Brown Bess Question

[mstriebel]

Hi All,

I have been looking for a long time for a Brown Bess that was in my price range.  I came across one that is in my price range, but it has the following issues:

1) The lock appears to me to be more the shape of that used on the 1742 Long Land Pattern, but all other parts of the musket appear as one would expect to see in the 1756 Long Land Pattern.  The lock has the name "Wood" shown on the left hand side, but I cannot make out any date listed below the name.

2) The barrel appears to have Robert Wilson markings and London proof marks instead of the Board of Ordinance marks of British military weapons.

3) Something just appears odd to me on the tang of the gun, which does not seem to match up with the barrel.

Would any of the experts be able to shed some light on this gun for me?  In particular, I would be interested in knowing if there was some legitimate reason for a Wilson barrel to end up on such a gun, and, if so, who would have been some of the likely customers for such a gun - militia, merchants, etc.?

Thanks,

Matt

***Links removed due to spam message being in the links Dennis***

[mr. no gold]

What is the barrel length of your musket? These things were made by numerous makers and for a variety of customers. The 1742 lock plate has a curved lower edge and is often referred to as a 'bananna lock' given the similar shape. This lock would not be compatible with a piece made later without doing harm to the stock. Your photos didn't give me this impression and the butt plate tang looks like the early model. Private purchases were made by officers for their units and this one could fall into that category. There are several books available on the BB including the recent book by Stuart Mowbray and Erik Goldstein, also by Anthony Darling, and there is another author whose name escapes me just now. I'll try to refine the search and come up with a name. Appears to be a nice find. Thank you for showing it.
Dick

[GrampaJack]

Along with the obvious color difference in the breach plug there also appears to be a small piece of wood that doesn't match right behind the breach plug tang. Is there any significance to this?  Jack

[debnal]

Goldstein's book lists Wood as a contract lock maker for the 1742 and 1748 model muskets. Yours is neither- it appears to be a 1756 model due to the front ramrod pipe that is clearly made for a steel ramrod as it is trumpet shaped. The 1742 was made for a wooden ramrod and the 1748 was made for a wooden ramrod but refit with a steel one. Both those models have the short front ramrod pipe. Wood is not listed as a lock maker for the 1756 model. Somewhat of a red flag.
Al

[mstriebel]

Thanks to all for your helpful comments.

To answer Dick’s question, the barrel length is 46”, as would be expected on a Long Land pattern musket.  I also share the concern that Jack expressed on the suspicious piece of wood right behind the tang.  I think Al is spot on with his analysis of this being a lock for a 1742/1748 model musket on a musket that has all the other features one would expect in a 1756 model musket.

What I am uncertain of is whether this is a “parts gun” that someone cobbled together fairly recently from parts from various different guns in an attempt by someone to pawn it off as a legitimate piece or whether there could be a case where a there was excess inventory of locks from earlier models that were put to use to assemble a model 1756 by a gunmaker of the era that did not want to waste parts.  I would like to think it is the latter case, but the suspicious look around the tang causes be to fear it is the former.

[mstriebel]

