AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: 5judge on July 07, 2023, 11:44:14 PM
-
Per a request, this is an early 18th Century Colonel's musket I acquired a few years ago. Not much about these arms has fallen into my hands, DeWitt Bailey merely treats them in passing. It appears that prior to the adoption of the Brown Bess in the 1720s, colonels of British regiments contracted for the arms to be issued to their EMs, with only a loose set of perimeters. This musket is an example. On the thumbpiece it bears the coronet over the "O" of the Earl of Orkney, George Douglas Hamilton, Colonel of the Royal First Regiment of Foot, accounting for the earl's coronet under a "1" branded in the buttstock. The lockplate bears the date "19" (1719), "Tower", and the crown and cypher of King George the First. The lockplate and cock are flat, as is proper for these early pieces. Present is the pre-Bess butt shape and swell at the rear ramrod pipe. Wooden, brass-tipped ramrod, 42" .69 caliber barrel. Hamilton must have been extraordinary conservative as this has to be one of the last British primary muskets to ship a plug bayonet.
(https://i.ibb.co/xhJXT2m/musket-2-Copy.jpg) (https://ibb.co/F6gmThs)
(https://i.ibb.co/NWvY0NG/musket.jpg) (https://ibb.co/7rfy3p0)
(https://i.ibb.co/0MxRD9V/musket2-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Z80pLg1)
(https://i.ibb.co/tmchqpX/musket2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/M2phck6)
(https://i.ibb.co/BBXkGpd/musketx-2.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/wyJJ4C6/muskety.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xhmm6G5)
(https://i.ibb.co/5xmbMpR/DSC03272-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VpRfjnq)
upload images (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/nRsvLSH/DSC04078.jpg) (https://ibb.co/stvGVr0)
(https://i.ibb.co/X5LKYwr/DSC04079.jpg) (https://ibb.co/B63Qn15)
-
Fantastic! I suppose there were not many such guns produced
-
And I never knew that a reinforced hammer appeared so early
-
Very "Dutchy"
-
It could be Dutch. Regiments were proprietary. The Colonel owned them. He drew a fixed amount of money from the Ordnance Office to arm them and was responsible for purchasing. This practice goes back to at least the early 17th century. Many of the colonels purchased arms and other equipment at the lowest possible price and pocketed the difference. Supposedly many of these were Dutch although surviving examples are so rare that it is impossible to draw any conclusions from them. This is why DeWitt, and Howard Blackmore, had so little to say about them. We know they existed and we can read the pertinent documents but actual specimens are so few and far between that no worthwhile comparisons can be made. It was this abuse that initiated the Ordnance system of manufacture and the introduction of the long land musket. The colonels still owned the regiments but no longer had control of their arming.
The colonels rarely, if ever, commanded the regiments. That was the job of the Lt. Colonel. A Colonel's commission was a reward for faithful service and regarded more honorary than functional. This practice exists today...the colonel of a regiment is usually either a member of the Royal family, a foreign royal or a prominent retired soldier. Czar Nicholas the II was colonel of a Scottish regiment and was actually painted in a kilt...the painting to be displayed in the officer's mess. Elizabeth, the late Queen Mother, was colonel of the Black Watch etc...
-
I should add that there is good reason to think the"colonel's muskets" were made to a pattern. We just don't know what it was because no very early pattern muskets or their descriptions have survived. The Debenture Books which record purchases made for the Navy and the Royal Train of Artillery mention small arms procured in the low countries with a lower price paid for those that "were not to the pattern." I discussed this with DeWitt but he dismissed it because there is no way to identify what the pattern was. The usual reason for being out of pattern was the bore...either too big or too small, usually the latter. To my knowledge, no one has looked into this thus far. The Debentures contain a lot of information but they have never been digitized so you have to to to the British National Archives to look at them.
-
Very interesting and useful posts, Joe.
Thank you for sharing!
-
It could be Dutch. Regiments were proprietary. The Colonel owned them. He drew a fixed amount of money from the Ordnance Office to arm them and was responsible for purchasing. This practice goes back to at least the early 17th century. Many of the colonels purchased arms and other equipment at the lowest possible price and pocketed the difference. Supposedly many of these were Dutch although surviving examples are so rare that it is impossible to draw any conclusions from them. This is why DeWitt, and Howard Blackmore, had so little to say about them. We know they existed and we can read the pertinent documents but actual specimens are so few and far between that no worthwhile comparisons can be made. It was this abuse that initiated the Ordnance system of manufacture and the introduction of the long land musket. The colonels still owned the regiments but no longer had control of their arming.
The colonels rarely, if ever, commanded the regiments. That was the job of the Lt. Colonel. A Colonel's commission was a reward for faithful service and regarded more honorary than functional. This practice exists today...the colonel of a regiment is usually either a member of the Royal family, a foreign royal or a prominent retired soldier. Czar Nicholas the II was colonel of a Scottish regiment and was actually painted in a kilt...the painting to be displayed in the officer's mess. Elizabeth, the late Queen Mother, was colonel of the Black Watch etc...
OT but there was a panic amongst British cavalry and Yeomanry regiments on the outbreak of the Great War to get new Colonels in Chief as so many regiments had German Colonels in Chief. So they had to ditch the Germans and find British ones in a hurry.
-
NICE RIFLE AND HISTORY LESSON THANKS
-
Hi,
Thank you for sharing the photos. These are exceedingly rare and usually not is such good shape. No one should be surprised at the "Dutchiness". Dutch designs had a big influence on the eventual King's pattern musket. Immigrant Dutch gun maker, Andreas Dolep, submitted a prototype early in the 18th century that had most of the features common in the eventual standard pattern. In 1722, Master Furbisher, Richard Woodridge, placed before George I 19 muskets for consideration. Six had 42" barrels with brass mounts and 13 had 46" barrels with iron mounts. The King chose a long barreled gun but wanted the mounts changed to brass. This became the first "King's" pattern and resulted in that gun having a weak trigger guard because in iron it was fine but made of brass, it was weak. All of the prototypes were made by Lewis Barbar, and immigrant French gun maker. I find it ironic that the iconic British musket of the 18th century was mostly designed by Dutch and French immigrants who were often persecuted by the London Guild for being foreigners.
dave
-
OT but there was a panic amongst British cavalry and Yeomanry regiments on the outbreak of the Great War to get new Colonels in Chief as so many regiments had German Colonels in Chief. So they had to ditch the Germans and find British ones in a hurry.
You are certainly right there. The Kaiser was actually a Field Marshall in the British Army...they cancelled his commission. I think he might have been the only Field Marshall that was done to.
-
Joe,
Shades of Blackadder, but I wonder what would have happened if The Kaiser had been called up to serve in the Great War?!?
;) :)