsey]

Good looking piece. Are the breaches on these Loyalist guns threaded or welded or???

The breech is threaded.

 

[Ike Godsey]

Hey Ike,

Something I didn't ask before was do the Loyalist Muskets have a lug soldered to the barrel to support the front sling swivel?

Before anyone takes that as a dig, neither my old Pedersoli Carbine nor my more recent Pedersoli Musket has the bayonet lug installed at the factory.

The reason I ask is because I saw a lot of both Pedersoli and Miroku Muskets that were seriously chipped and some cracked in that area because they didn't have those lugs, in the hands of other reenactors. Now the funny thing is I have actually slung and used the sling as a "hasty sling" when shooting my carbine in live fire a lot and never got the chipped out area or cracks from the lug not being there. Most reenactors I'm familiar with never used their slings even to "sling arms," so I am a bit mystified how so many stocks got damaged there. Perhaps they did it by mistake when drilling the fore arm for the front sling swivel, but I don't know for sure. Yet, I have that on my "to do" list to add the lug to my Pedersoli Musket so the next owner doesn't have to worry about it.

Gus

Gus,

there is a piece of steel welded at the barrel with a hole trough it.
The "bse pin" of the sling swivel (the screw) enter the stock on the left, goes through the lug and comes to light again at the right side of the stock

So I think this is about as close to the original as it could be.

 

[Artificer]

Gus,

there is a piece of steel welded at the barrel with a hole trough it.
The "bse pin" of the sling swivel (the screw) enter the stock on the left, goes through the lug and comes to light again at the right side of the stock

So I think this is about as close to the original as it could be.

Thanks Ike,

That's a good thing, then, as it should stop such damage to the forearm I referred to earlier. Thank you.

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

WELCOME BACK to the forum, Ike!!! It is so good to see you posting again.

OK, I realize most folks don't get into the minutia that I do on 18th century British Muskets, but the big difference between a P1730 Musket and what makes this a P 1740 Musket is the Pan Bridle added to the lock. They also normally had at least one of two more modifications done to them.

1. Improved/more robust trigger guard that was kept that way from the P1742 to the end of the 18th century. The P1730 trigger guard was a bit more elegant and slender, but it did not hold up to usage in the field.

2. The lock "aprons" (carving around the lock) could have been changed from the style shown on Ike's and Dave Person's muskets to a much simpler beavertail around the tang and simpler carving around the lock and side plate. This change did not happen completely until the P 1742 Musket.

Gus

The mystery of the 1730/40 musket.

Some were early upgrades of pre-brown bess and 1720’s pattern muskets and some were newly manufactured period 1730 guns.

It really makes for a lot of parody to work with in the context of an ‘upgraded’ 1728 musket.

The 1728 musket had a much more slender stock with steeper drop, it was really built to shot comfortably.

The draw back of the 1728 musket was the single bridled lock, and very weak trigger guard.

For military use the stock was considered a little too slender in the wrist and fore stock, the subsequent 1730 and 1740 musket bolstered up the stock in the wrist and forearm.

Now combine the best features of both the 1728 and 1740 musket, a double bridled lock with beefier trigger guard and stock, while retaining the lock panels and stock carvings of the 1728 pattern ;make for a really nice gun...... however just not one that is technically accurate but none the less a very nice musket.

 

[TomcatPC]

The more info I hear about the Brown Bess, the more confused I get. Only thing I know is that being of English ancestry, I really hope to have one someday in the future. Either a Brown Bess or a Pattern-1853 Enfield for my first muzzleloading long gun.
Mark

 

[Ike Godsey]

The more info I hear about the Brown Bess, the more confused I get. Only thing I know is that being of English ancestry, I really hope to have one someday in the future. Either a Brown Bess or a Pattern-1853 Enfield for my first muzzleloading long gun.
Mark

If you are looking for a Bess, I would strongly suggest to getstarted by reading this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Identification-Illustrated-Britains-Famous-Musket/dp/1931464448

 

[Artificer]

The mystery of the 1730/40 musket.

Some were early upgrades of pre-brown bess and 1720’s pattern muskets and some were newly manufactured period 1730 guns.

It really makes for a lot of parody to work with in the context of an ‘upgraded’ 1728 musket.

The 1728 musket had a much more slender stock with steeper drop, it was really built to shot comfortably.

The draw back of the 1728 musket was the single bridled lock, and very weak trigger guard.

For military use the stock was considered a little too slender in the wrist and fore stock, the subsequent 1730 and 1740 musket bolstered up the stock in the wrist and forearm.