I just wanted did some further research and found the following information in my efforts to try to find the story on this rifle:
1)   On page 116 of The Brown Bess by Goldstein and Mowbray there a picture of a large chip directly behind the tang on a 1769 Short Land Pattern musket with the caption, “This chip behind the barrel tang was caused by recoil when the musket was fired – a common type of wear damage.”
a.   Does this seem like a legitimate explanation for the rather shoddy wood patch job done immediately behind the tang on this musket?
2)   In looking more closely at the photo that shows the inside of the triggerguard bow I can now seek when I zoom in closely a crown mark.   Goldstein and Mowbray indicated in their book in several examples that this mark was often shown on Brown Bess muskets from different eras.
3)   I was most concerned about the Robert Wilson marks on the barrel and the lack of any Board of Ordinance marks on the gun.  I then read in Baily’s Small Arms of the British Forces in North America 1665-1815 the following on page 252
a.   In addition to the wide variety of regulation arms referred to above, there was also a group of “secondary martial” arms in the hands of provincial troops, especially before and during the Seven Years’ War.  These were purchased by colonial agents in England from the British gun trade on behalf of individual colonies when these colonial governments failed to get arms supplied at Government expense from the Board of Ordinance.  The description of arm is often mistaken today for a regulation British military arm because in many instances they made use of a former regulation component in their construction, generally locks or barrels, and because they often resemble the regulation arm in overall appearance.  London gunmakers were particularly active in the field:  to date it can be confirmed that ……. Richard Wilson (supplied) the colonies of Massachusetts Bay, New York City and Province, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Georgia between 1737 and 1758.  Most of these arms probably ended in rebel hands during the American War, although some may have entered British service for a short period in the hands of Loyalists bringing their own arms to militia and local volunteer units.
i.   Does this seem like a reasonable explanation for the seeming inconsistencies between the 1742 pattern gunlock on a gun which seems typical of a 1756 pattern's features except for the Richard Wilson and London makers marks?
ii.   Does anyone one know of any images that exist of versions of one of these “secondary martial” Brown Bess Long Pattern muskets that could be used to check whether this musket appears to be consistent with such weapons?

[lexington1]

I am away from home and the pictures are tiny on my cell phone, so I am probably not seeing detail very well. Looking at the pics I get the impression that there was some work done fairly recently to it. The pins appear to be new and there is no patina under the trigger guard on the trigger plate. Not a big deal, but something to be aware of. I don't think that it's a commercial Bess, because the stocking itself doesn't appear to be executed as well as other commercial models I've seen. Even though a lot of the commercial models are 2nd class guns they are generally higher quality than this one. I would say that this Bess is either a restocked American Bess, with a slightly later thimbles for a steel ramrod, or an all out American copy. A lot of earlier muskets were salvaged for making up muskets during the revolution. If it's a restocked musket perhaps the tang was broken when the stock was broken and whoever restored it decided to just change the plug? I don't know, just a guess. In any event it is a pretty neat old musket!

[JV Puleo]

It isn't an Ordnance musket so it isn't a "Pattern" anything. It didn't have to conform to the pattern because it was sold in the civilian market. The time when Colonel's purchased the arms of their regiments was long over so no British soldier carried it. It may have been... even probably was, sold here in America. I see no reason to presume it was restocked.

Nearly all the lock makers were in the Black country towns... that one was a supplier to the Ordnance certainly didn't preclude supplying others as well.

The Wilson's dominated the export market before the Revolution and sold quantities of muskets to New York City, New Jersey, Massachusetts and (I think) even Rhode Island. These were nearly all intended for "Provincial" troops raised to augment regular forces in the 7 Years War. We have no good idea how many muskets they sold through private dealers but it may have been a substantial number. There is an interesting case where some Provincial troops were re-armed with real Ordnance muskets (which were made to a higher standard than the commercial ones were) and complained endlessly that they were too heavy.

Its a nice musket, with a real chance at early American usage but it isn't the musket of a British Regular.

[Road King]

I have heard that these are sometimes referred to as  "Committee of Safety Muskets".  On page 728 , 9th edition of Flayderman's guide to Antique American Firearms he discusses these variant arms. I had a similar musket a few years ago and a knowledgeable collector at Baltimore Antique Arms show identified it as one of these muskets also.

[JV Puleo]

NO. Committee of Safety muskets are a very specific item... British style muskets ordered by one of the several committees set up at the very beginning of the Revolution. They are extremely rare... there may be less than a dozen real ones in existence. Unfortunately, for a very long time every dealer and wishful-thinking collector has labeled his "made from pieces" musket a C of S musket... perhaps in order to enhance its value but probably because most didn't know any better. Probably 90% of those guns aren't even old enough to be Revolutionary, much less made under the aegis of one of the committees. I don't think this musket is either... it looks like a standard export musket made in the Land Pattern style to be sold for any one of a large number of purposes, the most likely being militia or provincial service in America.

[lexington1]

What is your take on the lock marking of 'Wood', if Wilson was the maker? Is it common for the inletting to be a sloppy as this one? I am trying to figure this out as well.