Author Topic: Possible Officier’s Model??  (Read 3052 times)

Treebeard

  • Guest
Possible Officier’s Model??
« on: March 11, 2018, 02:10:07 AM »
Found at gun show and curios as to what this might be. Lockplate marked James and London. Barrel marked London. About two thirds size of regular Brown Bess. .65 caliber.










image upload
« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 02:14:29 AM by Treebeard »

Online rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18822
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2018, 02:32:43 AM »
Interesting piece.  Lock looks like it could be a little later than the rest of it.  What’s the barrel length?
Andover, Vermont

Treebeard

  • Guest
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2018, 02:44:55 AM »
33 inch barrel and balances well when at the shoulder. Picture added below.



« Last Edit: March 11, 2018, 02:50:15 AM by Treebeard »

Online rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 18822
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2018, 04:34:46 AM »
Pretty cool old gun.  Not set up for a bayonet, is it?  Have a serious length disadvantage if it did, I suppose.  Guessing made around 1800 or so..... what do others think?
Andover, Vermont

Treebeard

  • Guest
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2018, 07:19:40 AM »
No sign it was set up for bayonet. I am thinking maybe barrel shortened at some point in it’s history.

Offline Bigmon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2018, 04:27:45 PM »
did you purchase that fine flintlock???

Online Pukka Bundook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3342
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2018, 06:03:35 PM »
Proofs appear to be Birmingham, post 1813.  (Used 1813 -1904)

Offline Hungry Horse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5395
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2018, 06:27:41 PM »
My guess would be that it is a cavalry carbine. There is a empty hole under the sideplate that could have been where a saddle ring, or a ring rail mounted. Cavalry carbines would be short, and lack a bayonet lug.

  Hungry Horse

Offline 120RIR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2018, 07:20:00 PM »
I've seen much earlier (1770s) examples very much like this...typically considered to be for an officer and sometimes with, sometimes without a bayonet lug.  I don't think cavalry though.  From what I've seen they're far more robust.  This gun is fairly delicate.

Offline Robert Wolfe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Great X Grandpa
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2018, 07:30:23 PM »
Why do you guys say not set up for a bayonet?  Looks to my eye like the stock/nose cap is well back from the muzzle. Thoughts?
Robert Wolfe
Northern Indiana

Offline 120RIR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2018, 09:45:21 PM »
One can't tell from the photos but it's probably lacking a bayonet lug (which many mistake for a front "sight").  Without that there's no way to securely affix a socket bayonet.  There were plug bayonets with wood handles that were simply jammed into the muzzle but that was obsolete for at least a century by the time this musket was made in the early 19th century.

Treebeard

  • Guest
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2018, 12:00:17 AM »
Add picture function not working right now so will add some more when I can. It is not priced yet as owner wants to know what it is before doing so. He measured the barrel and it came in at 31.5 inches with a 13.5 inch pull length.  Another viewer felt it was a trade gun. If someone wanted to copy this musket is there a source for the reduced size ramrod pipes?

Treebeard

  • Guest
Re: Possible Officier’s Model?? More pictures
« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2018, 12:10:35 AM »









Treebeard

  • Guest
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??more pictures
« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2018, 12:13:50 AM »
Some more








Offline 120RIR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2018, 02:28:54 AM »
There we go...you can see the bayonet lug in a couple of the photos. 

Treebeard

  • Guest
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2018, 04:32:31 AM »
If anyone is interested it is owned by Del Warren of James Country Mercantile. Right now I think he is mostly interested in what it is. Name and company by permission.






Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 893
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2018, 06:07:25 PM »
I would say it is a post-1813 commercial musket. In general configuration it could be a volunteer musket, made for one of the many volunteer companies that were organized during the French invasion scare c.1792-1805 but by the time that musket was made the invasion scare was long over. In an American context, it is representative of the thousands of light muskets that were exported for sale to American militiamen. Sometimes, these were sold in sets of 60 but most appear to have been sold individually.

It is extremely unlikely that it is an officers' musket for two reasons... it doesn't appear to be high enough quality and by 1813 the practice of officers carrying muskets was going, or had gone out of style. The fuzee was primarily a reaction to the problems of fighting in North America. In the British service they were never a "regulation" arm. They were tolerated because they were practical for fighting in heavily wooded regions but in continental fighting much less so... or rather, there was much less need for them.

I've been collecting copies of portraits of officers with fuzees for a long time now and have about 15 of them. The latest is dated around 1792 and I have one fuzee that is dateable to a narrow time frame around 1797 but, other than those, all of the remainder date from about 1760 to 1785.

It is a nice, straightforward, British-made commercial musket. One of those items that many collectors don't see very often because they aren't looking for them. To those that are looking for them, they aren't terribly rare.

Treebeard

  • Guest
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2018, 03:01:54 AM »
I had some input that it was an Elliot’s Light Dragoon carbine. So I did some internet searches and read that these started out in the 1760’s as 36 inch barrel and .65 caliber with wood ramrods. The barrels were gradually shortened and in 1773 they dropped  the wood ramrod and then used metal. From the pictures this one looks very close to the 1773 model. This one would have been private purchase and so no gov’t markings. Thanks to all for their input- not a longrifle but thought it interesting.

Offline Robert Wolfe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Great X Grandpa
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2018, 03:06:36 AM »
As others have stated, definitely much later than 1770's. JV Puleo is the man on these things, you should listen to what he says.
Robert Wolfe
Northern Indiana

Online Pukka Bundook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3342
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2018, 04:58:26 AM »
As Robert says,

The proofs are 1813 -1904.

Best,
Richard.

Treebeard

  • Guest
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2018, 06:07:01 PM »
As Robert says,

The proofs are 1813 -1904.

Best,
Richard.

Looking at the history of Elliott’s on collections-royalarmouries.org they were used as late as 1840. They were apparently widely used at Waterloo so proofs indicating 1813 and later production would not rule out this being a private purchase Elliott carbine. I am trying to get De Witt Bailey’s book on Brit small arms of this era. I never take internet sources as absolute proof. I think the piece would have been more interesting with military and acceptance marks.

Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 893
Re: Possible Officier’s Model??
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2018, 03:57:44 AM »
No. Those are COMMERCIAL, post-1813 Birmingham proofs. They would not have been used on any arm supplied to the Ordnance. The gun is unquestionably a commercial product of the sort supplied by the thousands to every possible customer from American militiamen to merchant ships and bank guards. The one thing we can be certain of is that it was not used by the British army.