Roger's Rangers

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum:

Artificer

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
11,570
Reaction score
3,419
Hi Gus I’m having a hard time seeing that the p 1742 stock and 1755 stock were shaped to gain more economic use walnut planks. Side by side, I have both stocks the drop is not very significant in reduction. For french guns after 1755 there was a significant reduction in drop allowing them to increase production nearly 3-1. But for the bess the differce is 2 1/4 to say 2 3/8 or 2 7/16 Or 2 1/2 if you compare the Initial Brown Bess model Not the 1742.

The reduction of the forearm webbing is easy to understand to accommodate the smaller rammer pipes. However the comb area and breech area were bolstered up.

Typically muskets of the 1750’s - 1760’s era (British, French, English and Spanish) began to take a straight profile, because prior generations of muskets with increased drop caused the wrist areas to weaken and break when the guns were handled in military form. This was the main motivation for the French to abandon the 1717 series Of muskets For the straighter 1763/66.

I might be overthinking this perhaps, then again 18th economics isn’t my strongest subject.
Hi Nick,

I may have been a bit confusing, so let me try to clear it up. The P1742 Musket stock has more drop at the toe of the buttstock than the straighter P1756 Musket stock. I understand it is not at all easy to see when one looks at photo's, as the muskets are rarely the same scale, but it is there. What also makes it more difficult to perceive is the forearm of the P1742 is thicker up and down to accommodate the wood ramrod.

If you know to look for the difference in the drop, it is a bit easier to see, even in these photo's.
P1742:
Pattern 1742 Land Service Musket – Works – The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (history.org)

P1756:
Pattern 1756 Land Service Musket – Works – The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (history.org)

However, I do understand even with these photo's it may not be easy to see because you can't draw lines on the stocks of the photo's to better see the drop.

Another way that might make it more understandable to envision when you don't have original muskets side by side to compare, is if you are familiar with the butt stocks on M1861 American Springfield Rifle Muskets vs P1853 British Rifle Muskets? The drop of the toe of each butt stock also looks fairly similar, but you really notice how much straighter the P1853 Rifle Musket Stock is when you shoot both of them, one right after the other.

Gus
 

stephenprops1

36 Cl.
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
54
Reaction score
60
I watched the movie (not very good) and am re-reading the book. They make reference in the book, written in the 1930s, to "muskets." The Rangers were basically a unit of the British Army and I guess would have been issued SB weapons.

The movie was only "Book 1" of the novel, by Kenneth Roberts. I think they made the movie with an ambition to make follow-ups, which didn't pan out.

There is a lot of history to Rogers that never got filmed. He went to debtor's prison back in England and fought against the Americans in the AWI. To what extent, I don't remember.

The movie was Hollywood in the 1940s. I'm pretty sure Robert Rogers and his Rangers never wore tailored buckskins as they did in the film. Also, in the movie, some of the rifles were cap locks.

Book is a lot better. It's available on Kindle for less than $7. I bought the Kindle and am re-reading it now. The first time I read it was in 1970 in Vietnam. Took me away.
In response to one of your comments --- I do believe Roger's Rangers were what today we would call "Special Forces." They were a branch of the British Army because Americans were all still British subjects at that time. They loosely followed British protocol. Also, they were primarily veterans of fighting against Ameican Indians and had learned Guerilla Warefare Tactics from the Indians. They used those aquired skills against the French (and later against Great Britian in the American Revolution). --- I don't know how accurate it is, however, in the movie Northwest Territority Rogers Rangers spent consideral time in an array of canoes to cross one of the Great Lakes. They then ambushed a hostile American Indian tribe that had been harassing American settlements. If it is accurate, it shows how the Rangers operated.
 

Rudyard

50 Cal.
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
920
At one time the interest in Rogers Rangers was as keen as that of the 95th rifles doings after Bernard Cornwell wrote the Sharp'es series .The Ranger portrayals looked very good to me compared with the Hollywood costume & got up Trapdoor Springfields ect . Like the Patriotic ( To Me) Benidict Arnold he hated the French & their Indigeous allys no
wonder he went on the right side while the traitorous rebel rabble where mislead by the leaders of the revolting sorts . The same government & crown as stopped at great cost the same French & allies that tried to push the Colonials into the sea just a few years earlier . So off goes that despicable prawn Franklin who goes and toadies to the same French who but a few years earlier would have split his scull without demure .It ruined the French which was the only good thing that came out of it . Rogers Like Arnold s
aw the injustice and took the only honou
rable course . This message seems to be being sabotaged maybe Gates is sticking his anti gun oar in ? I never did Rangers or any Revolt war force other that 84th RHE at Bennington one time . think it was Bennington never got to' play'. the others seemed more happy to stay in the woods !.
Rudyard
 

Rudyard

50 Cal.
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
1,225
Reaction score
920
Tis true a miss is as good as a mile , my wifes American. New Jersey, cant remember which exit.
Regards Rudyard
 
Top