NorthStar West TradeGun Photos

[David Teague]

Justmike's sure does look good.

So does mine... and they are in walnut.

Cheers,

DT

 

[Swampman]

I just finished one. I aged my NSW Officer's Fusil, and my buddies think it's awesome. The locks are really nice too. You can see it in this picture.
[url] http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/191124[/url]/

 

[mastrsgt]

Swampman,

Thanks for the photo. The more I look at the fusil, the more I think I need to shell out the bucks for the North Star gun. I've sent an email asking about delivery, but haven't heard from them yet. Did you get a kit or finished. Looks good.

Don R

 

[David Teague]

You might check with Dixie Gun Works as they have stocked the North Stat Fusils in the past... that's where I picked mine up with no wait beyond the shipping transit time.

 

[mike alexandre]

Heres another reason for having a look at one of Matts muskets. The 85 score offhand at 50 metres that is, not the vagrant holding the gun :rotf:

 

[Mike Brooks]

Okay, I give. I've been looking for information in my library for the past two evenings on a british issued "officers fusil". As far as I can tell from my resources they never existed. There are two guns which come close to this gun from NSW. The 1756 Royal Artillery Carbine and the 1807 Sergants Carbine.
Someone posted a link that is even more confusing.
[url]
http://www.muzzleblasts.com/vol1no1/articles/bess.html[/url]
]Link[/url]
A quote from that link:

What North Star West calls the Officer's Model Brown Bess is also known as the Light Dragoon Pattern Brown Bess.

Well, that's just wrong. The 1756 Light Dragoon Carbine has a sling slider bar attatched to the left side of it that is probably about 10" to 12" long.

Royal warrants of 1740 to 1750 suggest that, while fighting in North America, officers might replace pole arms with fusils of their own preference. This gun, originally developed in 1750 and sent into service by 1753, was usually owned by officers.

I'd say that Light Dragoon Carbines were "usually" carried by Light Dragoons....seems logical :hmm: From my research and information at my disposal officers commissioned there own fire arms by private makers. I've seen and handled dozens of them. No self respecting British officer would have been seen carrying a common soldiers gun. His self commissioned fowler/musket would have been a status symbol. Now Serents on the other hand may have aquired these lighter handier guns, as they were poor enough they wouldn't have had the money to comission a gun from a private maker.
In closing, I theink NSW has their gun miss labeled. It sure has all of the attributes of a Royal artillery carbine.
Can anybody stear my straight on this one?

 

[Mike Brooks]

Oh, and one more thing that's bugging me, the sideplate on the NSW gun is unlike anything I've ever seen that is associated with either the Light Dragoon Carbine or the Royal Artillery Carbine. Both of those models carry a scaled down brown bess styled sideplate.....
Someone point me in the right direction.....

 

[Okwaho]

Mike, in comparing the side plate on the so called Officer's Model fusil/carbine with other pattern guns in De Witt Bailey' book,"Pattern Dates for British Ordnance Small Arms 1718-1783"I found three similar side plates.The first was the 1745 Lord loudon Light Infantry Carbine with it's 42" bbl. and unique furniture shared only with the 1760 Light infantry Carbine although the 1760 Carbine has a more conventional sideplate.The second and third sideplates are the 1776 Royal Foresters Light Dragoon Carbine and Pistol.Of these two the carbine plate{from the drawings} seems to be somewhat plainer and flat as indicated on the drawing.The second plate from the 1776 Royal Foresters Light Dragoon Pistol is also flat but from the photo seems to be beveled. This plate is,I'm sure, the one Curley Gostomski used as the basis for his so called Officer's Model which "was the last gun designed and built by Robert "Curly' Gostomski",Muzzle Blast May 1996 Vol.1 No.1

I'm not sure about the rest of the gun and I haven't compared it yet to other pattern guns as shown by Bailey and which were used in America. I have always thought that Oficer's Fusils were privately purchased fowling pieces which were more or less scaled down versions of military guns but could also be totally civilian in character,appearance and caliber.I very seriously question guns of this type being appropriate for Ranger use.Now having addressed your query, I guess I'll have to examine the rest of the gun.
Tom Patton

 

[mastrsgt]

Since i just bought one, I'm finding this discussion very interesting. There are references to officer's fusils in "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution" by Geroge C. Neumann, "Pattern Dates for British Ordnance Arms 1718-1783" by DeWitt Bailey, and "Muskets of the Revolution and the French and Indian Wars" by Bill Ahearn.

