Early maple stocked rifle at Morphy auction

[mr. no gold]

It would seem possible that Perkin may have been at Christians Spring, (CS) for awhile. The lock on the Oerter 'Griffin' Rifle is signed 'I. Perkin.' At this time there is no indication of further activity by him at that location, and thus it is always possible that he may have made the lock elsewhere. If more CS rifles surface with his locks we might make a better assumption on his participation in that particular school/gun industry.
Dick   

[rich pierce]

Interesting that Perkin made English style locks. Surname sounds English.

[mr. no gold]

Not too surprising Rich considering that he came from England. Somewhere I read what year, but that fact has escaped my imperfect memory.
Dick

[rich pierce]

Not too surprising Rich considering that he came from England. Somewhere I read what year, but that fact has escaped my imperfect memory.
Dick

I guess for me the curiosity or interesting bit is that there’s an A Albrecht lock (Germanic) but then they hire a lock maker who makes English style locks. Just shows what a mix the colonies were.

[spgordon]

Just wanted to clarify that Joseph Perkin never did go to Christian's Spring to train William Henry. The letter indicates only that Henry tried to recruit him.

Perkin had worked as a gunsmith and lockmaker in the single brothers' house in the Moravian community at Bristol, England. He was a member of the single brothers' choir of the Bristol Moravian congregation as early as 1766. In April 1766 a boy named John Waters (also a Moravian) was apprenticed to Perkin "for seven years to learn the Gun Lock Smith Trade." When the single brothers rebuilt their house in July 1766, they included a shop for Perkin; they were later going to establish a "Ironmonger's Shop," with Perkin as "workman," but they abandoned this idea in January 1767--though Perkin was allowed to continue his "traffic in the Gunlock way." Perkin's "Gunlock Trade" was doing well: the pastor reported that "their Orders increase very much" by November 1766 and by March of the next year the single brothers agreed to "enlarge the shop" because Perkin didn't have "Room enough in his shop for himself and John Waters to work."

Moravian records indicate that Perkins emigrated to America in 1771.

[smart dog]

Hi Joe,
Several of the British units at Lexington, Concord, and Breed's Hill were Royal Marines armed with marine muskets, which were in production until 1776.  Moreover, detachments of marines were with Carleton in Canada and involved in defending Quebec during the siege in 1775-76 by Arnold and Montgomery.  There also were earlier actions in the West Indies in which colonists participated and could have accessed marine muskets.  Certainly, there was an opportunity to acquire marine muskets from wounded or dead marines during Lexington and Concord. 

dave

[WESTbury]

Hi Joe,
Several of the British units at Lexington, Concord, and Breed's Hill were Royal Marines armed with marine muskets, which were in production until 1776. 
dave

Dave---Great observation about the British Marines. There is one known British Marine musket which is a Pattern 1759 Marine Musket. It is very deeply engraved on the rear strap of the triggerguard;"PLYMo Dn". It is also deeply engraved on the buttplate tang "15/19". Plymouth 15th Division weapon number 19. My photograph of the triggerguard appears on page 203 of De Witt Bailey's Small Arms of the British Forces in America . Again, these markings were very deeply engraved. That's not to say that all British Marine weapons had their division and weapon number as deeply engraved. It would have taken quite a bit of work to remove the engravings.

Goldstein and Mowbray's book The Brown Bess covers the Pattern 1757 and 1759 Marine muskets very thoroughly.

A small point, I do not believe that the British Marines were designated "Royal Marines" until 1802, well after the Rev War.

Kent

[smart dog]

Hi Kent,
I think it is important to note that the first British shots at Lexington and Concord were by light "Bobs" from the 4th and 10th regiments  Both likely were armed with pattern 1760 light infantry fusils until 1777 or so when they were issued the standard short land muskets.  The Royal Marines with their marine muskets were the brave souls who held the British retreat from Concord together and prevented a total rout until Percy's units came to the rescue.  It also was the light units on the flanks of the retreating British column that did the most damage to the colonists. The light infantry units played a major role at Breed's Hill, particularly those attacking John Stark's command at the stone wall near the shore. They were armed with light infantry fusils.  The marines were also a decisive force finally over running the redoubt.  My point in all this is that during the most critical events during the first year of the war, British firearms other than the Brown Bess played crucial roles.

dave

[WESTbury]

Hi Kent,
 My point in all this is that during the most critical events during the first year of the war, British firearms other than the Brown Bess played crucial roles.
dave

Dave---You are 100% correct. Both sides of the equation were using British arms. I would imagine that many members of the New England militias employed muskets used in the Louisbourg campaign and in particular, the Seven years War.

I have additional photos somewhere of the Plymouth Division musket somewhere in this house. The picture card that has those photos on it is one of those items that disappeared during our move to warmer climes.