Now combine the best features of both the 1728 and 1740 musket, a double bridled lock with beefier trigger guard and stock, while retaining the lock panels and stock carvings of the 1728 pattern ;make for a really nice gun...... however just not one that is technically accurate but none the less a very nice musket.

Nick,

With respect, it seems like you are mixing French Musket Model dates with British Pattern Dates?

British Ordnance was founded and tasked in 1715 to come up with new and especially serviceable muskets for the British Military. Up to that time, British Government buyers always looked at what London Gunmakers were offering and chose between them for what was thought to be the best muskets. Also up to that time, Colonels of the Regiments were given funds in a lump sum for Uniforms, equipage, Arms and everything else the Regiment would need. All too often, the Colonels spent too much money on fancy uniforms and other things, sometimes to often pocketed too much of the money and wound up purchasing inferior arms. So by establishing the British Ordnance Bureau, it was meant that serviceable and better arms would be supplied to the British Army.

It is difficult for us to imagine the breadth of the difficulty in establishing the Ordnance Bureau and things did not go smoothly for some time. The first huge plunge they took was the P 1718 Muskets or sometimes called "The Pattern of 10,000 Musket" as it took a while to gather and sometimes train workers, gather supplies and equipment, and finally set up working and storage areas - as these things had never been done before for that quantity of muskets. The P 1718 Muskets were not bad muskets and certainly better than many military muskets before, but this began the production and ongoing improvements British Ordnance did for the rest of the century. Those P 1718 Muskets took into the mid 1720's to assemble.

Once they got the P 1718's finished, they now had a LITTLE breathing room to do some research and development and also wanted to improve the esthetics of the Muskets, as the Sovereign's Prestige was often shown best in the Uniforms and Arms of the Military. So the first thing they needed to do was settle on the Lock for the next series of Muskets and have enough made and delivered to begin an even bigger project. This time they would undertake the GIANT task of re-arming the entire British Military. So having a good lock was extremely important.

The P 1727 Lock was not hugely different than the one on the P1718 muskets and that was where they began letting contracts for and buying these locks from London Gunmakers. In the meanwhile they decided to change the stock furniture to all Brass parts and began having these parts made and delivered as well as laying up a huge store of "Walnut Tree Plank" to make the stocks. It took about 2-3 years to gather materials, make some changes to the P1718 Muskets and begin production of the Pattern 1730 Muskets.

Unlike modern times when arms are made and tested both by the manufacturer and sent "to the field" for soldiers to do initial testing before large scale production, there was no time to do it with the P1730 Muskets, as most of the Muskets in the hands of British Soldiers were bad or worn out. So British Ordnance came up with their "best guess" with the P1730 muskets both for function AND for esthetics, again to show the Sovereign's prestige. The first reports of problems in the mid to late 1730's had to do with the "pretty" Dutch Style Trigger Guards were not holding up and would need "beefing up" in the next Pattern Muskets. A newer, more robust trigger guard was developed that would take the stress of military usage and that new trigger guard was used for the rest of the century.

At almost the same time, problems were identified with the P 1730's Single Bridle Lock, IOW having a Bridle only over the Tumbler inside the lock. They were still using case hardened IRON screws (not properly hardened and annealed steel screws) to hold the "Hammer or Steel," which today we call the Frizzen. That was too much stress on the Iron Screws, so it was decided to go with a Double Bridle Lock. This meant there was a reinforcing arm on the pan to take stress off the Frizzen Screw.

Finally as British Ordnance was getting close to finishing the production of the P1730 Muskets, it was noted though the earlier carving around the lock panels and tang were elegant, it raised the cost of the muskets too much and the simpler carving was begun.

Bailey describes what was really the LAST of the P1730 Musket production with incorporated changes as P1730/40 Muskets, but notes this was not an official British Ordnance Pattern. Rather it was a way Bailey used of describing the changes made before the next official Pattern 1742 Musket production began.

I very much agree a P1730 Musket made at the end of the production of that Pattern, with the old elegant carving, but the new Double Bridle Lock and more robust trigger guard - was perhaps the best combination of function and beauty of most any British Musket made in the 18th century and especially for some time later. The later improvements of having a Nose Cap for the stock forearm and a Steel Rammer, made the Brown Bess more functional of course, though

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

Nick,

With respect, it seems like you are mixing French Musket Model dates with British Pattern Dates?

