AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Contemporary Longrifle Collecting => Topic started by: One Shot on September 03, 2020, 09:20:26 AM
-
Among the Colonials during the AWI, what would have been the most commonly owned musket by a Colonial?
- Brown Bess
- 1766 Charleville
- Committee of Safety Musket.
I know that Pedersoli Make a BB and a 1766 but does anyone make a good rendition of a CoS musket?
Thank you
-
I say yes I saw one or the other on the Fort Frederick Market Fair do not remember who. I bet there are some in the forum who know !
Monty
-
Are you talking about a militiaman or a solider in the Continental army? Early in the war a privately owned smoothbore multi purpose gun would have been the most common followed by kings muskets aka brown bess because that was what where in the public armories. The Congress had people all over Europe buying muskets of all kinds but France was the most helpful with lots of obsolete parts and older pattern guns being shipped before they declared war on the british. If you join a reenacting group find out what they carry as a group but I think that a first model bess or a big bored smoothy with the stock cut back for a bayonet would be a good choice. Just stay away from indian junk. It will hurt less to buy something quality made and if you need to sell it you will likely get your money back.
-
Hi,
Early in the war colonial soldiers were armed with whatever was available in local arsenals or in their private possession. Committee of Safety musket production was an emergency stop gap and not very many were made. The most common firearms would be older long land pattern Brown Bess muskets, commercially made Brown Bess muskets, colonial made militia muskets mostly styled like Brown Besses, and old French muskets captured during the French and Indian War. Some militia and volunteers might have civilian fowling guns adapted for military use. As early as 1774, some colonies imported French guns. More came clandestinely later in the war and finally large shipments arrived after France came in on our side. The majority of those guns were older French models from 1763-1774 with the bulk being model 1766s and upgraded versions sometimes called model 1768s. The latter became the model for our first Springfield. By 1778, most continentals were likely armed with French muskets. Captured British arms both long land and short land patterns likely were the next most common. Militia also would have many French guns but British and other styles would have been common.
dave
-
Among the Colonials during the AWI, what would have been the most commonly owned musket by a Colonial?
The place for you to start is by doing research into this subject. Jim Mullins book Of Sorts For Provincials covers muskets used during the Seven Years War and very probably during the Rev War. After that Billy Ahearn's Muskets of the Revolution.
Both of these books give the history and context in contrast to George Neumann's book which is really just a picture book.
-
Another point not mentioned is that the French primarily, but other sources as well, sent over Shipments of obsolete musket parts. Many of those parts were delivered to major firearms producing regions to be stocked up into working muskets. Spanish, French, Dutch, and others are known. These account for some of the musket with odd combinations of parts stocked in American stock woods.
A friend owns a musket compiled of a vast array of early French musket parts. The lock on his gun is a 1757 model made in Maubeage that looks like a 1773 Charleville but has a brass pan, and no bridle for the frizzen screw. This I believe is a more likely lock type for a “surplus parts gun” since the 1773 Charleville was still in service during the early part of the American Revolution.
Hungry Horse
-
Thank you for all the help information. I was looking at it, that if I was there as a Militiaman during the AWI what musket would I most likely have acquired and or be issued. I believe that I would most likely have had a period rifle which I have a few as well as a Trade Gun of which I have read were also used by the Colonists. That being said as I do not have a musket of the period I was researching the most common types.
Since there were so few CoS muskets it would be safe to say then that I would most likely would have had a Bess or Charleville then.
The Bess's have sights on the barrel as opposed to the sights on the band of the Charlovilles. Having only shot a few Bess's is there an accuracy difference and would that have been an issue that they would have been concerned with then?
Thank you
-
The Bess's have sights on the barrel as opposed to the sights on the band of the Charlovilles. Having only shot a few Bess's is there an accuracy difference and would that have been an issue that they would have been concerned with then?
