Please Help Identify This Musket

[bluenoser]

Well, it's loooong and I believe it was built in America, so I guess that makes it an American longrifle .

I  purchased this today and, for the life of me, can not determine what I have.

-It is obviously made up from salvaged parts and, in my opinion, the design was influenced by the Brown Bess.

-The barrel is 45 1/4" long and, based on the location of the front sight, I suspect it was originally in the area of 46" to 48" long.  I also suspect it was shortened when this musket was built.  The barrel has a top flat tapering from 1/2" at the breech to 0" at the muzzle.  The smooth bore measures 0.780", give or take0.005" or so.

- The initials on the barrel at the breech appear to be "NH" when viewed from the right side.  The "N" is questionable.

-I had originally thought the nose cap had been set back, but now believe it is as-built.

- The gun had sling swivels which appear to have been well used.

-The gun was originally flint and the back of the lock plate is marked "PM".  The lock plate is 6 1/4" long and 1 3/16" wide.  The bridle is not fully seated  and prevents the lock from fully seating in the mortise (seized screws).

- There is no writing on the face of the lock, but there are traces of a floral or sunburst design.

- The lock nails are obviously Blacksmith forged.

-  A pretty neat repair was done at the break in the wrist, but I think late in the gun's life.

- The overall architecture of the stock brings to mind a Brown Bess with a straighter and softer butt profile.  There is a slight palm swell at the entry thimble.

- The wood species appears to be English/European walnut - not black walnut.

And now for what I am thinking (and hoping):  The area this came out of is a sea-faring area and had close trade relations with the New England colonies/states during the 18th and 19th centuries. It was a prime hunting ground when I was ferreting out Besses and the like back in the 1970's and 80's.  It would not be uncommon to come across a New England gun.  I think (as much hope as think) this could be a New England made Militia musket.  If I were to get really wild eyed, I might envision it being a Committee Of Safety musket.  I should be so lucky!

Please pass along your thoughts.  They will be most appreciated
I can provide additional photos and info on request.

[Dennis Glazener]

Can not help ID this rifle but I love it, great buy.
Dennis

[rich pierce]

It would be very rare, and undocumented, for a gun to be stocked in English walnut in the colonies. There’s a difference between being theoretically possible and common enough to be known to happen. I’m not sure it could make economic sense. How sure are you that it is English walnut?

The buttplate is unusual for a European gun and (got mixed up with another post) there doesn’t seem to be proof marks on the barrel. So I am inclined to believe it was stocked here for military use.

[bluenoser]

I also believe it was stocked in America for military use.
The best pic of the wood is the one showing the entry thimble.  It certainly looks like European walnut to me.  I had dinner plans with friends yesterday and rushed to take pics.  It was not until I had posted the pics that I noticed the wood grain.  I need to look at other parts of the stock in natural light and take pics where the grain is evident and post them.
For the time being, I am reasonably confident it is European walnut, but need to consider what other species might have a similar appearance.

There may be proof marks below the stock line, but am reluctant to remove the barrel unless I can confidently do so without damaging the wood when removing the pins.

[Pukka Bundook]

I think any proofs at this time would be on the upper flats, rather than below, Bluenose.
I too think stocked up or altered for military use in the US.   
No real bayonet lug though..

[Bob Roller]

The lock appears to be forever at half cock.It looks as if the mainspring would come off the tumbler.Long ago bad repair or???
Bob Roller

[bluenoser]

Here are some pics of the wood grain.  The stock is heavily patinated, so there are limited opportunities for a good look.  The best opportunity is on the lower forearm.  There is a possibility it is American cherry.  AC has the same flecs, but I do not see any of the characteristic streaking between growth rings.  American cherry would make a lot more sense and I believe it would pretty much nail down a New England connection.  I believe I was likely mistaken about the European walnut and it is more likely American cherry.  Looking forward to seeing the opinions of others.

[bluenoser]

Bob,
Thanks for your observation.  The lock functions as it should and the rotational position of the cock may have changed when it was converted to percussion.  I believe it is at full cock in the photos.  Do you see evidence of a repair?

[bluenoser]

Upon closer inspection, the lower forearm does show narrow streaks between the tight growth rings.  Old growth cherry??

[rich pierce]

Cherry varies widely as do all hardwoods. I first thought cherry when I looked at the pictures.

[backsplash75]

Looks like a parts bin special. The sideplate is from a later banded Dutch infantry musket. I'd say early federal mutt for militia service. Lots of Dutch imports of this sort to Boston ca. 1808.

