Please Help Identify This Musket

[bluenoser]

JV Puleo
Thank you for taking the time to post such an informative description of circumstances and events post-dating the Revolution.  Your points are well taken.  I do not have Man At Arms, so don't have access to Joel Bouhy's article on the arms of Boston.
 
Although I would be pleased if it did, I have no desire to build a case to prove this musket has a Revolutionary War connection, or to assemble arguing points toward an assertion that it likely has such a connection.  Researching these "finds" is a major source of enjoyment for me and I simply want to learn as much as I can about it.  One of the primary focuses of my research is the "NH" stamp on the barrel, and I would very much like to know your view of it, as well as that of other members.  My knowledge of the subject is limited and is derived from internet-based research over the last week or so.  Need I say more.

The following is what I have gleaned from the internet, and is copied and pasted from my research notes:

The Continental Army was formed in 1775 by assuming command of the New England militia army that had gathered around Boston. Prior to that, each colony maintained it's own militia [(15) - pg 11].  " The three New Hampshire Regiments that were numbered Continental Line units in 1776 were returned to their designation as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd New Hampshire Regiments in December 1776", " The long arms carried by soldiers while serving in the New Hampshire regiments in early 1777 were an assemblage of muskets left over from the French and Indian War and other conflicts. The long arms also included weapons captured from engagements with British troops from 1775 to early 1777", " NEW HAMPSHIRE RECEIVES MUSKETS - In March and April 1777, 10,000 (French Charleville) muskets arrived in Portsmouth, New Hampshire aboard the Mercure and the Amphitrite. These muskets were under the control of the Continental Agent for Maritime Affairs", " The Committee of Safety then voted on April 8, 1777, that “Major Samuel Philbrick be and hereby is directed & empowered to receive of Mr. John Taylor Gilman, Store Keeper in Exeter, eight hundred arms to convey to Charlestown and two hundred & Eighty to Concord.” 12 Muskets from the arms made available to New Hampshire by John Langdon bear markings on the barrel that designate ownership by the state of New Hampshire. The markings for each musket consist of the letters N and H joined at the intersecting leg, followed by a “1B”, “2B”, or “3B”and then a “No.” with a sequential number from 1 to 672 applied to each musket", " New Hampshire-marked French Revolutionary War muskets which are documented include the Models of 1763, 1766 and 1768. These muskets will be found with lockplate markings indicating manufacture in the Charleville, Maubeuge or St. Etienne arsenal" [(8 ) 100/35 - 100/40].

(8 ) Carroll, Michael R. - New Hampshire Marked French Muskets of the Revolutionary War (https://americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2009-B100-New-Hampshire-Marked-French-Muskets-of-t.pdf)

The foregoing implies that the marking with the co-joined "NH", followed by Regimental markings and a sequential number commenced shortly after April 8, 1777.  The markings were placed on the left slope of the barrel near the breech and were oriented such that the butt would point to the left while being read [(3)]

(3) Morphy Auctions - A Rare French M 1763 Musket Marked To The 1st New Hampshire Battalion, With Bayonet (https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/lot-483038.aspx)  Other similar examples exist.

French muskets with New Hampshire markings continued to be used after the end of the Revolutionary War. Some of the muskets went home with the soldiers after their military service and others went to the federal arsenals at the end of the war. [(8 ) 100/44].  New Hampshire muskets issued during the later Federal period were also marked "NH" in the same location, but only "NH".  The marking is in the same location as that on earlier muskets, but is apparently oriented such that the butt points to the right when being read and the "N" and "H" are not co-joined. [(6), (].  Federal period "NH" marked muskets are also found with the markings in other places, such as on the stock and buttplate [(17)].

