Private Commercial Long Land Pattern

[Ike Godsey]

Hi Gang,

is there any knowen fact on how any of the Private Commercial Long Land Pattern Muskets have been build in or imported to North Amerika prior to the FIW?

 

[Artificer]

Hi Ike,

Please don't take this as criticism, as it is not meant to be, but I believe you are confusing terminology. LLP/ Long Land Pattern was a term used by British Ordnance to identify/designate approved Military Patterns only. Civilian Lock, Barrel, brass makers, etc. supplied the parts to the British Ordnance Department and then they had them assembled into LLP "King's" Muskets.

Now perhaps you are thinking of civilian Muskets "made for the Gun Trade" that also had 46 inch barrels, military grade locks and may have looked like the British Military Muskets? If so, that's a great question!

Perhaps during the War of Jenkin's Ear 1739-42 that merged with/into the War of the Austrian Succession (1740”“48) there MAY have been some such Military Style Muskets with 46 inch barrels imported here from Civilian sources, but I can't think of any right off the top of my head. (Something worth looking into, though.)

Now Governor James Ogelthorpe of Georgia already was issued about 1,000 Brand Spanking New, P1730 LLP Muskets from the British Ordnance Department and brought with him when he came here in 1732. (It was good when one knew the King.)

It doesn't seem many people outside Georgia are that interested in the War of Jenkins Ear. Maybe because at the end, all warring parties got back their claims prior to the start of the war.

However, this conflict was notable in that a huge number of Americans were enlisted to fight as the first American Marines. We United States Marines recognize them as the first American Marines, though we only trace our lineage to the Continental Marines of the AWI period. Also, George Washington's Brother served as a Captain of Marines in that war and named his home "Mount Vernon" in honor of the British Admiral Vernon, who Washington served under and admired. So when George Washington inherited Mount Vernon, he did so from the estate of his American Marine Brother.

Sorry for going off track there. I really don't expect to find info on Militia "Made for the Gun Trade" Muskets that were similar to the British Military LLP muskets prior to the F&I, and purchased by the Colonies for their Militia, but perhaps there are some references out there.

Interesting question!!

Gus

 

[Ike Godsey]

Gus,

I was reffering to an article I red a while ago by Mr. Neumann:

Private Commercial Long Land Pattern 1736-1746

While the official Brown Bess muskets were being issued through the Board of Ordnance to Royal forces, a parallel business existed for similar patterns being produced and sold by private British contractors to individual regimental colonels, trading companies, local English defense units and to provincial colonies, towns and militias in North America. They normally included a reliable lock and barrel, but would reduce or simplify the furniture and other components to remain competitive in price. This example has a full-length .75-cal. barrel and a typical banana lock marked by its London maker, “J Hall.” Yet it reduced cost by providing a low-grade walnut stock and wooden ramrod, plus an abbreviated butt tang, side plate and trigger guard. The tail pipe, escutcheon and nose cap, in turn, have been omitted. Even the usual British cast ramrod pipes were changed to rolled sheet brass.

The questions are:

1) are there any source of such muskets beeing produced in the colinies prior to the FWI?

2) if so, which maker would produce those type of musket? any names?

In Bill Aherns Book:
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/271/1/BOOK-MR

there is a Musket pictured, made by a privat maker. That musket has a 42" barrel and wooden rammer. it is close to a SLP, but if I remember correctly, it was made in the 1740s.

Any more of those?
Any evidence such muskets beeing issued to any fighting unit, milita or?
Or maybe ordered for arming a town milita?

Ike

 

[Artificer]

Ike,
OK, now I understand, you are indeed asking about Militia Muskets “made for the Gun Trade” or also known as Commercial Muskets. This basically means Muskets or Guns that were not made for the British Military; but purchased by the Colonial Governments for the individual Colonies’ own Militia or Provincial Units, or sometimes by the large cities here or by individuals.

“The questions are:

1) are there any source of such muskets beeing produced in the colinies prior to the FWI?”