The Charlevilles did indeed have a brass sight on the front band. The Long and Short Land muskets had a bayonet lug on the top of the barrel at the muzzle, not a sight. :)
A small point to make, but in the interest of accuracy, a necessary one.
-
Hi,
Here is an example of a colonial musket that I made. It represents a gun possibly carried by a New Jersey militiaman. The owner and I researched the components and styles and decided it would have parts salvaged from an old commercial muskets purchased by New Jersey shortly before the French and Indian war. We used a maple stock of Brown Bess design. The result could have been made by the Annelly family of gunsmiths in New York and New Jersey. With respect to shooting, the issue for me is not the sights but the stocks. The early pattern Besses and model 1728 family of French muskets have more drop at the heel and fit me much better than the later patterns and models. The later guns tended had straighter stocks and I often find I cannot get my cheek down on them very well for aiming.
(https://i.ibb.co/FmrRSVC/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8NC1Wct)
(https://i.ibb.co/x21cRmT/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/grSXBvK)
(https://i.ibb.co/CMTrngf/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9VCMq67)
(https://i.ibb.co/T0b4xHt/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/KsL2p9W)
(https://i.ibb.co/6th23KQ/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LgwMLTK)
(https://i.ibb.co/t8jHQk7/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5Bp1GtN)
(https://i.ibb.co/JK0PrBx/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DtsnwVG)
(https://i.ibb.co/4VCtGbj/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/TgJ2SQH)
(https://i.ibb.co/NpwKqsG/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Dk3QFtj)
(https://i.ibb.co/273Szkg/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hRFcGmD)
(https://i.ibb.co/n6pLrrY/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6rQWYYT)
(https://i.ibb.co/B6qJjPg/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/2MgrP6j)
(https://i.ibb.co/r5yfchp/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5scxn3j)
(https://i.ibb.co/Xbk6SsB/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QfjhrNB)
(https://i.ibb.co/HdV9x1X/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/16L4dhb)
-
I might be odd but I've always shot my old 1763 Navy Arms Charleville better than any Bess. It's my understanding that the French muskets purchased during the war were issued to Continentals, not owned by them. I doubt anyone owned a 1763 or 1766 or improved 1768 or later French muskets in the colonies. Now older captured pieces from earlier wars, different story.
-
The October 2020 issue of Man at Arms has a great article on a Voigt Committee of Safety Musket that was in the collection of my friend Billy Ahearn. I had the opportunity to examine that musket plus several of Bill's 1740 and 1756 Long Lands.
Bill was a walking encyclopedia on Rev War muskets. I saw him give a 45 minute extemporaneous presentation of the fine old muskets at a 2008 gunshow in Hartford.
-
I was there for that! Use to stop by his table because he had a musket that was supposedly used by a soldier in Alden's Regt at the Cherry Valley massacre in NY. Just so happened I reenacted that unit, and he was gracious enough to let my father and myself examine it.
-
Beautiful musket, Smart Dog! I love these old muskets and I would say that you perfectly nailed this one. I have found with originals that it is indeed a mixed bag about how they will fit in regards to the drop in the stock. I have a 1742 Pattern Bess by Jordan that fits pretty well and I can sight down the barrel without any problem. But I also have a commercial Bess by Wilson of roughly the same time period that is so straight that you could go cross eyed trying to aim it. Likewise 2nd Model Besses. One of the early 2nd Model Besses fits well but the others range from somewhat manageable to nearly impossible to get your face into. One of the Dublin Castle examples is so dished out in the comb area that it looks ridiculous, but it was dished out for the owner to try make it shootable.
Hi,
Here is an example of a colonial musket that I made. It represents a gun possibly carried by a New Jersey militiaman. The owner and I researched the components and styles and decided it would have parts salvaged from an old commercial muskets purchased by New Jersey shortly before the French and Indian war. We used a maple stock of Brown Bess design. The result could have been made by the Annelly family of gunsmiths in New York and New Jersey. With respect to shooting, the issue for me is not the sights but the stocks. The early pattern Besses and model 1728 family of French muskets have more drop at the heel and fit me much better than the later patterns and models. The later guns tended had straighter stocks and I often find I cannot get my cheek down on them very well for aiming.