(6) Cowan's - New Hampshire Marked Modified French Charleville Model 1774 Flintlock Musket with Bayonet (https://cowanauctions.com/lot/new-hampshire-marked-modified-french-charleville-model-1774-flintlock-musket-with-bayonet-4013405)         A-typical "NH" marking

(17) Salter, Joe (Guns International listing) - Rare N.H. Marked U.S. Model 1795 Flintlock Musket (https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/rifles/springfield-rifles---antique/rare-n-h--marked-u-s--model-1795-flintlock-musket.cfm?gun_id=100570931)  NH stamped on stock and buttplate

The following is a revision to this post.  Don't know how I overlooked it earlier
"The great majority of surviving muskets manufactured by the Colonists are not identified by their maker or source. Yet a number of the states did, at times, stamp their issued arms to indicate ownership especially early in the war. These included, “MB” or “CMB”, Massachusetts; “SC”, Connecticut; “CR”, Rhode Island; “PP” or “P”, Pennsylvania; “JS” or “PS”, Maryland; “SP”, New Jersey; “NH” New Hampshire; “CN”, New York; and “SGF” (State Gun Factory), Virginia." [(2) accompanying text]

(2) NRA (Neuman) - American Made Muskets in the Revolutionary War (https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/american-made-muskets-in-the-revolutionary-war-1/)

There is at least one Committee of Safety musket that might well be marked in the same manner as this one [(1) Plate 6]  - "Dutch Fowler/Musket 1700-1720"  " Of special interest is the "NH" 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)"  Reference is made to the "NH" stamp, but not pictured and no reference to additional markings.  This appears to be evidence of non-martial arms being marked in a manner other than that mandated on April 8, 1777 and just might help explain the stamp on this musket.

(1) NRA - Dutch Arms in the American Revolution   (https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/dutch-arms-in-the-american-revolution-1/)

I realize much information gleaned from the internet must be viewed with an element of skepticism and tried to focus on reasonably reliable sources wherever possible.

Comments and rebuttals are both invited and most appreciated.

[JV Puleo]

... King Charles II was born in Hanover and was Elector there. ...

The connection between England and Hannover doesn't begin until the Stuart line became extinct. Charles II (Stuart) was succeeded by James II, who was overthrown and succeeded by William & Mary. Mary was his sister but William also had a legitimate claim on the British throne. When William died the throne passed to Sophia, Electress of Hanover. She died before she could assume the throne and it passed to her son, George I who was also Elector of Hanover. George II, George III, George IV and William IV were all Electors of Hanover but Victoria, who succeeded her uncle William, could not assume the Hanovarian title because, by then, Hanover followed the Salic Law which prohibited a woman succeeding.

[bluenoser]

BradBrownBess

Thank you for your observations regarding the components in this musket.  They are well taken.  However, I must rebut some of your observations.  The following are my thoughts concerning each element:

These are copied and pasted from my research notes, so tend to be somewhat lengthy.

Lock
I remain totally open-minded about the lock and, quite frankly, have not a clue regarding age or lineage.  This is what I do know:  The tail area of the plate has been re-shaped as evidenced by the border decoration petering out (running off the edges) just about where the vertical engraving is.  My suspicion is the plate was originally longer and may have been more banana shaped.  There is an assembly mark, consisting of three grooves, filed into the top edge of the plate just ahead of the frizzen.  I am inclined to believe the lock was initially on some earlier mass produced firearm, and is not a trade lock - federal period or otherwise.  The mainspring is now out of the lock and I have examined it carefully.  I can see no evidence it is not original to the lock.  The edge of the upper leaf has been relieved to clear the barrel.

Stock
I preface to say I was a professional cabinetmaker prior to retirement and, although not particularly skilled in the practice, do have experience in species identification.  The more I look at this stock, the stronger my inclination is to believe it is American cherry, also known as black cherry, which I believe to be a strong indication the musket was likely stocked in the New England area.  The length (ending 4" behind the muzzle), evidence of a well-used sling and palm swell at the entry thimble (AKA Brown Bess)  lead me to believe the musket was built for military purposes.  That certainly does not mean it could not have been assembled post Rev War.