British Ordnance was founded and tasked in 1715 to come up with new and especially serviceable muskets for the British Military. Up to that time, British Government buyers always looked at what London Gunmakers were offering and chose between them for what was thought to be the best muskets. Also up to that time, Colonels of the Regiments were given funds in a lump sum for Uniforms, equipage, Arms and everything else the Regiment would need. All too often, the Colonels spent too much money on fancy uniforms and other things, sometimes to often pocketed too much of the money and wound up purchasing inferior arms. So by establishing the British Ordnance Bureau, it was meant that serviceable and better arms would be supplied to the British Army.

It is difficult for us to imagine the breadth of the difficulty in establishing the Ordnance Bureau and things did not go smoothly for some time. The first huge plunge they took was the P 1718 Muskets or sometimes called "The Pattern of 10,000 Musket" as it took a while to gather and sometimes train workers, gather supplies and equipment, and finally set up working and storage areas - as these things had never been done before for that quantity of muskets. The P 1718 Muskets were not bad muskets and certainly better than many military muskets before, but this began the production and ongoing improvements British Ordnance did for the rest of the century. Those P 1718 Muskets took into the mid 1720's to assemble.

Once they got the P 1718's finished, they now had a LITTLE breathing room to do some research and development and also wanted to improve the esthetics of the Muskets, as the Sovereign's Prestige was often shown best in the Uniforms and Arms of the Military. So the first thing they needed to do was settle on the Lock for the next series of Muskets and have enough made and delivered to begin an even bigger project. This time they would undertake the GIANT task of re-arming the entire British Military. So having a good lock was extremely important.

The P 1727 Lock was not hugely different than the one on the P1718 muskets and that was where they began letting contracts for and buying these locks from London Gunmakers. In the meanwhile they decided to change the stock furniture to all Brass parts and began having these parts made and delivered as well as laying up a huge store of "Walnut Tree Plank" to make the stocks. It took about 2-3 years to gather materials, make some changes to the P1718 Muskets and begin production of the Pattern 1730 Muskets.

Unlike modern times when arms are made and tested both by the manufacturer and sent "to the field" for soldiers to do initial testing before large scale production, there was no time to do it with the P1730 Muskets, as most of the Muskets in the hands of British Soldiers were bad or worn out. So British Ordnance came up with their "best guess" with the P1730 muskets both for function AND for esthetics, again to show the Sovereign's prestige. The first reports of problems in the mid to late 1730's had to do with the "pretty" Dutch Style Trigger Guards were not holding up and would need "beefing up" in the next Pattern Muskets. A newer, more robust trigger guard was developed that would take the stress of military usage and that new trigger guard was used for the rest of the century.

At almost the same time, problems were identified with the P 1730's Single Bridle Lock, IOW having a Bridle only over the Tumbler inside the lock. They were still using case hardened IRON screws (not properly hardened and annealed steel screws) to hold the "Hammer or Steel," which today we call the Frizzen. That was too much stress on the Iron Screws, so it was decided to go with a Double Bridle Lock. This meant there was a reinforcing arm on the pan to take stress off the Frizzen Screw.

Finally as British Ordnance was getting close to finishing the production of the P1730 Muskets, it was noted though the earlier carving around the lock panels and tang were elegant, it raised the cost of the muskets too much and the simpler carving was begun.

Bailey describes what was really the LAST of the P1730 Musket production with incorporated changes as P1730/40 Muskets, but notes this was not an official British Ordnance Pattern. Rather it was a way Bailey used of describing the changes made before the next official Pattern 1742 Musket production began.

I very much agree a P1730 Musket made at the end of the production of that Pattern, with the old elegant carving, but the new Double Bridle Lock and more robust trigger guard - was perhaps the best combination of function and beauty of most any British Musket made in the 18th century and especially for some time later. The later improvements of having a Nose Cap for the stock forearm and a Steel Rammer, made the Brown Bess more functional of course, though

Gus

Thanks Ike,

That's a good thing, then, as it should stop such damage to the forearm I referred to earlier. Thank you.

Gus

Thats an accurate feature, even a step further accurate if its dovetailed to the round barrel, but not likely today because welding is so much stronger than it was in the 18th century.

Gus I was thinking more in regards to the Brown Bess Pattern in Goldsteins Book on pages 30 - 37.

It’s referred to as an upgrade to the prior pattern but can be found with some 1742 parts, like the heavier trigger guard and double bridal lock.

 

[Artificer]

Thats an accurate feature, even a step further accurate if its dovetailed to the round barrel, but not likely today because welding is so much stronger than it was in the 18th century.

Gus I was thinking more in regards to the Brown Bess Pattern in Goldsteins Book on pages 30 - 37.