(https://i.ibb.co/FmrRSVC/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8NC1Wct)
(https://i.ibb.co/x21cRmT/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/grSXBvK)
(https://i.ibb.co/CMTrngf/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9VCMq67)
(https://i.ibb.co/T0b4xHt/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/KsL2p9W)
(https://i.ibb.co/6th23KQ/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LgwMLTK)
(https://i.ibb.co/t8jHQk7/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5Bp1GtN)
(https://i.ibb.co/JK0PrBx/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DtsnwVG)
(https://i.ibb.co/4VCtGbj/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/TgJ2SQH)
(https://i.ibb.co/NpwKqsG/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Dk3QFtj)
(https://i.ibb.co/273Szkg/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hRFcGmD)
(https://i.ibb.co/n6pLrrY/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6rQWYYT)
(https://i.ibb.co/B6qJjPg/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/2MgrP6j)
(https://i.ibb.co/r5yfchp/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5scxn3j)
(https://i.ibb.co/Xbk6SsB/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QfjhrNB)
(https://i.ibb.co/HdV9x1X/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/16L4dhb)
-
Smart Dog---Mr. Wilson could have learned a more than a few things from you.
-
You got that right Westbury. My Wilson (top gun) was never as nice as Smart Dogs!
(https://i.ibb.co/x3GrHV3/20200907-200828.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kM0P1YM)
-
Very obviously a clever ruse by Wilson to confuse the enemy.
-
I think our contemporary sense of things, especially the inevitable march of progress, attributes entirely too much prosperity, too quickly, amongst these early colonists. Life in these colonies, was very tenuous, at best.
Here's what I call my Savannah, GA parts gun. The British lock is signed and dated 1763, has British inspection stamps and was found with its original black English flint still in the jaws. The smooth bore barrel mikes at .75 inches and the metal at the muzzle is uniformly thin.
Photos, in no particular order.
(https://i.ibb.co/4M3Y9kD/IMG-0266.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vmRQg9r)
(https://i.ibb.co/sHKn5jy/SPG-7.jpg) (https://ibb.co/X871yXS)
-
Nifty. The trigger guard is cut down remnant from a Belgian/Dutch trade gun ca. 1720-40.
-
Years ago, I built a Long Land Pattern Bess from TOW's "Advanced Builder's" parts sets...I think they were parts from The Rifle Shop. Upon finishing it and shooting it, I was not at all satisfied with the accuracy, using the bayonet lug alone for a sight. So I cut a slot lengthwise in the lug and installed a piece of .080" silver. It made all the difference, and I used the musket in smoothbore matches for many years, doing very well. I sold the gun, its bayonette and a cartridge box Id made to a subscriber on this site, in a weak moment. Now of course, the gun and the money are long gone....lesson re-learned.
Anyway, here's some images of that sight, 'case someone wants to improve the shootability of their musket. I included some notes I made as to sight pictures using this sight.
(https://i.ibb.co/cg6hg0r/DSCN6650.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ng7Mg9L)
(https://i.ibb.co/GxsbL4S/DSCN6005.jpg) (https://ibb.co/RvhVmkw)
(https://i.ibb.co/YDK4Q53/DSCN6002.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rbLK0Bm)
(https://i.ibb.co/6HVhSCY/100-1134.jpg) (https://ibb.co/T4pXG3c)
-
That is a great idea! In my mind I had always thought one had to choose between having a usable bayonet lug or a blade. Perfect solution.
-
Made rather simply due to lack of funds? Made in haste because times demanded it? Possibly both, but I'll let you decide those questions. It was however made by a trained and skilled hand with parts that were available locally. It's even possible that it was made in PA and brought into GA. I prefer to think it was made around where it was found.
