Please help identify

[Va.Manuf.06]

You won't find the Massachusetts "provers of firearms" in any of the published lists - except an article I wrote for Man at Arms about 30 years ago. I can probably take credit for having discovered who they were although Dwight Demerit preceded me in publishing something about the proof law in his "Maine Made Guns." They weren't inspectors in the sense that they inspected the gun. No one did that. They proved the barrels according to the requirements of the Massachusetts proof law of 1805(? I have to recheck that date but its either 04 or 05).

This was a civil, not a military or militia related position, something that originally confused me for a long time since the marks appear almost exclusively on military-style muskets. The names of those appointed are found in the same ledger as Coroners and Justices of the Peace.

Something has clearly been altered in that marking. I have no idea what the punch markings are supposed to signify but on the barrel they almost certainly obscure the date. Otherwise the marking is completely kosher.

Excellent information. English locks of one kind or another show up on these guns fairly frequently but the muskets are usually British style with pinned barrels, it is uncommon (in my experience) to see the US-style banded musket. Here is another example, completely mis-identified by a reputable seller:
http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/admin/product_details.php?itemID=32708

 

[JV Puleo]

Absolutely correct. English locks are the rule (although I've had at least one with a 1724 model French lock). If the guns are completely English made, as many were, they usually go completely under the radar and are simply miss identified with no reference made to having been made for the American trade.

The ratio between the pinned "British style" and the banded " French style" is probably about 5 to 1.

 

[Tumblernotch]

You won't find the Massachusetts "provers of firearms" in any of the published lists - except an article I wrote for Man at Arms about 30 years ago. I can probably take credit for having discovered who they were although Dwight Demerit preceded me in publishing something about the proof law in his "Maine Made Guns." They weren't inspectors in the sense that they inspected the gun. No one did that. They proved the barrels according to the requirements of the Massachusetts proof law of 1805(? I have to recheck that date but its either 04 or 05).

This was a civil, not a military or militia related position, something that originally confused me for a long time since the marks appear almost exclusively on military-style muskets. The names of those appointed are found in the same ledger as Coroners and Justices of the Peace.

Something has clearly been altered in that marking. I have no idea what the punch markings are supposed to signify but on the barrel they almost certainly obscure the date. Otherwise the marking is completely kosher.

It would certainly confuse me too since it is a military pattern arm. But since the state militias were under control of the state governments, primarily the governors, it makes sense that contracts let out for state owned arms would require inspections by men appointed by the governor. I have read where some inspectors who worked for state governments were also at one time (and in some cases concurrently) arms makers themselves. Marine Wickham comes to mind for one if I remember correctly. I'd have to find it, but I also remember reading that some inspectors were borrowed from Federal installations to prove and inspect state contract arms. So it makes perfect sense to me that this inspector would have only been listed as you say with the JP's and coroners. But also as you say, very confusing. I'm glad you made this info available. I've run across a few old muskets with unfamiliar inspector's marks in the past and it would have been helpful. Now I can keep it in mind if I do again. I also think it is interesting to see a Charleville pattern musket made with British parts. Now that is confusing to someone who hasn't been exposed to some of the state and private contract muskets out there. Which makes me think I should modify what I said earlier with a question. Rather than a state contractor, do you think that this was a private contract arm for speculation that required a state or even a county appointed inspector to view it? :hmm:

 

[JV Puleo]

I do not believe muskets of that type were ever "inspected" in the sense we associate with government ownership. Nor do I believe they were made under state contract. In the case of Massachusetts I know they weren't because I've handled almost all of the primary documents and there is only actual "state contract", for 2,500 muskets supplied by Waters during the War of 1812.* All other references to "state contracts" (in Massachusetts)are specious and result from the presupposition that the State supplied arms to militiamen when, in fact, militiamen were required to supply their own. Given the very low quality of many such muskets, it is pretty clear that the individual arms weren't inspected at all.

*These arms are marked "Sutton", usually dated 1814 and also marked "MS" which is the mark of state ownership.

 

[Tumblernotch]

It would seem that Massachusetts lived in a world of its own, huh? I'd never really studied about that state's arms procurements so this is something new to me. Something to keep in mind if I run across an oddly marked musket.
:thumbsup:

 

[j.smith]

Unfortunatly we still do