AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Contemporary Longrifle Collecting => Topic started by: 5judge on June 17, 2025, 10:01:48 PM
-
A few weeks ago, in response to an inquiry on this site, Jim Kibler stated he'd consider producing a Brown Bess for the sesquicentennial if he had a prototype to pattern one from. I have an unmolested 1759-dated Grice Long Land Pattern 1756 'Bess marking time in my accumulation. The Pattern of 1756 was THE British (and, by capture) American musket of the Revolution, especially in its earlies. Mine is marked as belonging to the British 40th Regiment of Foot. They were savaged at the January, 1776 Battle of Princeton where, I figure, this musket changed sides. Couple of weeks ago I dropped my 'Bess at Jim's shop, a shop I was mightily impressed with and had the pleasure of meeting him. Jim is going to produce a Long Land 'Bess! Many readers know of the quality of his products. This 'Bess promises to be the signal heirloom coming out of our nation's 250th birthday. I've got photographs, but can't for the life of me attach them....
-
Try to sort through the instructions here for posting images. We are in contact with the host and are asking for help. Meanwhile https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=85078.0 I have a work-around that works for me. If you can’t get into work and PM me, we can set up yiu emailing me the pix and I’ll add them. Hopefully.
-
Are you thinking he may have a product available for 1776 / 250th ? 2026??
-
Wow, another iconic gun from America's past. What a great idea!
I think the modern software Jim uses, where he can quickly design-redesign-replicate an existing gun, then apply that design to making very high quality, accurate kits, is game changing. Experts will still build rifles from scratch. Novices are fearful of doing that. In the past other types of kits were available, but sometimes difficult for a woodworker and metal worker novice. With Kibler, you can assemble a very nice gun without difficulty, and enjoy the finishing phase. The learning curve is fast with the kits and success is almost assured. Not so 40 years ago, in my experience.
-
Try to sort through the instructions here for posting images. We are in contact with the host and are asking for help. Meanwhile https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=85078.0 I have a work-around that works for me. If you can’t get into work and PM me, we can set up yiu emailing me the pix and I’ll add them. Hopefully.
Yeah, well, Momma didn't birth me while the Battle of Stalingrad was going on on the other side of the planet so I could successful cope with THAT.
-
Hi,
Princeton was in January 1777 not 1776. Long lands were the norm for the first year or so but short land muskets replaced most of them by 1777. I hope Jim uses a good model and reproduces it exactly correct. Otherwise, why reproduce the musket? All of the current commercially made guns are poor reproductions. I hope Jim doesn't just add to those poor repros trying to either save money or make the gun more palatable to modern shooters. That would make the whole project a waste of time. I also urge him not to base it on one example and do the research. Now remember, no pattern 1756 muskets were used in America during the French and Indian War. Second, the vast majority of those used during the American Revolution were made after 1764 when Ordnance stopped marking the locks with dates and contractor names. If a British issued musket during the Rev war, it will be marked "TOWER" or "DUBLIN CASTLE" and no date. My advice to Jim or anyone else is do it right or don't do it at all. The 40th regiment received complete new arms in March 1775 from Dublin Castle, and again on Aug 30, 1775 possibly from the Tower. None would be marked "Grice" and dated 1756. So no 40th regiment soldier at Princeton would have a "Grice 1756" marked musket. It could be from their attack on Havana in the 176o's, which also included American provincial troops.
dave
-
Actually, I would prefer an early model Bess. I hear them called first model. I do not know if that is a correct trm or not. I had a friend that owned this one. I wish I knew what it was? Perhaps someone can tell by the pic?
But if Jim has a nice Bess available, I will probably bite!!
Well, the pics won't attach??