Barrel
Still drawing a blank.  Here are my notes and thoughts:

Smooth bore 45 1/4" long with a bore of 0.780" + or - about 0.005".  Starts off octagon at the breech and smoothly transitions to round at about the 5" mark.  Has a continuous top flat (sighting plane measuring 1/2" wide at the breech and tapering to 0" at the muzzle.  The slim steel foresight is immediately behind the muzzle, which would imply the barrel had been shortened - presumably at the time this musket was assembled ( distance between nose cap and muzzle).  Has a narrow sighting groove measuring 2 1/2" long and extending from just ahead of the tang screw to a point approximately 1" up the barrel.  Has a flat applied rear sight at the immediate rear of the breech and straddling the breech plug. Aging appears about the same as that of the barrel and tang, but likely a later addition.
Marked "NH" on the left sloping flat of the barrel approximately 1" ahead of the breech and oriented in such a way that the butt faces left when reading (upside down).

" Most of the Dutch fowlers and muskets have round barrels of .75 to .80 calibre, which were usually pinned prior to the 1750s by which time three or four bands became typical."  [(1) accompanying article]

(1) NRA - Dutch Arms in the American Revolution   (https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/dutch-arms-in-the-american-revolution-1/)

I am thinking perhaps Dutch Fowling piece, but that is likely a wild eyed guess.

Upper thimble
I preface by saying I have handled a fair number of Brown Bess over the years and parted with two within the past month or so.  I laid this musket along side a Brown Bess at the time of purchase and the upper pipes could only be described as identical.

Middle Pipe
Faceted with single bands at ends.  Local American manufacture?  "The majority of  Dutch ramrod pipes accompanying pinned barrels were faceted" [(1) accompanying article]  I might have a better idea when the barrel has been removed and I can determine whether it is sheet or cast.

Entry Pipe
Appears to resemble those seen on British fowling pieces

Trigger Guard
[(7) Figure 11]  - "British Style (fowling piece) Trigger Guard"  Appears almost identical, but with a slightly different forward tang.  Could be either a British or American casting.

(7) Grinsdale, Tom - Eighteenth Century American Fowlers - The First Guns Made In America (https://americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2004-B89-Eighteenth-Century-American-Fowlers-The-.pdf)

Buttplate
[(18) No.6] " -  "Complete American Manufacture, c. 1770-1800"  "The locally created simple brass furniture also shows the design influence of Britain’s stepped butt tang (held here by two rear nails)"  Similar to the one on this musket, but with squared-off first step in tang and attached at tang with pin(s), rather than a screw.
[(7) Figure 12]  "British Style (fowler) Butt Plate"  Appears identical to the one on this musket, with the exception that the tang is not secured with a screw.
I believe it is a British fowling piece style cast in either Britian or America.

(18) NRA - American Muskets Of The Revolution (https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/american-muskets-of-the-revolution/

Side Plate
I do not have that in my research notes yet but, as previously discussed, It appears to be a dead ringer for that of a Frnce Charleville (model 1770/95?).

I would very much appreciate comments and rebuttals from one and all.

[bluenoser]

I have a request.
I continue to see the possibility, however remote, that this musket just might date to the Revolutionary War period.  That is primarily based on the "NH" stamp on the barrel, it's style and orientation.  I recognize some folks believe that is simply not the case.  I ask that, for the time being, those folks just let me continue to live in my fantasy.  We can address that a little later.
If anyone has irrefutable evidence that anything on this musket, other than the lock, could only post-date the Revolutionary period, please burst my bubble now.

I have removed the barrel and the buttplate.
I am now certain the stock is American cherry.
The barrel has four pins and the lugs are integral to the barrel.  The first five or so inches is only octagon on the upper five flats.  There are no markings on the underside - just a lot of file marks
The two original buttplate screws are clearly hand filed, presumably by either the builder, an apprentice or a girder.  The threads are reasonably deep.