It’s referred to as an upgrade to the prior pattern but can be found with some 1742 parts, like the heavier trigger guard and double bridal lock.

Hi Nick,

It's true the barrel loops for the sling swivel screw were dovetailed in place, but not welded. Welding would have screwed up the Iron Barrels. They did sometimes Braze the loops after dovetailing them and even that is tricky to not get the barrel metal too hot to mess it up. Yet even though brazing was more difficult to do with the tools they had in the 18th century, they did some remarkable things with brazing.

Bailey mentions two other things that were going on near the end of the P1730 production and during the time the P1740 modifications were made, that even Bailey doesn't directly tie in with the upgrade modifications. Yet these things had a major impact on finishing the P1730 musket production.

Just about the time British Ordnance was beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel on rearming the entire British Army worldwide with P1730 Muskets, the War of Jenkin's Ear broke out with Spain in 1739. That War "morphed" into the War of the Spanish Succession and "King George's War" here in the colonies from 1744-1748.

I can just imagine British Ordnance saying something like, "OMG we are close to the finish line of re-arming the entire British Army with the "New Pattern" King's Muskets (P1730 Muskets) and now you guys go out and start another War!" Wars usually called for significant increases in the British Army up to and including doubling the entire number of Soldiers in the Army. This meant British Ordnance had to come up almost overnight with the same number of muskets (or more) that they had made in the last 9 years. But that wasn't the only huge problem British Ordnance had to deal with.

During the Winter of 1739-1740, there were record breaking cold winter months that froze most of the rivers in England. That meant water wheels would not work and that put English musket barrel production out of business at the same time British Ordnance needed tens of thousands of new Musket barrels. IOW, Murphy was hopping up and down on and stomping the heads of the folks at British Ordnance. So British Ordnance wound up having to order 12,000 "Dutch" Muskets and an additional 36,000 "Dutch" musket barrels between 1740 and 1742 to meet demands.

Now Bailey doesn't spell this out in his books, but what could British Ordnance do while waiting on new musket barrels? They weren't sitting around twiddling their thumbs, that's for sure. Grin. I imagine this was the reason they began the "P1730/1740 Upgrade Modifications" until barrel production caught up so they could begin a "New Pattern Musket" in 1742.

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

Hi Nick,

It's true the barrel loops for the sling swivel screw were dovetailed in place, but not welded. Welding would have screwed up the Iron Barrels. They did sometimes Braze the loops after dovetailing them and even that is tricky to not get the barrel metal too hot to mess it up. Yet even though brazing was more difficult to do with the tools they had in the 18th century, they did some remarkable things with brazing.

Bailey mentions two other things that were going on near the end of the P1730 production and during the time the P1740 modifications were made, that even Bailey doesn't directly tie in with the upgrade modifications. Yet these things had a major impact on finishing the P1730 musket production.

Just about the time British Ordnance was beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel on rearming the entire British Army worldwide with P1730 Muskets, the War of Jenkin's Ear broke out with Spain in 1739. That War "morphed" into the War of the Spanish Succession and "King George's War" here in the colonies from 1744-1748.

I can just imagine British Ordnance saying something like, "OMG we are close to the finish line of re-arming the entire British Army with the "New Pattern" King's Muskets (P1730 Muskets) and now you guys go out and start another War!" Wars usually called for significant increases in the British Army up to and including doubling the entire number of Soldiers in the Army. This meant British Ordnance had to come up almost overnight with the same number of muskets (or more) that they had made in the last 9 years. But that wasn't the only huge problem British Ordnance had to deal with.

During the Winter of 1739-1740, there were record breaking cold winter months that froze most of the rivers in England. That meant water wheels would not work and that put English musket barrel production out of business at the same time British Ordnance needed tens of thousands of new Musket barrels. IOW, Murphy was hopping up and down on and stomping the heads of the folks at British Ordnance. So British Ordnance wound up having to order 12,000 "Dutch" Muskets and an additional 36,000 "Dutch" musket barrels between 1740 and 1742 to meet demands.

Now Bailey doesn't spell this out in his books, but what could British Ordnance do while waiting on new musket barrels? They weren't sitting around twiddling their thumbs, that's for sure. Grin. I imagine this was the reason they began the "P1730/1740 Upgrade Modifications" until barrel production caught up so they could begin a "New Pattern Musket" in 1742.

Gus

Its interesting to read as to what motivates governments to change their arms.