This question is fairly easy to answer. There were no significant numbers of such “Made for the Trade" or Commercial Muskets made here in the Colonies by individual makers or companies prior to the FIW. Some individuals may have had such a musket made for them by an individual gunsmith, but that would have been an exception to the norm. There just were no good sized arms making companies here in the Colonies in that period and that’s the way the British Government wanted it. The British wanted their Colonies here to supply raw materials and then buy their manufactured goods from “The Home Islands.”

London Gunmaker Richard Wilson was probably the most prolific supplier of such Commercial Muskets to the American Colonies for the FIW period. I don’t know how to link PDF files, but you can google for “The Wilsons: Gunmakers to Empire, 1730-1832” by Dewitt Bailey for more info.

Thanks to Wes/Tex, here is a link to an original Wilson FIW commercial musket. (The Valley Forge Visitor’s Center also has one of these I have personally seen, but they don’t have links to their Guns on Display.) http://blog.hulettsonlakegeorge.com/index.php/archives/2645

This Book goes into Detail on the guns of the FIW period and has sections on guns procured by Individual Colonies. “Of Sorts For Provincials,” by Jim Mullins. http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/269/1/BOOK-OSFP

I’m sorry I don’t have the Bill Aherns Book you mentioned.

Gus

 

[Ike Godsey]

Gus,

thank you very much for this information.

I am always surprised how much information comes from the members of this forum. Informations, we here could never get, do to the fact some books are simply out of reach for us - even today. So THANK YOU. :bow:

I have ordered the book from TOW weeks ago and i am waiting for it to come in...

 

[Wes/Tex]

I too love the question. We know for a fact that up to about 1750, regimental colonels had a lot of leeway in how they outfitted and armed their regiments. Any savings gained by ordering from other than "regular" sources went into said colonel's pocket and some made a living off their regiments. Though "common knowledge", I've never seen an actual list of who might be the worst offenders. On the opposite hand some colonels spent their own money in addition to what they were given by the government to make sure their regiment was the best out there. It appears to be totally by chance whether a regiment of foot was well heeled and armed.

There has also been a wee bit of confusion in the past when the plainer early "Marine & Militia" models have been confused to the "commercial" guns you mention. Since all these "Marine & Militia" guns were, or should have been, stamped on the lock plates with the "crown", "GR" and other stampings or engravings, this confusion should not arise...but saying it don't make it so! :wink: I've never encountered any factual record or even a guess of how many guns "For the Trade" were made, let alone survived to modern times. It's really a grey area. Since we're not sure which colonels were offenders, it's hard to tell what guns may or may not have made it to the colonies.

I'm sorry there's no better answer, at least that I'm aware of. If someone knows more, I'm all ears! you learn something new every day! :wink:

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Yes Ike, they did contract out for ranger guns...

Lord Loudoun during the Seven years War authorized Robert Rogers to form 5 new ranger companies, and and when doing ordered Rogers

"to find their own arms, which must be fit, and be upon examination, shall be found fit, and be approved of. "

Note that Loudon isn't ordering Rogers to find men WITH their own muskets... but to find "arms". So some conclude that this shows that the rangers did have contract firarms from a private source, and then surmise they were muskets.

It's not known if these were copies of actual British LLP's or made to different specs. It should also be noted that as they were paid for by the British military, it would've been expected at the end of the war they would be added to military inventory.

General Abercromby on March 15, 1758, wrote to several governors in colonies raising troops, and told them the troops needed to bring their own muskets, showing that again, the above order from Loudon was different than civilians bringing privately owned arms.

In 1759, Rogers contracted with Greg & Cunningham to provide these arms (at least I think they were muskets) for his rangers. Rogers was informed on February 26th 1759, "..., arms have been tried and proved by the artillery; they answer very well, and are ordered to be sent to you as fast as possible." So they did not go through the normal channels of a British ordinance armory and proofing (which would have meant months of delay going back and forth to England by sea). Instead they were sent to the artillery already in the colonies, for testing and approval.

So this again points to the idea that while contracted by Rogers, they were paid for with Crown funds, and thus had to be tested before Rogers took final delivery. This further suggests that they would be the property of the Crown at the end of the conflict.

This may help to explain the mishmash we get when looking at muskets that have survived.

