The British “Y” shaped Musket Tool.

[Artificer]

I wasn’t quite sure which forum to put this in, but decided it might be best here as it is applicable to French and Indian War through the War of 1812. Later ones of slightly different shape were used for Percussion Rifled Muskets and some other arms dating to the third quarter of the 19th century and beyond in some cases. It is also more of a Reenactor Item than many shooting accessories.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on these “Y” shaped musket tools, but I thought some folks may find some of my observations, practical use and speculation interesting. I do hope others will chime in, especially with original documentation that I have not been able to find. I also hope fellow reenactors will find useful information in this post/thread.

Before going further, it may be a good idea to post a link from Track of the Wolf showing the generic type repro one often finds for sale. http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/122/1/TOOL-BESS

I had first purchased a Repro Y tool in the mid 70’s for my Brown Bess Carbine Repro. Then I got into UnCivil War reenacting in the ”˜80’s and the tool was put away. In the late 90’s, I got back into the 18th century and of course the first Y tool could not be found. So I bought another repro like the one Track sells, though I think I bought mine from Godwin. The problem was it did not work well, but in this case the reason the screwdriver (Turnscrew in the period) blades did not work was because they were copied TOO WELL from the originals.

18th century screw slots were normally “V” shaped and not parallel sided as modern gun screw slots are made. The Repro Y tool screwdriver tapered blades may have fit original V slot screw heads, but they did not fit the parallel screw slots on my Pedersoli Bess. I annealed the screwdriver blades to reshape them, but before I began reshaping the screwdriver blades, I thought about which screw slots I should reshape them to fit. These tools were issued to Privates, so what screws were they ALLOWED to loosen and tighten? Well, the most common thing they would have needed a screwdriver/Turnscrew for was to loosen and tighten the Cock or Top Jaw Screw on their lock to mount and keep the flints in place. The other screw they were allowed to loosen and tighten was the Lock Plate Screws that held the Lock snug in place. They were expected to take off the lock and clean and wipe the outside and inside of the lock with an oily rag. Now, God Help Them had Privates tried to take the Lock itself apart. They were not allowed to do that and would have been punished severely for doing so, though Sergeants were allowed to do so. OK, so I filed the two screwdriver/Turnscrew blades to fit those screw slots on my Pedersoli Bess.

Now, what about the “Pin Punch” looking arm? The only thing I thought that one might be for was pushing Lock Plate Screws out of the stock after they were loosened and the Lock was taken out. The only problem with that is you really don’t need a pin punch for that and the British Army was WELL known for being downright STINGY about things even on some items that were necessary. However, I decided since the pin punch arm was there, I reduced the diameter of that end so one could use it for that. THEN I spotted the hole in the Top Jaw Screw and thought that would be a great place to stick that end to tighten that screw. So I reduced the diameter a little more so I could use it for that reason as well. Maybe THAT was the reason for it? Well, no it wasn’t, at least in the early Brown Besses used in the French and Indian War because holes in the Top Jaw Screws did not come out until much later ”“ this even though many Brown Bess Repro’s have a hole in that screw. Then I rehardened and annealed all three of my Y tool arms.

About two years later I was standing inspection as a Private and the inspecting Corporal pushed on the side of my flint and it pushed out of position. It is hard to say how embarrassed I was!! To make matters worse, I had left my Y tool in the tent. Yes, the Corporal correctly chewed me out and handed me his Y tool to tighten my flint. Well, his screwdriver blades did not fit my screws. So I just started the pin punch end into the Top Jaw hole and he got even more upset. He yelled something about not using that pin punch end as it would bend or break when using it for that. OK”¦”¦. So I asked permission to leave the formation and retrieve my Y tool, because his tool did not fit my screw slots. He begrudging allowed me to do so. When I came back to the formation with it, I did use the pin punch end to tighten my Top Jaw Screw, much to his displeasure. I told him I had properly rehardened and annealed the arms of my tool, so it was PLENTY strong enough to do it and my Turnscrew blades actually fit Musket “Nail” slots. (A little Period Private’s Revenge. GRIN.) Of course after tightening it that way, he could not push the flint out of position again. Side note: Before anyone gets upset about this story, I want to add we were inspected during the Colonial Williamsburg Event, “Under the Red Coat.” So we were fairly well reenacting how a British Regular Unit would have been inspected and a Private would have been chewed out for a loose flint by the Inspecting NCO. So the Corporal was not the Jerk that some may think.