I do not know when Gunsmiths in America started using machine cut wood screws, but see this as a potentially significant point.  I am sure some folks here know the answer.  I do know that widespread use of screws for carpentry didn't become practical until after 1760, when the first screw-making machinery was patented.  I believe partially machine-cut screws might have been readily available by at least the mid 1770's.  The end user needed to file the slot.

The hand filed screws are particularly interesting when considered in relation to the believed date of lock manufacture.  Surely, machine-cut screws were in wide circulation well before 1810, or even 1790.

That brings me around to the rabbit hole I had been hoping to avoid.  Is it possible the lock is not original to the musket and replaced a worn-out flint lock - perhaps at the time of conversion to percussion?  The lockplate has been reshaped.  Is it possible it was reshaped to fit an existing mortise?  The borders around the lock mortise are quite uniform and I have not noticed any areas where the mortise appears to have been enlarged.

[rich pierce]

Bluenoser, at some level, many things are possible. However it may prove impossible for your fellow ALR members to be open with their judgment regarding this gun and, at the same time, be boxed in to reinforcing your views on the era of the gun’s manufacture.

There is quite a small chance that with a gun like this, we could find a narrow range of dates that most serious students of firearms of the era would agree upon.

[bluenoser]

Rich,
I am afraid we disagree on that point.  In my opinion, I am not boxing other members in to reinforcing my views on the era of the gun’s manufacture.  I don't have a view on that.  I just see a possibility.  I am simply asking folks to ignore what could be a real can of worms for the time being and look at the gun as if it had no marking on the barrel.  My thinking is that, if folks conclude it could date that early based on all other criteria, we can then consider the validity of the marking.
It is simply an attempt to focus on the merits of the gun and not get side tracked by some marking on the barrel.

[bluenoser]

Rich,
I re-read the lead-in on post #28 and it could certainly have been better written.

[rich pierce]

Rich,
I re-read the lead-in on post #28 and it could certainly have been better written.

No worries! Best of luck in your investigation.

[LynnC]

I have been following this lock dating thread with interest. I would like to see much better photos of the lock plate that shows evidence of the “reshaping” to its current configuration. I have seen many a lock with rather crude border line engraving that plays out close to the edge of the plate especially toward the rear.

I am not an expert by any stretch but from the photos this lock plate looks to me like it is in its original configuration.

Better photos might help us all determine it age and originality.

[bluenoser]

I will see what I can do.  I have been reading a lot into the way the border peters out.  The draft in the areas that I believe were reshaped is substantially more pronounced than on the rest of the lock.  That increased draft starts pretty much exactly where the reshaping would have started.  I doubt the change in draft would show up in a photo, but will try.

I believe whether or not the plate has been reshaped might be a moot point with regard to discussion of the musket if folks determine the gun predates the lock.  That being the case, the lock would have to be a replacement.

[smart dog]

Hi,
As you first suggested, the forward ramrod pipes are from a British musket.  Also I believe the butt plate return has been reshaped just a little (sharpening the angles of the steps) and is from a British pattern 1759 marine or militia musket.  The overall shape of the face of the plate is correct and the position of the screw in the return is bang on.  It is just that the edges of the return were reshaped a little.  In fact, the pipes, butt plate and nose cap could all be from a pattern 1759 militia musket.  They were produced as late as 1776 and the militia muskets were issued to militias in Britain as late as 1798 I believe.  Parts from used up marine or militia muskets could easily have circulated in NA after the Rev War.  I recall seeing a composite American militia musket posted on this site that also had a marine or militia musket butt plate.  I can even suggest why the tang was reshaped.  As someone who builds a lot of muskets and British guns, the squared off steps are easier to fit than curved steps.  The local gun maker may have reshaped it to make the inletting job easier.     

dave

[bluenoser]

Thanks Dave,
A lot of great information there.  I expect to have Moller in hand today or tomorrow and, with luck, it will have good pics of the 1759.  I had discounted the middle pipe as being from a Bess since it is faceted and, as I recall, Bess pipes are barrel shaped.  Were the 1759 pipes faceted, or are you suggesting the center pipe has been reshaped or is my recollection off?  The info on the BP is a complete surprise.  How would the plate profile of the 1759 lock compare to the inlet on this musket?