Gaylord, It's a fine old musket. Almost every part has its own story to tell as well as the musket itself, you are fortunate.
Kent
-
Gaylord, It's a fine old musket. Almost every part has its own story to tell as well as the musket itself, you are fortunate.
Kent
Kent,
Thanks. Mike's reveal that the trigger guard is Belgian or Dutch ca. 1720-1740's sheds new light on a part I took to be English, so this musket's lineage has evolved. I think we have a somewhat stylized view of what colonists had at hand at the outset of the AWI and I offered this musket as something of a counterpoint to that view of our early history. It's a piece of history and intriguing to look at, though it's not quite the musket that would inspire someone to replicate it.
-
Hi,
I don't think anyone contributing to this thread has a stylized view of what the colonists had at the beginning of the AWI. I for for one, understand completely that there was a range of muskets and quality which was available. Everyone did not have "poor boy" muskets and not everyone had Hawk, Pomeroy, Doud, Hill, Annely, or Earle fowlers turned into muskets. Moreover, Americans in general were some of the most prosperous people in the world during the 18th century at least in the Northern and Mid-Atlantic colonies. It might have been different in the south, where plantation slaves could be farmed out for trade and manual labor, and white wage earners and small farmers may have struggled to compete. The biggest problems for colonial Americans were that they did not have much hard currency, the value of which varied among colonies, and value added manufacturing was suppressed by England. In addition, most of the action during the early years of the war did not take place on frontiers but in well settled and prosperous NE, NY, NJ, and PA and was fought by colonists from those areas with the addition of some from Virginia and some well equipped troops from Delaware and Maryland.
dave
-
I for for one, understand completely that there was a range of muskets and quality which was available. dave
I imagine that, between the Louisburg expeditions involving thousands of Connecticut militia and the Seven Years War they were, as Dave points out, plenty of arms available.
Also as a related point, the New Englanders were very good at retaining their martial skills with their many pre Rev War town militia aka Minutemen organizations. I forget which author it was who stated that, some members of the Massachusetts militia units that decimated the British troops returning to Boston after Lexington & Concord, may have had more combat experience than some of the green Brits.
-
Hi Kent,
Yes they did. Ask yourself this question. Why were the forward light companies of the Army's 4th and 10th regiments of foot marching to Concord under the command of several Royal Marine officers (John Pitcairn and Jesse Adair to name two)? It was because those officers were some of the few in that expedition who had combat experience. Gage wanted experienced men leading the way anticipating there would be trouble. The British troops were mostly green kids. The Royal Marine units, many with combat experience, did great service as a rear guard preventing a complete rout. That is why my next musket build will be a pattern 1759 Marine and Militia short land musket. The marine musket and the pattern 1760 light infantry carbine were probably the 2 most important firearms used on that day by the British.
dave
-
Thank you for all the help information. I was looking at it, that if I was there as a Militiaman during the AWI what musket would I most likely have acquired and or be issued. I believe that I would most likely have had a period rifle which I have a few as well as a Trade Gun of which I have read were also used by the Colonists. That being said as I do not have a musket of the period I was researching the most common types.
Since there were so few CoS muskets it would be safe to say then that I would most likely would have had a Bess or Charleville then.
The Bess's have sights on the barrel as opposed to the sights on the band of the Charlovilles. Having only shot a few Bess's is there an accuracy difference and would that have been an issue that they would have been concerned with then?
Thank you
Hi, One Shot. Dave is steering you in the right direction in regards to musket information. I would caveat your sentence above about rifles by adding that it was completely dependent on context. Virtually all armed militia in the northern colonies and the vast majority of militia in the most populated areas of the mid-Atlantic colonies were armed with smoothbores. That said, there were areas in Virginia, Maryland, and PA where rifles were nearly ubiquitous by the time of the AWI. These were more sparsely populated areas that had developed a "rifle culture". Think of the Scots Irish, over-mountain men. The soldiers of Virginia's rural counties (back country), for example, who served in Dunmore's War in 1774, were armed (pretty much to a man) with rifles. Thus, the light companies raised in PA, MD, and VA in 1775 were largely drawn from these back country folk, though the PA companies I believe were drawn from Lancaster, Berk, and Northampton counties. It would have been uncommon indeed for militia serving in eastern counties (or north of PA) to own a rifle. Rifle culture doesn't catch on in the northern states until well after the war.