The NSW fusil does not have the the crown/broad arrow on the lock so it was not owned by the British government. The NSW site makes reference to it being a copy of gun in the Smithsonian collection. I would think that it is simply a copy of an officer's fusil privately contracted.

The lock dimensions match those given by Bailey for various carbines. The barrel length at 37.5" is very close to the artillery carbine. Lastly, the lock is marked Whately and and the only reference to that name is in Neumann's book in the description of an English Ferguson Rifle Fusil.

Don R

 

[Okwaho]

Since i just bought one, I'm finding this discussion very interesting. There are references to officer's fusils in "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution" by Geroge C. Neumann, "Pattern Dates for British Ordnance Arms 1718-1783" by DeWitt Bailey, and "Muskets of the Revolution and the French and Indian Wars" by Bill Ahearn.

The NSW fusil does not have the the crown/broad arrow on the lock so it was not owned by the British government. The NSW site makes reference to it being a copy of gun in the Smithsonian collection. I would think that it is simply a copy of an officer's fusil privately contracted.

The lock dimensions match those given by Bailey for various carbines. The barrel length at 37.5" is very close to the artillery carbine. Lastly, the lock is marked Whately and and the only reference to that name is in Neumann's book in the description of an English Ferguson Rifle Fusil.

Don R

Don,I think you are correct in your assessment of this gun as it being based upon a privately contracted fusil.I would add that the officer who bought and carried such a gun was a rather junior officer.British fowlers and privately contracted fusils are known mounted in silver,iron,and brass with varying degrees of decoration. The silver mounted guns were the the most expensive with iron next and brass being the least expensive. Many of theseguns were made by England's finest makers such as Twig and Barbar.There seems to have been two general types;one was a scaled down musket and the other was a refined fowling piece.

I further think that Mike and I are correct in our assessment of this gun in that it is clearly not a gun issued by or built to any specification of the British Ordnance Department.The original of such a gun would have been made by a less well known maker or by journeymen and/or apprentices in the large shop of a major maker.This is not to say that such guns were the cheap English fowlers manufactured as trade guns and referred to as Carolina/Type G guns.

The major problem I have here with this so called Officer's Model Musket is the way that it has been presented in that someone reading the catalogue description will believe the gun to be one manufactured as a British Ordnance Department
Pattern Musket when such is in my opinion not the case.The catalogue plainly states that:

"This Officer's Model Musket is carefully copied in every way.It is the perfect Roger's Rangers long gun for the French and Indian War period.These guns are produced to the original specifications of the British Ordnance Department,with the exception of thread pitches and metal alloys

I think this gun is an attractive and apparently well built well built piece. I do not think it is a representation of a gun issued by the Ordnance Department but rather an inexpensive privately contracted fusil on the low end of the price scale. I think that the date of such a piece is very fuzzy but I don't think it quite early enough for the F&I War. I'll put some more time into that question.Regardless of the time frame I definitely doubt it's use as a Roger's Rangers or any other ranger unit.Now that I have probably interested some and infuriated others,I will sign off BUT as always I welcome responsible conflicting opinion
Tom Patton

 

[mastrsgt]

Tom,

I agree with everything you say. I guess that's what appealed to me about this particular piece. It has some features of an early Brown Bess, such as the nose band. It has a Brown Bess style wrist plate and stock swell. The trigger guard has the same shape as the Bess as well. But the overall size is smaller and handier. All in all in quite happy with the appearance.

Don R

 

[mike alexandre]

I've obviously not seen the musket in the Smithsonian, but I can tell you a bit about the other musket in the picture with mine. It was made by the Board of Ordnance in the early 1800s and issued to Canadian Militia a few years later and is refered to as a Sergeants fusil. When it was discovered the lock and barrel were coated in a bitumen type substance. The barrel has BO proof and viewers marks also the initials TL - poss Thomas Lowndes of Birmingham. The lock has a BO cypher and Tower externaly and TH on the inside poss Thomas Hadley of Birmingham. On the tang are further viewers marks and the number 39. I guess that muddys the water a bit more ?

 

[Mike Brooks]

I've obviously not seen the musket in the Smithsonian, but I can tell you a bit about the other musket in the picture with mine. It was made by the Board of Ordnance in the early 1800s and issued to Canadian Militia a few years later and is refered to as a Sergeants fusil. When it was discovered the lock and barrel were coated in a bitumen type substance. The barrel has BO proof and viewers marks also the initials TL - poss Thomas Lowndes of Birmingham. The lock has a BO cypher and Tower externaly and TH on the inside poss Thomas Hadley of Birmingham. On the tang are further viewers marks and the number 39. I guess that muddys the water a bit more ?