Technology is NOT my friend
-
Hi,
Princeton was in January 1777 not 1776. Long lands were the norm for the first year or so but short land muskets replaced most of them by 1777. I hope Jim uses a good model and reproduces it exactly correct. Otherwise, why reproduce the musket? All of the current commercially made guns are poor reproductions. I hope Jim doesn't just add to those poor repros trying to either save money or make the gun more palatable to modern shooters. That would make the whole project a waste of time. I also urge him not to base it on one example and do the research. Now remember, no pattern 1756 muskets were used in America during the French and Indian War. Second, the vast majority of those used during the American Revolution were made after 1764 when Ordnance stopped marking the locks with dates and contractor names. If a British issued musket during the Rev war, it will be marked "TOWER" or "DUBLIN CASTLE" and no date. My advice to Jim or anyone else is do it right or don't do it at all. The 40th regiment received complete new arms in March 1775 from Dublin Castle, and again on Aug 30, 1775 possibly from the Tower. None would be marked "Grice" and dated 1756. So no 40th regiment soldier at Princeton would have a "Grice 1756" marked musket. It could be from their attack on Havana in the 176o's, which also included American provincial troops.
dave
Well, friend Dog, you caught me in the first error I've committed this year; Princeton was indeed fought in 1777. Regarding the question of whether or not a Grunt in the 40th Regiment of Foot would have had a 1759-dated Long Land musket amongst those Long Lands they carried at Princeton in 1777, I suspect we're reading the same sources: "The Brown Bess" by Goldstein & Mowbray and "Small Arms of the British Forces in America 1764-1815" by the late, great DeWitt Bailey. I was troubled by the chart on page 313 of Bailey, showing musket issues to the 40th prior to and during their stint of service in America. I attempted to contact Bailey on the subject, but, alas, he was at the time living a reduced life in a rest home. Subsequently, I had occasion to raise my concern with the historian and artist Don Troiani, who, as an aside, provided illustrations for Bailey's book. Troiani interpreted the Bailey chart for me. The 40th received a general issue of 441 Long Lands in 1764. This likely included my musket, assembled in or after 1759. In 1770 the 40th received a partial issue of Dublin Castle muskets, perhaps for new men. Again, twice in 1775 and again in 1778 (source of the 1778 weapon issue unknown) they received partial issue of Dublin Castle muskets to replace individual muskets worn in service and to augment their existing issue. He assured me there was no reason to suspect my Grice musket wasn't pointed at Washington's forces in 1777. Further, I mooted to him the thought I was entertaining of sin of having my Grice's steel parts struck bright to match the condition of almost all P.1756 muskets illustrated in Bailey and Goldstein & Mowbrey's books. Troani indicated that most all bright P.1756 muskets have come from Britain in historically recent times. Most all '56s boasting patina with dark iron, like mine, have been winkled-out in America. This, and the fact mine came out of New Jersey, where the 40th lost a number of Long Lands by capture, would be evidence mine changed sides in during the war and, perhaps, on the Princeton battlefield. As to the propriety of issuing a P.1756 Long Land replica to commemorate our Revolution, to quote Goldstein & Mowbray on page 62, answering the question of why the P.1756 is "the leader of the pack" (their words) in importance of Brown Bess patterns, they write: "The Pattern 1756 is simply 'the' pattern of musket carried by Crown forces at the onset of the American Revolution"...to which, may be added, a major pattern carried by both Tory and Patriot forces, by issue or capture. As to the cautions you articulate to Jim Kibler, I have no insight into what markings or variety of markings he'll choose for his product. Otherwise, I expect readers of this thread who are familiar with the painfully precise work he achieves will not doubt this will be the best 'Bess replica ever.
Attempted to feel-out Bailey on the
-
Reminds me of Christmas when I was a kid
-
Hi,
Princeton was in January 1777 not 1776. Long lands were the norm for the first year or so but short land muskets replaced most of them by 1777. I hope Jim uses a good model and reproduces it exactly correct. Otherwise, why reproduce the musket? All of the current commercially made guns are poor reproductions. I hope Jim doesn't just add to those poor repros trying to either save money or make the gun more palatable to modern shooters. That would make the whole project a waste of time. I also urge him not to base it on one example and do the research. Now remember, no pattern 1756 muskets were used in America during the French and Indian War. Second, the vast majority of those used during the American Revolution were made after 1764 when Ordnance stopped marking the locks with dates and contractor names. If a British issued musket during the Rev war, it will be marked "TOWER" or "DUBLIN CASTLE" and no date. My advice to Jim or anyone else is do it right or don't do it at all. The 40th regiment received complete new arms in March 1775 from Dublin Castle, and again on Aug 30, 1775 possibly from the Tower. None would be marked "Grice" and dated 1756. So no 40th regiment soldier at Princeton would have a "Grice 1756" marked musket. It could be from their attack on Havana in the 176o's, which also included American provincial troops.
dave
Do you really think I would go to all this trouble and not do it "right" or at least to the best of my ability? I think I've proven myself over time.