[bluenoser]

I think Backsplash75 has made a good point with his Dutch connection, but believe the parts in this gun predate 1808 by decades.  There is no doubt it is an assemblage of salvaged parts and a quick survey of Dutch arms produced similar (but not quite identical) trigger guards side plates  and barrels - but on earlier models.  Dutch supplied arms appeared in the Colonies in large numbers as early as the 17th century, if I am not mistaken.  Some, if not all, early models (roughly pre 1775?) had pinned barrels - as does this example.  Some also had barrel lengths and calibers somewhat in line with that of this musket.  If I am not mistaken, later Dutch muskets (roughly post 1775?) had shorter barrels and bands.  The Dutch infantry musket in the above post is ca 1771 - 1795 and the side plate does appear to be a dead ringer for the one on this musket.

I am not a student of Dutch arms and all of the above is gleaned from an hour or so on the internet.  Not saying I got it right.

I believe it might be beneficial to focus on the component parts and try to match them up with their source.
It is pretty obvious the upper thimble came from a Brown Bess.
The side plate appears to be Dutch 1771-1795.  Could it also be an earlier model?

I do very much appreciate all comments.

[backsplash75]

bluenoser,
With a composite gun, it can't be any earlier than it's latest feature. When does this lock style show up?

[bluenoser]

You are totally correct with regard to dating composite guns and many other items.
I don't know when the lock style on this composite arm first appeared and would be pleased if you can tell us.  I have not even seen a picture of it in unmodified form.  If you are saying it is the lock in your book, and that it first appeared on that model, the date would appear to be 1771.  The same applies to the side plate.
Please, if you can, provide clear pictures of the lock and the side plate.

[bluenoser]

backsplash75
I have blown up the picture in your post and, although it is grainy and lacking in detail, it is obviously not the lock on this musket unless the lock plate on the composite gun has been modified.  Compare the tails.
I would welcome being proven wrong.  Please post the requested pics.

[bluenoser]

I have been researching Dutch muskets due to comments made by backlash75 and, as so often happens on the internet, one thing has led to another.  I came across the following two NRA articles regarding Dutch Arms in the American Revolution and American-Made Muskets in the Revolutionary War.

The first article (https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/dutch-arms-in-the-american-revolution-1/) makes reference on plate 6 to a Dutch Fowler/Musket 1700-1720.  I quote "Of special interest is the "NH" marking on it's octagonal breech that identified arms carried by New Hampshire Line Regiments during the Revolutionary War (indicating early use lacking a socket bayonet)."
Morphy Auctions (https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/lot-483038.aspx) listed "A Rare French M 1763 Musket Marked To The 1st New Hampshire Battalion, With Bayonet".  That musket also had an "NH" stamped on the upper left side flat of the barrel at the breech.  Although they are not identical, the subject musket has "NH" stamped in the same location and with the same upside-down orientation.  Is it possible that ........

The second article (https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/american-made-muskets-in-the-revolutionary-war-1/) discusses muskets made in America using salvaged parts.  Compare the stock architecture of  2, 3, 6, and 8 to the subject musket.

Am I drinking my bath water here folks?

Criticism will not offend me.  I simply want to learn as much as I can about this musket.

[Dennis Glazener]

It sure looks like I see open grain (i.e. walnut) in some areas. I have never seen open grain in cherry.
Dennis

[rich pierce]

If it’s European walnut, who thinks the architecture looks like a Dutch musket?

[bluenoser]

Dennis,
I am not seeing any open grain.  Can you identify the photo(s) you see it in.

[backsplash75]

ok, well not only did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but I also slept using a copy of Visser vol.1 as my pillow. 










upload pic


-The sideplate in your composite gun comes from a Dutch musket, some of which predate or are contemporaneous with the AWI, but stay in service a good while longer. Most of the guns with that sideplate feature a rounded Dutch lock. The example in Neumann's Battle Weapons from the image above is marked for the Culemborg gun factory (founded in 1759). I do have images of an oddball banded (possibly retrofitted bands) gun with the earlier flat Dutch lock and that same sideplate (Ex Kirkland/Ackermann collection marked Regt P Stolberg No. 14- gun came out of Mass.), neither of which are in the ballpark of the lock presently in your composite gun. Surplus Dutch arms were being sold by the case in Boston ca 1808. To my knowledge, no parts of this type or brass bands come out of Rev War or F&I sites here, although the earlier varieties certainly do.

- NH marking, this is NOT the Battalion and Number markings associated with the solid RevWar used New Hampshire guns ( ie "NH 2 BN No. 123"). Ahern's Muskets of the Revolution mentions both types and says this on p196: "It is unknown when the 'NH' stamps were applied, and it is possible that these marks could be post-Revolutionary War designations."

-Trigger guard doesn't look anything like a Dutch furnishing to me, more like a naive (American?) stab at an acorn finial.

-The lock presently in your gun sure looks post RevWar to me, with decorations I normally associate with early 19thc parts. It also appears to fit the stock mortise well. It is not either of the two lock types I see associated with that side plate. Given the weight of the info at hand, your musket appears to be a post Revolutionary parts bin special stocked in a conservative manner. Free advice and worth every penny.