I don't think you've muddied up the water at all. This could be the model of gun they copied. There are only a few differences between your original and the NSW gun. The trigger guards are slightly different, and I believe the NSW guns gurd is an earlier styled guard. And , the pipes are completely different. Checking thru my limited recourses, I can't find any british military gun that carries pipes that are styled quite like those.
I'm wondering, what kind of sideplate does your sergents carbine have?

 

[mike alexandre]

As requested

 

[Swampman]

"The NSW fusil does not have the the crown/broad arrow on the lock"

Nor did the original gun they copied.

 

[Mike Brooks]

"The NSW fusil does not have the the crown/broad arrow on the lock"

Nor did the original gun they copied.

How do you know, have you seen the original gun?

 

[mastrsgt]

Mike,

You questioned the pipes on the NSW gun. Looking through Bailey's book, the front pipe appears identical to a "Pratt;s inprovement" pipe. Only problem is Pratts were used as the second pipe on the Brown Bess, not the first. the third pipe is very close to one shown for a 1776 Royal Forrester Light Dragoon carbine. The tang of the butt plate is also a match for that carbine. all the more reason to think it was privatly contracted by some poor ensign or sergeant.

Don R

 

[Okwaho]

I've obviously not seen the musket in the Smithsonian, but I can tell you a bit about the other musket in the picture with mine. It was made by the Board of Ordnance in the early 1800s and issued to Canadian Militia a few years later and is refered to as a Sergeants fusil. When it was discovered the lock and barrel were coated in a bitumen type substance. The barrel has BO proof and viewers marks also the initials TL - poss Thomas Lowndes of Birmingham. The lock has a BO cypher and Tower externaly and TH on the inside poss Thomas Hadley of Birmingham. On the tang are further viewers marks and the number 39. I guess that muddys the water a bit more ?

I don't think you've muddied up the water at all. This could be the model of gun they copied. There are only a few differences between your original and the NSW gun. The trigger guards are slightly different, and I believe the NSW guns gurd is an earlier styled guard. And , the pipes are completely different. Checking thru my limited recourses, I can't find any british military gun that carries pipes that are styled quite like those.
I'm wondering, what kind of sideplate does your sergents carbine have?

Well I haven't figured out what gun Curly copied or if it is one he just came up with after looking at a bunch of guns.There was a reference in the Muzzle Blast article about him "designing this gun"but who knows and I don't have a good enough ouija board to ask him.

Any way as to the so called Serjeant's fusil posted by justmike, I wasn't sure but the sideplate photo pretty well clinched it. That gun is in my opinion a first model India Pattern musket which came out about 1793.The first model had a gooseneck cock whereas the second model about 1809 had a double throated cock and was somewhat heavier in size."It [the earlier version ] is stocked to within 4 1/2 in. of the muzzle,the barrel being retained by three pins and the upper swivel screw.There are three brass ram rod pipes,a rounded sideplate and a trigger guard of a simpler pattern than the Land series.This musket retains the general out-lines of the Short Land musket but is shorter and not so well finished. They are by no means of poor quality,despite the introduction of cheaper simpler furniture.The stock carving of the Land Pattern and the form of the lock and butt are all retained-features which disappear on the New Land series.This pattern was first taken into Government service as an emergency measure in 1793 and was later accepted as a pattern for Government muskets in 1797.Overall length 55 1/4 in.,barrel length 39in.,calibre 0.75 in."
"British Military Longarms1715-1815" by D.W.Bailey, PP.32-35 Figures 21-28
There apparently was no Serjeant's or Officer's fusils although there was an India Pattern Carbine introduced Ca.1800 with a 26 in. barrel but "there is no evidence that this carbine was used in Canada but it is one of those which were available";"The Military Arms of Canada" by The Upper Canada Historical Arms Society, Historical Arms Series no.1,PP.14-15

There is little doubt in my mind but that the old gun illustrated by justmike is a first of the two India pattern muskets introduced in 1793 and modified in 1809.Ultimately the New Land Pattern musket with a 42in. barrel was introduced in 1802 and manufactured to some degree before 1815.It later became the major British musket through the Napoleonic wars and beyond.See "British Military Longarms 1815-1865" by D.W. Bailey for information on the New Land Pattern muskets and other arms through 1865 which covers the American Civil War.
Tom Patton

 

[mike alexandre]

Does the fact that this musket is .66cal link in with your info?

 

[Swampman]

I spoke with the owner of NSW who has the photos. He said he would get them up on the website some day.