-
I'd like to take a moment to publicly thank David (5judge) for loaning me this fantastic example to use as a prototype. It was great meeting him the other day and such generosity is very much appreciated. I'll post pictures some pictures of this gun when I get a chance. Thanks again, David.
Jim
-
...I hope Jim uses a good model and reproduces it exactly correct. Otherwise, why reproduce the musket? All of the current commercially made guns are poor reproductions. I hope Jim doesn't just add to those poor repros trying to either save money or make the gun more palatable to modern shooters. That would make the whole project a waste of time. I also urge him not to base it on one example and do the research. ... My advice to Jim or anyone else is do it right or don't do it at all...
dave
Do you really think I would go to all this trouble and not do it "right" or at least to the best of my ability? I think I've proven myself over time.
There is no "like" button so I'll post this. I don't like the patronizing, "schooling" tone given to someone as highly regarded and at the top of this field as Jim.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/zVmPVrrV/IMG-0279.jpg) (https://ibb.co/7tSrtXXt)
(https://i.ibb.co/wh367kFg/IMG-0278.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0y8JK7R2)
(https://i.ibb.co/pT03th3/IMG-0275.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0LDfgsf)
(https://i.ibb.co/6RxrYRrF/IMG-0274.jpg) (https://ibb.co/MD4ZnDZ7)
-
Here’s a few photos. I’ll add more tomorrow. Thanks!
-
That's quite a chunk of well preserved history.
-
Daryl said: "That's quite a chunk of well preserved history." Exactly right!
I would say the condition is amazing for something that old.
-
Hi,
That is as pristine as you can get. It is hard to believe it was ever used in service very much. It is a very beautiful example and will make a fine model for many Rev War period enthusiasts and even better if marked "TOWER" with no contractor name or date on the lock. The Bess is a hard project because it is big. The barrels are 1.31"-1.41" across at the breech and always about 0.9" at the muzzle. That made fitting bayonets easier. The height of the stock at the breech is about 2" and at the beginning of the comb, about 1.8"tall and 1.75" wide. The wrist is massive even by Edward Marshall rifle standards. Most weigh about 10lbs so they are not lightweight fowlers. Handling a copy of this gun will shock most folks who own commercially reproduced Besses. It is so much bigger and heavier than their Pedersolis, Mirokus, and India-made guns. For example, Pedersolis and Miroku barrels are 1.2" across at the breech and about 0.83" across at the muzzle. Their butt plates are 4.75" tall whereas the originals were well over 5" tall. Consequently, the butt stocks of the commercially made repros look shriveled and small. Here is a Pedersoli stock with an exact reproduction of a butt plate from a short land musket.
(https://i.imgur.com/NETP9nx.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/9zo2xfv.jpg)
Anyway, like the Hawken rifle, many modern customers might prefer the gun lighter with more drop at heel. I hope Jim resists that temptation and makes a true copy.
dave
-
This is in amazing condition. I’ll be making this kit as close as I can to this original. Hawkens in my view are a different animal in that if one studies them you’ll see massive variations in guns originally produced.
-
This is great news.... I hope I can afford to buy one. Even a kit that can be completed and finished would be awesome.
Jim, good on ya for taking this on.
-
Hi Jim, Hope ya got a good source for walnut? Your going to need it. I started putting some money aside already!
-
I will buy one when the Bess kit comes out. Holy smokes is that original in great condition.
-
The privately & locally owned "Bess's" Taylor refurbished back in the 80's & maybe 90's were quite massive, as Dave noted. I recall more than one being around 9 bore in size (.80 to .81").