With the early french and British muskets and even Dutch, the standard theme seemed to be much more graceful in style and design, while i would disagree that the French Early muskets were just poorly designed and intended to be cheap (1689, 1717 and 1728 and 1746). The 1717 is quoted by Erickson as having been such a poor design that the musket would sometimes not even fire and the holm oak (or live oak) ramrod at 46 inches and 5/16 - 3/8 in diameter was not really suitable for military use. The design of the 1728 and 1746 muskets were considerably improved but the French seemed to suffer from a lot broken stocks and worn down barrels. Teh stocks were too weak in the wrist due to the Roman nose style and the forestock was almost paper thin bolstered by almost just as thin barrel bands and the long barrel was often quoted as being razor sharp at the muzzle. Things didnt start to really improve for the french muskets until 1754 where the bands were made thicker a more reliable lock was made and the stock was straightened slightly, the steel parts were made somewhat thicKer too. The 1763 of course was the beginning of the new heavily reinforced french musket design which was copied by almost every European nation including the USA.

The British Brown Bess of the early 1730’s was a wonderfully designed musket even with its large graceful lock, had its implications. The single Bridal lock is documented as being pretty high quality for the era and was even used on later periods if it was still considered serviceable. The Stock and trigger guard seemed to have been the biggest flaws, the trigger guard which I have seen a few castings from teh Rifle Shoppe, in my opinion isn’t as flimsy at its made out to be, maybe in cast form but when polished down its possible that the sling and bow areas would have been weakened. The Stock area in the Wrist and fore stock seems pretty thin and weakened due to its reductions and carvings. While today, this gun is just fine for the collector or hunter for military use, I could see its drawbacks.

The 1740 Brown Bess and 1756 are really the heavy hitters of the Brown Bess Long Land Series. Extremely robust in design and made for abuse.

Dutch muskets seem to kinda digress in quality, the earlier Dutch muskets in my opinion were very 1740 Bess like, robust and good quality, while the later period muskets almost seem like Spanish in design, very poor quality.

 

[toot]

Breech plugs are threaded on my two India pistols (one from MVTCo and one from TOTW from the same manufacturer). The couple India muskets I've seen taken apart on different forums also have threaded plugs, so I'd assume Loyalist's guns would be the same.

never ASSUME, you know what that means?

 

[FlinterNick]

never ASSUME, you know what that means?

I actually just installed a breech plug on a Brown Bess Barrel by Colerain. Not as hard as its made out to be, just required filing back the plug very slightly and the bolsters a small amount with a diamond file, then chamfered the edges of the plug faces slightly.



But then again, I’m thinking the Bess Plugs are easiest, compared to other guns with patent style breeches.

 

[FlinterNick]

I actually just installed a breech plug on a Brown Bess Barrel by Colerain. Not as hard as its made out to be, just required filing back the plug very slightly and the bolsters a small amount with a diamond file, then chamfered the edges of the plug faces slightly.



But then again, I’m thinking the Bess Plugs are easiest, compared to other guns with patent style breeches.

I’ve seen some questionable Indian breech plugs, but they work. I’m sure Loyalist arms takes care in how their barrels are breached, they do quality work there.

 

[Ike Godsey]

I’ve seen some questionable Indian breech plugs, but they work. I’m sure Loyalist arms takes care in how their barrels are breached, they do quality work there.

Yes, they do.
And the other Indian gun makers do it also.
From the Indian made muskets I had my hands on all breech plugs have been threaded and they are of good quality!
In the past 10 years I have seen only one India made barrel that had a bad threaded breech plug.

Why do I (we) still go with India made guns?

I think you must understand, here in Germany, we do not have much things to choose from when it comes to guns.
We do not have TRS and/or TOW and if we try to order, they do not take PayPal plus the fact that gun parts could not be shipped outside US.

So the only options we have is either the (what ever it is) from Pedersoli, or any India made gun.
So if you like to have a 46" full size LLP - India made guns are your only choise.

I have been at the proofhouse to get the official test and proof on one of those India muskets that I have ordered for my brother. He and his men are reenacting the Ansbach-Bayreuth Troop of soldiers, send over to the AWI to fight for the British King.

Bad thing - since FEB this year, we have a new, stronger gun law in Germany. This also means new rules for the gun proof.

What they did was measureing the barrel, then they put 300 grain FF powder plus 2 patched round balls into the barrel and fired it from the musket 5 times!
They measured after each shot. Well the musket made it. Proofstamps on it tells you it is considered "Safe to shoot".
No cracks in the stock, no harms to the barrel – no harms to the breech plug - everything is fine.

All of my India made muskets are proofed and my 1717 French musket is my best shooter.

 

[toot]

thank's for that great information.