It was only a couple years later that an Original British Y Tool was excavated at a French and Indian War Period site and FINALLY we knew what that pin punch end was for. The soil was such that it did not corrode the metal as much as in other places. The pin punch arm on this original tool had the corroded remains of screw threads on it!! I can’t say no one knew that before then, but it was not well known by any means. That led others to investigate it more and they found original catalogues showing the Worn screwed onto it. Here is a link that gives some information on it. http://paaba.net/Projects/ZMusket.htm

Both Najecki and Avalon Forge Y tools have the threads near the end of the punch, rather than further down the arm as shown in the above link. I can’t and won’t say that is “incorrect,” as I don’t have the documentation and it could have been a variation in the way the tools were made OR the excavated example may have been a variation. I am NOT saying or suggesting the Najecki or Avalon forge product is “wrong,” so PLEASE no one take it that way.
http://www.avalonforge.com/MainTools.htm
and http://www.najecki.com/repro/musket/BritTool.html

In Dr. Dewitt Bailey’s book, “Small Arms of the British Forces in America” on page 267, there is a picture of an Excavated Y Tool that has a smaller diameter Pin Punch end and what MAY be the remains of the screw threads further down the arm as in Jymm Hoffman’s link above. Bailey states what I call the pin punch end to be a “torque tool for the hole in the cock screw to loosen it in changing flints.” MAYBE that tool is Post French and Indian War Period due to the early cock screws not having holes in them? By the time of the ARW, more cock screws had holes in them as Bailey points out in earlier parts of his book.

So it looks like I have one more modification to do to my Y Tool, as I am going to add threads further down the arm of pin punch end so I can screw a Gun Worm on mine and still use it to tighten the cock screw.

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

So what's the use for the hole in the center? I have seen folks put a lanyard in it to keep from losing it, or to widen it slightly so it slips down the shaft of the ramrod to get a better grip on the rod when it gets stuck when loading, or the third variaion was with an actual punch that swivels saying the original that was excavated was missing a part....

:idunno:

LD

 

[Artificer]

Dave, that is a great question about the hole in the center of the tool. As far as I know, no one knows for sure what the hole was for and everyone is only speculating about it.

However, not all excavated or relic Y tools have that hole in them. Many of them do not have the hole. I do know as stingy as the British Army was, if there was not some good reason for the hole, they would never have paid more money to have a hole “hot punched” in the tool during the forging process. It would have cost even more money to have the hole reamed round and even more money still to thread the hole, as these operations would had to have been done before the tool was case hardened if Iron or heat treated and annealed if steel.

The hole may have been used with a thong to tie it to something, but I am not so sure about that. A lanyard could easily have been tied around a couple of the arms to tie it to something, if they wanted to do that.

I have gotten the impression the soldiers carried them either behind the cartridge block in cartridge pouches or in their packs. It is hard for me to imagine a soldier pulling it out in combat to tighten a jaw screw or enlarging the hole to fit around the body of the rammer and pull it at an angle to try to get a stuck rammer out. There were enough complaints in the early years the British Army used the Iron/Steel rammers that the rammers would bend too easily as it was and not spring back straight. Instead of risking messing up a rammer that way, I think they would have done the same thing any other time they had an inoperable musket and just rely on the bayonet ”“ then have the Regimental Artificers/Armorer fix it after the battle.

I have wondered if the excavated Y tools with a hole in them MAY have been so badly corroded that people did not recognize if there were screw threads in that hole. If that hole was the correct size and thread that matched the threaded end of the Iron/Steel rammers, it could have been screwed onto the rammer to help pull it out when stuck.

However and before my old computer crashed, I had quotes from Cuthbertson and I think Lord Loudoun about getting the then “new” Iron/Steel rammers threaded for Gun Worms possibly before and during the French and Indian War. What that tells me is that at least on the early Iron/Steel Rammer Muskets, the Ordnance Board did not have the ends of the rammers threaded and perhaps left that up to the Regimental Commanders to have done along with getting Gun Worms made for them? It was not unusual for the Ordnance Board to leave things like that up to the Regimental CO’s and perhaps in a time where there were no standardization in taps and dies, it was the best thing for the Ordnance Board to have done. That way the civilian contractors or Regimental Artificers would ensure the ends of the rammers and gun worms matched in thread size? (Going to have to try to find those quotes again.) So if many if not most early Iron/Steel Rammers were not threaded when received from the Ordnance Board, they would not have added a threaded hole to the Y Tool ”“ at least before or during the French and Indian War. I have no documentation for this other than there seems to be little or no documentation about having to get the rammers threaded by the time of the ARW, so perhaps the Ordnance Board was having the rammers threaded by then? I don’t know for certain. IF they had standardized a thread for the rammers by the time of the ARW, then the Ordnance Board MAY have had a threaded hole included when they contracted for the Y tools.