-
How will you account / make up for wood shrinkage? I suppose you could refrence the size of the butt plate for a certain %, and adjust the rest accordingly??
-
How will you account / make up for wood shrinkage? I suppose you could refrence the size of the butt plate for a certain %, and adjust the rest accordingly??
We completely re-design everything digitally with a CAD system. The original is just used to know what to design. Any variations in size etc., will be accounted for in the design process.
-
Put me on the list - Call me crazy, but I'd like to do an American re-stock of a broken battlefield pick up in maple
-
Thanks guys. I'll get more photos soon. Here's an interesting aside... I was curious how thick of wood I'll need to produce stocks. As massive as this gun is, the buttplate is only a 32nd over two inches and the lock panels are about the same. I'd have never guessed this. Even when handling, everything still feels robust and large.
-
Hi,
The pattern 1756 was the second British musket designed from the outset to have a steel rammer. Consequently, it is slimmer than the previous long land muskets that mounted wooden rods. I've measured quite a few and the width of the stock at the breech was always less than 2", in some cases as thin as 1.85". The width of the wrist at the beginning of the comb is usually less than 1.75" so they taper a bit. The earlier patterns also had more drop at heel and often are more comfortable as shooters for most folks. The stocks were straighter after 1756 and drop at heel reduced from about 2.5" to less than 2". Stocks are even straighter on the later short land muskets. For example, I picked out one of my tracings for a Tower marked pattern 1756 used by the 63rd regiment, possibly at Bunker Hill. The drop at heel was only 1.75". I picked out another tracing which was for a Dublin Castle marked pattern 1769 short land musket used by the 34th regiment and captured at Saratoga in 1777. Drop at heel was only 1.625". When I shouldered that shortland, it was really tough to get my cheek down on the stock. Still it was a well balanced and beautiful gun.
dave
-
Love this thread!
I got the flintlock / colonial-era collecting bug a few years ago, after collecting guns from later eras for years. As I got started in this new era and began doing my homework (books, shows, online forums, etc), I expected that unlike collecting later eras where originals are still available and not horrendously expensive, by now I’d at least have a tidy collection of reproductions of the major military longarms of the era - French, English, Dutch, and American made.
Little did I know at the time that there are almost no reproductions of the major arms of the AWI era currently in commercial production! I was flummoxed at the time: what do you mean no one makes a commercial copy of a 1728 Charleville, or of any pattern Dutch musket, or even of a Long Land Bess? And what do you mean my only options are to: 1.) buy a somewhat inaccurate Italian gun and customize it; or 2.) buy an even less historically accurate Indian copy and customize it; or 3.) get in line for a couple years wait at TRS for parts and then find a builder on top of it and wait longer?
I appreciate that our hobby may not represent the largest market around, but I have to believe there’s significant untapped market demand here that a really good product could not only satisfy, but actually create new demand for. The topic gets covered ad nauseum in business books, but whether you’re Phil Knight or Steve Jobs, sometimes you need to put the product out first to stimulate the demand.
So kudos to Jim for taking this on. I suspect it will be more successful than some folks think. And put me down for 2, please. ;D
Jay
-
Great, now I've got to consider hunting for another piece of English walnut...this is my happy face, trust me 😄
Fantastic news!
-
Here are a couple photos of an old Bess a friend of mine had. His son may still have it. I been trying to contact him to see if he had any interest in selling it? I really don't know the exact model it is, only that it is early. I once took it to Martin West, the director at Fort Ligonier and I remember him being very impressed with it?