Any thoughts on the hand-cut screws?

[bluenoser]

Something just occurred to me.
Since this musket appears to have a French side plate, I really should look into the possibility it just might have originally had a French lock.
Just thinking out loud here.

[smart dog]

Hi,
I didn't see the facets in the photos until I looked more closely, they are so rounded.  However, they look to be fairly crudely filed and could be altered musket pipes.  The heavy collars on the ends look like cast Bess pipes and the barrel shape could be lost if they were filed into facets. 

dave

[smart dog]

Hi,
Where do you get the idea the side plate is French?  If anything it matches a Dutch not French musket.

dave

[bluenoser]

My mistake!
You are absolutely correct.  The side plate was previously identified as being from a 1771-1795 Dutch musket.  I should be looking into Dutch locks rather than French.

[bluenoser]

I just took a closer look at the Dutch lock in Reply # 19.  It does appear to me that it just might be a pretty close match to the mortise on this musket.  Is that a possibility, or am I off in left field?  Does anyone know the dimensions of that Dutch lock?

[jdm]

In your search for an earlier lock keep in mind there does not appear to be would replaced around the lock  cavity.A larger earlier lock would not fit. From what I see this musket has all the signs of a post war  militia piece.  It's nice  but  In my opinion it wasn't at Bunker Hill.

[bluenoser]

No, it does not appear as though wood has been replaced or additional wood removed in the lock mortise.  That is likely the primary reason I did not even remotely consider the possibility of a replacement earlier on.  The suggested dating of the lock relative to other elements, such as the hand-filed screws, brought it back to mind.  There might well be no conflict there, but I considered it worth investigating.

Regarding an earlier lock:  I really have no information on the size of an earlier lock such as that of a 1771-1795 Dutch musket.  At 6 1/4" x 1 1/8", the current lock is fairly large and I thought it just might approximate that of an earlier lock.  Not so?

Do you have any thoughts regarding dates relative to the use of hand filed screws versus those partially produced by machine?

[jdm]

I have personally owned some 1830's rifles with hand made screws. I would guess it was up to the individual  time,expense,acess. I would assume they can be found on later guns also.

[bluenoser]

I am surprised at that late date, but it is not the first I have been surprised

[WESTbury]

Bluenoser,

The letters on the barrel, at the breech, are possibly "IGH". This barrel of this maybe a product of Liege. It is certainly a "mixed parts" musket. As mentioned earlier, the upper pipe is a Land Pattern type pipe as well as the end cap. After the Rev War, many of these militia muskets were assembled in New England. All of this has already been addressed repeatedly in this thread and its associated thread. 

[bluenoser]

LynnC,
Here are some pics.  They are the best I can do, but are unlikely to change the opinion of anyone who is of the opinion "it just cannot be".  All I can say is, to my mind, it certainly seems to be.
Image one showing a nick where things begin to change.  Actually, the pic shows the change in draft starting a little more toward the tumbler

Image two:  The chalked area along the edge is the oblique flat that extends around the unmodified portion of the plate.  Notice how it is getting narrower toward the rear.

Image three:  The chalked area along the edge is the rounded area.  Narrower and not an oblique flat.

Image four showing the change in draft:  Note how the edge to the rear appears thicker and also note the file marks.  The pic actually shows the change in draft starting a little forward of where I thought it was.  I over exposed this pic to better show the edge

[bluenoser]

WESTbury,
That is an excellent point.  Now that you mention it, I can kind of see a "G" in there.  Thank you for bringing it to my attention.  Perhaps we will eventually be able to identify the source of the barrel.  As I recall, that would just leave the trigger guard.

[Mike Brooks]

The trigger guard is english, post 1765. It's rather crude for english work which indicates to me a lesser grade of export gun. Generally, the acorn finial of this style, is connected with civilian guns.