Kent

[Eric Kettenburg]

SOOOOOOOOO.......  I gather then that the *most likely* accepted train of thought here is, that if this buttplate is indeed a repurposed marine musket buttplate, it would be highly unlikely that it would have been available to a gun stocker prior to the War when battlefield captures/pickups may have been available?

If so this would tend to reinforce my notion that it's probably a War-era rifle.

I don't see the excessive arc stamping (in the carving as infill) as a particularly early characteristic, though I'm sure that notion can't be taken as a hard and fast rule.  Just MHO.

[lexington1]

Here is a Marine/Militia musket that to me reeks of American ownership. The sling swivels have been removed and about an inch of barrel has been bobbed. I have no idea what the history is of this musket, but it did originally come out of Canada. The ramrod should be wood. The metal rod came with the musket, but doesn't even come close to fitting. Any idea of the markings? At first I thought it was Independent Company, but after a closer examination it is INNEP' Com'y.

[WESTbury]

Taking a second (actually 4th or 5th) look at the buttplate tang on the Morphy rifle, leads me to speculate that if it is from a British musket, it is from a Land Pattern rather than a Marine pattern musket, with a c'sunk added for the screw. I realize cameras distort photos, but I think that the buttplate tang of the Marine Pattern is not long enough in comparison to the buttplate tang on the Morphy rifle.

[lexington1]

Taking a second (actually 4th or 5th) look at the buttplate tang on the Morphy rifle, leads me to speculate that if it is from a British musket, it is from a Land Pattern rather than a Marine pattern musket, with a c'sunk added for the screw. I realize cameras distort photos, but I think that the buttplate tang of the Marine Pattern is not long enough in comparison to the buttplate tang on the Morphy rifle.

That had crossed my mind as well. I think a person would have to actually measure the buttplate on the Morphy rifle. I measured the buttplate on my Marine musket. I think it looks pretty close, and it might look a little off if it was slightly narrowed on the sides. Another thing to consider is if it was cut off to make the flat on the bottom of the buttplate the max. amount I think you could get would be around 5 inches in height.

[smart dog]

Hi,
I agree.  Without a scale it is hard to tell. 

dave

[Avlrc]

Been following this.  Never watched it much, but there was a tv show a few years back called CSI..   

Hope you guys get it figured out before I bid on it, ( just kidding)...

[WESTbury]

Here is a Marine/Militia musket that to me reeks of American ownership.  At first I thought it was Independent Company, but after a closer examination it is INNEP' Com'y.

Lexington,
I found information in Bailey's Small Arms of the British Forces in America for arms issued to Independent Companies. As far as I can tell, these companies did not have number designations. They are identified by their commanders last name.

Appendix VIII, page 327 under arms issued to Militias: for Crudens Ind Co.:
29 Sept 1781 20 muskets & bayonets
3 Jan 1782 92 muskets & bayonets
6 March 1782 100 muskets & bayonets
17 May 50 muskets & bayonets

Appendix XVII, page 357 Issue of Arms: 9 Feb 1778 101 muskets & bayonets each to Independent Companies  commanded by Lord, R. Edwards, Campbell, Adams, Lloyd, Fielding, Vaughan, Herbert, J. Edwards

Cannot find any info on where these Independent Companies operated.

Kent
                                                                                                             

[lexington1]

Thanks Kent. I have been racking my brain trying to figure out why it would only have Independent Company engraved on the barrel. It also has a number (54) on the buttplate tang.

[WESTbury]

Lexington--I have to amend my info concerning the muskets and bayonets issued to Cruden's Independent Company. Those arms were issued from Charleston (S. Carolina) ordnance stores.

[backsplash75]

 “Short Musquets of the new Pattern for Marines or Militia”

At least 2,000 Marine/Militia muskets are here in New York Ordnance stores by 1760 (flat sideplates do show up at Ligonier). That being said, as far as I know there are not typically interior Ordnance markings for M/M buttplates on those, so it would be difficult to tell if this buttplate started on a marine/militia gun vs say a commercial product in a similar style- not to mention even if it is a recycled military buttplate it may have been filed down/reprofiled to better fit the stock so identification through measurements would be problematic.

[WESTbury]

I believe that BACKSPLASH has gotten to the heart of the matter.

[lexington1]

I believe that BACKSPLASH has gotten to the heart of the matter.

I believe you are right! Still it is pretty interesting to see this type of buttplate on a rifle made of mostly German parts. Pretty cool.

[WESTbury]

I apologize profusely for the quality of the three photos appearing below. The photos are of the buttplate tang, triggerguard, and lock of, according to DeWitt Bailey, the only known identified British Marine musket of the Rev War period. This musket was found in a New Jersey gunshop in 2008 along side a Pattern 1777 Short Land marked to the 79th Regiment.

The photo of the triggerguard appears on page 203 of Bailey's Small Arms of the British Forces in America.