As to the hole being for another arm or tool that was lost or corroded away in the ground, I personally think that comes from the fact that later 19th century Y tools sometimes had such tools added that were riveted to the tool through that hole and people speculating it was done earlier than it was actually done. Most of the riveted on tools on later Y tools had a specific purpose for a particular gun. Some later Y tools had a riveted on piece that was sort of spoon shaped and slightly grooved, it may have been to scrape fouling out of the pan, but they are on Y tools clearly from the 19th century by the shape of the other arms of the tool. British Soldiers were issued chained Whisk and Pick sets at least as early as the French and Indian War, so I don’t believe the holes were made for a riveted on Vent Pick, which would have made the Y tools a whole lot more expensive in the 18th century, especially when they already had a tool to do that job.

I have also heard speculation the hole was used as a guide hole or for a holding tool when the Y tool was being formed to shape. That is also possible, though not really necessary.

Bottom line, I don’t know for certain why some Y tools had a hole in them from 18th century sites.

Gus

 

[pargent]

:applause: :thumbsup: there is also some speculation around that the tool point in question was also for pushing out the barrel pins :hmm: .

 

[Artificer]

Do you mean an added tool, riveted in the hole in the Y tool, to push out barrel pins? The problem with that speculation is that Privates were absolutely forbidden to push out barrel pins and take barrels out of stocks. I don't believe even Sergeants were allowed to do that. The only ones I'm sure were allowed to do that were the Regimental Artificers/Armorers. There was good reason not to allow anyone but Artificers/Armorers to take barrels out of stocks as the forearm of the stock is extremely fragile and not too difficult to crack or break when the barrel is taken out.

However, I think Cuthbertson mentioned "a pernicious habit" of some soldiers to remove one or more barrel pins from their muskets' stocks. This allowed the barrel to move in the forearm and when slapped in the manual of arms, the muskets made a most pleasing pop that many Officers loved to hear. It also mentions the soldiers expected to get away with it and any breakage would have to be paid for by the Company Commander.

I am not entirely sure how those soldiers got the barrel pins out without someone noticing damage to the wood around the pin holes. It is not easy to remove the pins with good short starter punches and pin punches and not show some little damage to a stock and the common soldier did not have access to those tools. I suspect they used nails or tacks to start the barrel pins out and grabbed hem with some kind of pliers to remove them. BUT then it would be easy to spot the pin or pins were missing. However, if they were crafty enough to cut the pins short and in two pieces, they could have driven a piece of the pin in the holes from both sides of the stock, but not through the barrel loops/lugs. Thus no open hole/s in the stock that an Officer would notice.......

I'm pretty sure they would not add something to a Y tool that would enable Private Soldiers to do something they were not allowed to do.

Gus

 

[pargent]

:rotf: NO the pop noise is mainly a 20th cent. thing and then usualy a US practice , (wet dress gloves are brit & commonwealth ) the 3rd part of the tool ,the pin shaped section is what I was refereing to and I believe that you correct with what you have said about this tool .It would not be the first time soldiers were given some thing and told not to use it unless under instruction of an NCO . :wink:

 

[Artificer]

Though this is purely speculation on my part, as I cannot document it, I think the tools from Avalon and Najecki are probably the earliest design with the screw threads close to the tip of the "pin punch" arm as linked below.
http://www.avalonforge.com/MainTools.htm
and http://www.najecki.com/repro/musket/BritTool.html

Though there are very few exceptions, most British Military Top Jaw Screws did not have the normal slot AND a hole until after the French and Indian War. So no reason to have a long, smaller diameter "pin punch" end when there is no hole in the Top Jaw Screw to put it in.

A quick check of Bailey's book shows the British didn't add a hole to Top Jaw Screws of a Land Pattern Musket until the P1777 and later Muskets. For these muskets, having the long pin punch end arm with the screw threads further down the arm was a useful evolution of the Y Tool.

Of course, many Repro Brown Besses have the added hole in the Top Jaw Screw. To keep from buggering up the screw slot so much, it probably would be better to order the style like Track sells and thread it further down the tool for the Gun Worm.
http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/122/1/TOOL-BESS

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Yes I noticed some of the examples that you provided had no center hole, making it more confusing...

The only ones I'm sure were allowed to do that were the Regimental Artificers/Armorers.

So...again simply speculation..... WHAT IF the few extant examples with the holes were those made for Artificers/Armorers, with an extra tool that is missing... and the rest that have been found were for the private men? Perhaps that extra bit didn't really work well and broke off easily? Maybe it's some sort of gauge for the armorer who is replacing pins to make certain the new pin is the the proper diameter and over time corrosion simply made it much larger than it should be.....

:hmm:

LD