(https://i.ibb.co/G4pfSYxb/100-0845.jpg) (https://ibb.co/39d5Z6rL)
(https://i.ibb.co/NgV9d49L/100-0848.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GfxW4hWV)
-
Hi Bigmon,
That is a pattern 1730 King's musket upgraded with a later lock with a pan bridle. What is the date on the lock? I think it reads "Jordan" but I cannot tell for sure. Many of the pattern 1730s were upgraded during production from 1740-1742. It looks like someone filed the bottom of the pan bridle. Normally it would be straight.
dave
-
Hi,
The pattern 1756 was the second British musket designed from the outset to have a steel rammer. Consequently, it is slimmer than the previous long land muskets that mounted wooden rods. I've measured quite a few and the width of the stock at the breech was always less than 2", in some cases as thin as 1.85". The width of the wrist at the beginning of the comb is usually less than 1.75" so they taper a bit. The earlier patterns also had more drop at heel and often are more comfortable as shooters for most folks. The stocks were straighter after 1756 and drop at heel reduced from about 2.5" to less than 2". Stocks are even straighter on the later short land muskets. For example, I picked out one of my tracings for a Tower marked pattern 1756 used by the 63rd regiment, possibly at Bunker Hill. The drop at heel was only 1.75". I picked out another tracing which was for a Dublin Castle marked pattern 1769 short land musket used by the 34th regiment and captured at Saratoga in 1777. Drop at heel was only 1.625". When I shouldered that shortland, it was really tough to get my cheek down on the stock. Still it was a well balanced and beautiful gun.
dave
Very interesting information and I think a good explanation of why skewing earlier would be an excellent choice 😉
Regardless, knowing Mr. Kibler's work, I'll follow this project closely. Time for me to start thinking about a well-made bayonet and sling. Only the best will do.
-
Sorry, but I cannot read the maker or date on the lock. The photos are just not clear enough and when I enlarge them they get even fuzzier?
But that is an early one? Would it even be called a Bess? You said King's Musket?
Thanks
-
Hi,
The pattern 1730 was the first Brown Bess and it was issued from about 1730 to the early 1750s. It was replaced by the pattern 1742 but was still issued to Provincial troops and soldiers serving in North America well into the 1750s. I suspect your lock reads "Iordan" for Edward Jordan and the date is likely after 1740. British ordnance and soldiers rarely called the musket "Brown Bess". It was almost always referred to as the "King's pattern musket" with updated versions called "new" patterns compared with the "old" pattern. The 1730 was issued without extensive field testing and flaws in it showed up immediately. The biggest issue was the trigger guard was too weak. It was upgraded with new guards, new lock, steel rammer, etc all through its service life so surviving 1730s often show a lot of variation in components. You can see strong Dutch influence in the musket. That is because Andreas Dolep, a Dutch immigrant gunsmith working in London, had a strong influence on the design. The initial prototypes from which King George I selected the official pattern were made by Lewis Barbar, a French immigrant gunmaker working in London. He made a batch with 42" barrels mounted in brass, and a batch with 46" barrels mounted in iron. King George, who was German, selected one of the long prototypes but wanted it mounted in brass. That brass mounted gun became the 1730 King's pattern musket. The weak trigger guard is because the iron mounted version would have been plenty strong but when the design was made from brass it was too weak. The irony is that the iconic British Brown Bess musket, symbol of British imperialism, was mostly designed by an immigrant Dutchman, first made by an immigrant Frenchman, and selected by an immigrant German king. Oh those darned immigrants!!
dave
-
Thanks for that information. It is very interesting. Would the fact that this one still retains the wooden rod mean it was not upgraded ? Or did the newer steel rammer just work where the wooden one had been?
I guess what I'd like to know is if during the time of the F&I war, were wooden rammers still in use. Or had they all been upgraded to iron, or probably just some of them?
Thanks again
-
Hi,
The pattern 1730 and 1742 muskets were always issued with wooden rods but some were retrofitted with steel ramrods during their working lives. The refit usually involved putting an internal bushing in the forward pipe that reduced the inside diameter and then a rod retaining spring was riveted inside the rear pipe to prevent the rod from sliding out. It was a weak and often unsatisfactory retrofit.
dave
-
It might purely be the lighting, but the right side of the stock on the original 1756 looks slightly flat to my eye on the butt and in front of the lock, almost as if it might have been sanded down or refinished at some point. That might just be an illusion, just not sure if that might need to be accounted for in the CNC design.
Also wanted to thank Dave for the important points on the details. I don’t think anyone is questioning Jim’s credentials, just highlighting some of the particular details, like the “Tower” lock that the Bess purists would love to see on a reproduction of this quality.