I would say that the back country rifle country - though perhaps to a lesser extent - holds true in North and South Carolina as well. Still, within the overall population, smoothbores of varying types were the norm throughout the colonies.
-
The Royal Marine units, many with combat experience, did great service as a rear guard preventing a complete rout. That is why my next musket build will be a pattern 1759 Marine and Militia short land musket. The marine musket and the pattern 1760 light infantry carbine were probably the 2 most important firearms used on that day by the British.
dave
Dave---If you have a copy of DeWitt Bailey's Small Arms of the British Forces in America, check out page 203. DeWitt used a photo I gave him of the rear strap of the triggerguard having markings of the Marines Plymouth Division. I found that musket in a New Jersey gunshop in 2008 along with a Short Land marked to the 79th Regiment of Foot. I bought the 79th marked musket went home and did some research on the Plymouth Div and called my friend who promptly went and bought the musket.
My 79th marked Short Land was the subject of an article I wrote which appeared in Man at Arms Vol 30 #5 in 2008.
-
Hi Kent,
Thanks very much for the post. I would love to read your paper in Man at Arms. I have all of Bailey's and Bill Ahearn's books, including Ahearn's last publication (2018) on British military longarms in colonial America coauthored with Robert Nittolo. I also have Eric Goldstein and Stuart Mowbrays work on Besses. I live in Vermont and get over to Fort Ti a lot to dig into their collection. In addition, I use the Neumann collection at Valley Forge and Kjell Swan's collection at Washington's Crossing as much as I can. A neat story - I am building an upgraded pattern 1730 Brown Bess. Upgraded meaning it has a nose band, double bridled lock, and later pattern trigger guard. Anyway, I used my notes from past restorations and photos from Goldstein and Mowbray's book as guides for cutting the lock mortice. I cut the mortice exactly as you see in a number of the photos in Goldstein and Mowbray's book. The lock, which I built from TRS parts, just popped into the mortice almost perfectly. I just had to scrape a few spots to clear the mainspring. The photos below show the musket and lock mortice. I am still filling grain in the finish but in the end it will look like a heavy varnish. The wood is black walnut stained to look like English walnut. The stock was finished with files and scrapers leaving some tool marks and rough spots.
dave
(https://i.ibb.co/S6xpZjz/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0nX3z7x)
(https://i.ibb.co/p2zX6Gv/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Jn7kW0R)
(https://i.ibb.co/jW3HBm5/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/61DNVzZ)
(https://i.ibb.co/6txYMKb/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qgfBSH9)
-
A grand piece of work Dave.
-
Dave--That is superior work in every way. Hope you will share the finish musket with us.
I went to Fort Ti a few times when I lived in New England. Had a great roast turkey dinner at some restaurant that specialized in turkey.
Last year I did a posting on a presentation that Billy put together on the Rev War, hope you got a chance to see it.
-
Years ago, I built a Long Land Pattern Bess from TOW's "Advanced Builder's" parts sets...I think they were parts from The Rifle Shop. Upon finishing it and shooting it, I was not at all satisfied with the accuracy, using the bayonet lug alone for a sight. So I cut a slot lengthwise in the lug and installed a piece of .080" silver. It made all the difference, and I used the musket in smoothbore matches for many years, doing very well. I sold the gun, its bayonette and a cartridge box Id made to a subscriber on this site, in a weak moment. Now of course, the gun and the money are long gone....lesson re-learned.
Anyway, here's some images of that sight, 'case someone wants to improve the shootability of their musket. I included some notes I made as to sight pictures using this sight.