We should also remember that the Crown may have at times sub-contracted out for musket manufacturing, for it purchased muskets from other nations as well. By contracting with private gun makers inside Britain, it may be that private contracts from wealthy commanding officers were filled by the same makers (why not as they already know how to build a proper musket)... so some of what we today assume are pure, Government built LLP's, may have started as private contracts. If they had, and been in Britain, it would've been a simple thing to send them to a government proof house, and thus the markings on the barrels and locks would be the same as the Government LLP's. Making it tougher for gun historians to identify them from LLP's made in the armories.

LD

 

[pargent]

It would make it easier to get correct replies if you could give the nationality of the units you want to know about eg. American Colonial State Milita , for reference the Governor was responsible for state troops muskets and very often when quoted by the Tower they went with the much cheaper gun trade made muskets like Wilson , it should be also noted that these were not up to the standard of the Tower muskets .

 

[Ike Godsey]

It would make it easier to get correct replies if you could give the nationality of the units you want to know about ...

I only can give you the information I have.
Sorry for my incompetence.

Ike

 

[Ike Godsey]

Thank you LD. :hatsoff:

Ike

 

[Ike Godsey]

... you learn something new every day! :wink:

so do I. Thank you :hatsoff:

Ike

 

[lyman1903]

It would make it easier to get correct replies if you could give the nationality of the units you want to know about eg. American Colonial State Milita , for reference the Governor was responsible for state troops muskets and very often when quoted by the Tower they went with the much cheaper gun trade made muskets like Wilson , it should be also noted that these were not up to the standard of the Tower muskets .

would you be so kind, and expand on this,

by standard, do you mean fit and finish? substandard materials used? or parts interchangability?

 

[Artificer]

In 1759, Rogers contracted with Greg & Cunningham to provide these arms (at least I think they were muskets) for his rangers. Rogers was informed on February 26th 1759, "..., arms have been tried and proved by the artillery; they answer very well, and are ordered to be sent to you as fast as possible." So they did not go through the normal channels of a British ordinance armory and proofing (which would have meant months of delay going back and forth to England by sea). Instead they were sent to the artillery already in the colonies, for testing and approval.


LD

Dave,

I found this post fascinating and thank you!

British Military Artificers/Armorers were almost always attached to and under the command of the Artillery here in America, except for a few stationed at collection/storage/issue locations. So while Artillery Officers were charged with this task and would have done some of the inspecting and been responsible for it, no doubt the "grunt work" of the task of inspecting and proving those Muskets fell to the Artificers.

Though some folks may not find that significant, it is another of those GREAT little tidbits of original documentation on tasks that Artificers performed. So I was excited to read it and very much appreciate it.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Besides the Marine/Militia Pattern Muskets, I have often wondered if some of the out of date or refurbished Sea Service "Bright" Muskets were issued to the Colonies? I have not found documentation on it, though.

"Bright" Sea Service Muskets had bright 40 to 46 inch long barrels and were intended for sharpshooter and landing party duties for Sailors designated as "Small Arms Men" aboard ships. With their flat locks, no entry ramrod pipe, flat sheet brass iron butt plates and generally cruder construction - some folks might also confuse them for Commercial guns, though they also bore the Crown and King's markings.

Gus

 

[Ike Godsey]

...

"Bright" Sea Service Muskets had bright 40 to 46 inch long barrels and were intended for sharpshooter and landing party duties for Sailors designated as "Small Arms Men" aboard ships. With their flat locks, no entry ramrod pipe, flat sheet brass iron butt plates and generally cruder construction - some folks might also confuse them for Commercial guns, though they also bore the Crown and King's markings.

Gus

Now thats interesting! Not to mention, we're miles away from the topic, but still...

I always wounder why those sea service muskets are "cruder" (is that the right word??) than the LLPs or SLPs?
As I understood it, sea service muskets are to arm british sailors for duty for the british king.
Same is true for the "Regulars" fighting on land but their muskets seem to be higher quality.

So why the difference?

Also, is there any good replica of a sea servoce musket on the market other than TRS?

Ike :hmm:

 

[Artificer]

b] it should be also noted that these were not up to the standard of the Tower muskets . [/b]

would you be so kind, and expand on this,

by standard, do you mean fit and finish? substandard materials used? or parts interchangability?