Really excited about this project and appreciate that an original in outstanding condition was shared for the pattern.
-
I have already spread word to leadership and members in my Reenactment group ( the largest in North Carolina) of this project, as well as to friends.
It is welcome news and I am pretty sure that Jim has opened a treasure chest for both Living Historians who strive for more authenticity as well as for Kibler Longrifles (& Muskets 🫢)
-
Boy is that walnut dark. D'ya suppose lampblack was used on the wood? Man is that ever gorgeous.
-
This is quite exciting. I have wanted a Bess for a long time, but all the reproductions aren't great, and parts to build a proper one seem hard to come by or not of good quality. Will you have English walnut available for stocks?
-
Hi,
The pattern 1730 and 1742 muskets were always issued with wooden rods but some were retrofitted with steel ramrods during their working lives. The refit usually involved putting an internal bushing in the forward pipe that reduced the inside diameter and then a rod retaining spring was riveted inside the rear pipe to prevent the rod from sliding out. It was a weak and often unsatisfactory retrofit.
dave
I have a 1756 carbine that was changed to a steel rammer simply by changing the upper pipe to one for a metal rod. It looks a little goofy with it's much larger pipe channel and lower pipes, and I thought it was a home project, but it turns out that a bunch of these 1756's were so altered. I also have a 1755 Marine/Militia musket that has a metal rod. It is certainly a home job as it has it original wooden pipes and the rod is severely bent in two spots to keep a friction fit in the pipes.
-
Oh, and will bayonets be available too? :)
-
Didn't that early "Bess" use a plug bayonet?
-
Oh, and will bayonets be available too? :)
I don't know for sure. I'd like to not make them, but people have told me reenactors will demand them. They'll not be the easiest things to make either. In the end, I suspect we'll end up offering them.
-
Didn't that early "Bess" use a plug bayonet?
No.
dave
-
Yeah. You'd definitely have to have some bayonets to go with these, either made in house, or sourced elsewhere and sold on your site. A brown Bess without a bayonet is like a car with only 3 wheels. I have no practical reason to have one, but I definitely want a good Bess with a bayonet. What kind of wood will you have for them?
-
Tks, Dave.
-
Jim, as a very happy purchaser of a Colonial, Woodsrunner, and Fowler I am STOKED to see you are taking on this project! May I humbly beg and beseech you to follow on with a Short Land Pattern musket as well? Meanwhile, I've written Bree to put me down for two. 👍👍
The fowler kit you sent last month with the extra fancy walnut stock is amazing, not enough adjectives to describe it! I will be sending the brass parts out to be engraved and start working on it soon.
HUZZAH for your contributions to the muzzleloading world!
-
I’m also super excited about this news. Was very impressed with my woodsrunner kit and know Jim will do a super job. I tried explaining to my wife just how amazing it would be to have a quality long land pattern kings musket available to all of us. She didn’t seem very impressed…
By any measure this is right up there as one of the greatest firearms in history. Imagine being the primary government issued military weapon, of the world’s most powerful country, for 125 years with only minor updates. French/Indian War, American revolution, peninsula war, Waterloo…. Yes, put me down for 2 as well.
-
I'll be waiting for all the deals on Pedersoli Besses when these are selling like hotcakes. Nobody in my circle of shooters would know a Pedersoli from a Pepperoni anyway let alone a Kibler Bess.
-
I love it when people get skittish about the weight of some antique guns. I remember carrying a 9.5 pound M-14 at Parris Island as a 17 year old recruit. The fun came from the addition of an emty magazine and a sheathed bayonet Which brought the weight up to 11.2 pounds. We had the pleasure of running in formation at port arms in 90 degree heat typically for three miles, then marching with the rifle until we caught our breath.CSW
-
There's one thing about the upcoming Kibler Bess is the fact that what we will pay for will be that it will work right out of the box (so to speak) without any tuning. Assemble it and start shooting. Unlike buying an Indian (Dot not Feathers) musket and drilling a hole, reshaping the stock, refinishing the stock, re-hardening the frizzen, and taking down that dang chrome plated looking shine and having to defend it's honor on the forums.
Bob