Is this the " Bess" that you shot the moose with ? If I recall correctly, it was a 100 + yard shot ?
(https://i.ibb.co/cg6hg0r/DSCN6650.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ng7Mg9L)
(https://i.ibb.co/GxsbL4S/DSCN6005.jpg) (https://ibb.co/RvhVmkw)
(https://i.ibb.co/YDK4Q53/DSCN6002.jpg) (https://ibb.co/rbLK0Bm)
(https://i.ibb.co/6HVhSCY/100-1134.jpg) (https://ibb.co/T4pXG3c)
-
[/quote]
Hi, One Shot. Dave is steering you in the right direction in regards to musket information. I would caveat your sentence above about rifles by adding that it was completely dependent on context. Virtually all armed militia in the northern colonies and the vast majority of militia in the most populated areas of the mid-Atlantic colonies were armed with smoothbores. That said, there were areas in Virginia, Maryland, and PA where rifles were nearly ubiquitous by the time of the AWI. These were more sparsely populated areas that had developed a "rifle culture". Think of the Scots Irish, over-mountain men. The soldiers of Virginia's rural counties (back country), for example, who served in Dunmore's War in 1774, were armed (pretty much to a man) with rifles. Thus, the light companies raised in PA, MD, and VA in 1775 were largely drawn from these back country folk, though the PA companies I believe were drawn from Lancaster, Berk, and Northampton counties. It would have been uncommon indeed for militia serving in eastern counties (or north of PA) to own a rifle. Rifle culture doesn't catch on in the northern states until well after the war.
I would say that the back country rifle country - though perhaps to a lesser extent - holds true in North and South Carolina as well. Still, within the overall population, smooth bores of varying types were the norm throughout the colonies.
[/quote]
JW, correct, that I understand. I was talking in the context if I was back then, I most likely would think the same way as I do now. Have the best firearm I could get. As you discuss, In most probability I would have started out with smooth bore and I am thinking the Charleville (that way the Brits can't hang me for stealing firearms) would what I would have. Then I would look at acquiring a rifle.
Now back to today, I have a few early Lancasters for the period, a Trade gun and all I need to complement them would be a militia smooth bore and period pistol to go with it.
I do concur with your thoughts of the availability in the Eastern and Northern areas.
-
No Bob, this Bess is a serious upgrade from that gun. In 1979 I killed my first moose with a Brown Bess replica from Japan. It was .75 cal. and I used a .735" ball with heavy patch for hunting. I've shot many moose since then with a variety of firearms, but none have made the critter stagger like that big ball.
In 1981 (I think) I used that first Japanese Bess at the Canadian Nationals in Ft. McMurray Alberta for both smoothbore (round ball) and for trap. I and another fellow who was shooting a cartridge double and black powder shells, shot a 25 straight without a miss. There was no pressure either - CBC was filming the event. The audience declared that I should be awarded the medal for first place, me shooting the more difficult gun, but there was a shoot off, and eventually, I missed a bird and my competitor did not. That memory is far more valuable to me than a cast metal medal. I've been friends with that fellow ever since.
-
What happened to the rest of the photos of the original posted by COLLECTOR?
-
What happened to the rest of the photos of the original posted by COLLECTOR?
Removed. The parts gun profile and trigger guard photos were retained, as they provide sufficient continuity to the posts that were generated in the discussion. Regardless, the forum is "Contemporary Longrifle Collecting" and the balance of the photos didn't actually help to advance that topic. Editing the post(s), just made sense.
-
Collector,
I like the way the maker used an iron nut under the trigger guard to anchor the tang bolt. I am sure many colonial muskets and fowlers were made that way. Curiously, it is also the way British ordnance did it for the pattern 1745 "Lord Loudon's" carbine and the similar pattern 1760 light infantry fusil, shown below.
(https://i.ibb.co/4730ZPW/OLYMPUS-DIGITAL-CAMERA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QftxFr9)
dave