[bluenoser]

Thank you.  Considerable information and well presented.  It will take me a while to fully digest it.
Identification of the lock is high on my list of objectives - as is identification of the barrel.  Upon closer examination, it does appear the tail of the lock was likely reworked.  The single-line border peters out (drifts off the edge) top and bottom right at the vertical incised line.  Just one more complication.  Since the lock on your example is round faced and this one is flat faced, they are still not a match.  Since the lock nail spacing on the side plate (3 1/2") lines up so nicely with the lock, and there are no older filled holes in the lock plate, that might be a clue in identifying the lock.  Any thoughts and what is the spacing on your example?

Personally, I am a Ramada kind of guy

[backsplash75]

snip

Any thoughts and what is the spacing on your example?

Sadly not a clue as it is not my piece, I collect in other directions, pics are from an old for sale ad.

[JV Puleo]

Likely 90% of the assembled muskets, made from old parts, post-date the Revolution and are a response to the militia act of 1792. That act required every male citizen to equip himself with a suitable musket. Any bore size was permitted as long as the gun would "accept balls 16 to the pound". At the time it was adopted Britain was still embargoing "military stores" (including all firearms) to America so there was a frenzy of assembling arms from any available parts as well as imports from the continent. But, the French revolutionary wars were beginning. France over ran Holland (including what is now Belgium) in 1795 and very shortly thereafter banned the export of new arms since they needed all the production capacity they could get. All that was available for sale were arms that were obsolete.

The British embargo was only lifted in a limited manner at the end of 1793. It still applied to "military stores" but exempted full stocked fowling pieces with wooden ramrods, not equipped with a bayonet. Parts, primarily gun locks were permitted and from about 1795 we see mostly British imported locks on these assembled guns. Sometime around 1797 the embargo on muskets with bayonets was lifted, oddly enough because the War Office made a large sale to the State of New York, thus confusing the Privy Council which, up until then, had been enforcing the embargo.

As to the sideplate...most of the Dutch muskets were imported after the Revolution...I think Neumann was incorrect to assign them to the war years. Those that were imported were already obsolete so while they are often old enough to have seen Revolutionary service, they didn't get here until later. See Joel Bouhy's article in Man at Arms on the arms of Boston for some up-to-date data on Dutch imports. A good example are those marked "Thone, Amsterdam". For many years these were presumed to be Revolutionary War arms but Dutch historian Arne Hoff tells us that Thone didn't go into business until something like 1789. At one time they were fairly common in New England...I had three or four of them when I was in High School, found in local antique shops.

The sideplate on this musket is typical of the later Dutch imports. Statistically it was most likely from one of those later imports and may well have been in rough shape when it arrived.

How do you tell if a musket is Revolutionary or post-Revolutionary if there is no identifiable later part? To quote one of my old friends..."If I own it it's Revolutionary. If you own it, it's post-Revolutionary."

[rich pierce]

."If I own it it's Revolutionary. If you own it, it's post-Revolutionary."

Truer words were never spoken!

[BradBrownBess]

The lock plate is not early Dutch - as in Pre 1800 for sure. The brass is not British Ordinance or commercial Brown Bess either. The lock to me looks early federal "trade" lock for lack of better words - as I know that word gets thrown around a lot. It may be a later (post 1800) Dutch lock and does resemble some I have seen as far as the bridal. Mainspring is a homemade job for sure. The stock and Lock were not from same maker or country. It looks to be like a parts bin musket - probably put together as a hunting, defense, militia gun in the early to mid 1800's.
Ealy British muskets were made by the Dutch under Kings order. King Charles II was born in Hanover and was Elector there. The early "Kings Muskets" or pre Brown Bess muskets were Dutch made muskets and generally have the Hanover mark on the lock. They are long, convex or bulbous if you like and banana shaped - curved. Col PoCock is engraved on the barrel of some surviving examples of the earliest British ordered Muskets. The first 1730 Pattern Brown Bess was very, very close in most aspects to these early Dutch guns. There are no parts on that gun matching any 1730, 1730/40, 1742, 1748, 1756, 1769, 1777 or later India Pattern Brown Bess. The stock is not British as the mortise inletting is not close to any British musket I have seen in 20 years. Maybe the stock began as later Dutch gun?? My guess is it was something already made then altered and carved to suit and fit parts. Thats my 2 cents anyway - I am not an expert just a guy that likes and studies martial arms. Cool gun though and worth some time digging sround. I would not be afraid to disassemble the gun carefully - the side plate lock and remove barrel - I think you will be completely fine - but it probably will not show much other than maybe what the wood is. Good luck on that one!