Though I do not in any way mean to speak for 1601phill, I'll take a stab at your question.

Dr. De Witt Bailey in his books made some interesting general observations on British Military or King's Muskets as they were often referred to in the period. The Hanoverian Kings George I, II and III were responsible for a huge increase in the quality and quantity of British Military uniforms, equipage, food, pay, drill regulations and Arms; as well as greatly increased the size of the British Army, especially under Kings George II and III.

Part of the reason for this was it was expected that as Princes, British Kings during this period often were Captain General (overall Commander) of British Armies and took to the field with the Army. So their Royal lives were on the line and having better weapons, gear and soldiers were most definitely in their interests!! :grin:
Also, the quality of the Uniforms, Arms and Equipage of the King's Army reflected greatly on the power and majesty of the King and helped keep rebellions down in Scotland and Ireland and other parts of the British Empire.

The King's Muskets were more expensive and better in all the ways you mentioned, though parts interchangeability was pretty much confined to the barrel length and bore diameter and even the bore diameter varied a good deal by modern standards. I personally believe it can be said that the King's Muskets were also more elegant than commercial muskets and that cost extra money that was not necessary in what may be described as military arms.

For example on the buttplates, the tang was often longer and more complicated in shape and they were somewhat thicker and sturdier than commercial muskets.

The British Ordnance Department learned the trigger guard on the P1730 Muskets were too thin and slight to stand up to hard usage, so they increased the thickness and sturdiness in the P1742 Muskets that remained basically unchanged for the rest of the 18th century. Commercial Muskets sometimes or often had less metal in them and were therefore not as sturdy.

The Locks had to pass rather strict inspections for quality by the British Military. I am not sure how much better the reliability and serviceability those locks were than many Commercial muskets, because if it got out the locks on Commercial muskets did not function well, the makers would not sell many muskets. However, the King’s Muskets were more intricately decorated by both filing and engraving and the general shape and style for each pattern were more uniform in little details than commercial Muskets.

From what I’ve been able to research; the quality of “Walnut Tree Wood” in the King’s Muskets, though plain grained, was as good if not better than the same grade of wood in sporting arms and often better quality than some commercial muskets.

The stocking and finished shape of the King’s Muskets were better and more esthetically pleasing than cheaper Commercial Muskets.

Maybe a good way of explaining it is that the quality and finish of the King’s Muskets during the 18th century was more in the grade of good quality sporting arms (though not Best quality in the period) rather than plain/utilitarian military arms of later periods and today.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Now thats interesting! Not to mention, we're miles away from the topic, but still...

I always wounder why those sea service muskets are "cruder" (is that the right word??) than the LLPs or SLPs?
As I understood it, sea service muskets are to arm british sailors for duty for the british king.
Same is true for the "Regulars" fighting on land but their muskets seem to be higher quality.

So why the difference?

Also, is there any good replica of a sea servoce musket on the market other than TRS?

Ike :hmm:

Ike,

This is an example of the British Ordnance Department being thrifty/cheap/frugal/stingy (take your pick of adverbs as all apply to some degree :grin: ) where they thought it did not matter on quality. They knew these arms were stored by being locked in chests or in racks aboard ships and did not receive the same maintenance care as Land Service Arms. They also knew no one would see them other than the Sailors or their enemies. Finally, ships got sunk, foundered, lost to sea and weather conditions and sometimes captured, so they spent more money on the main ships' guns (artillery) that counted and less on the small arms that were not as important and not used nearly as much as the main guns.

Loyalist Arms has a replica, though it seems to be a cross between a "Bright" and "Black" period Sea Service Musket. I don't have personal knowledge on the quality, though.
http://www.loyalistarms.freeservers.com/britishseaservicemusket1778model.html

Gus

 

[lyman1903]

thanks Gus,

I kinda figured along those lines, but still learning so I wanting to make sure,

and I thought about it after I typed it, realized parts interchangeability was somewhat limited,

 

[Artificer]

You are most welcome. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Ike,

Just found another FIW Wilson Musket, this one sold to New Jersey.
http://amrevmuseum.org/collection/new-jersey-musket

Gus