Hi,
Princeton was in January 1777 not 1776. Long lands were the norm for the first year or so but short land muskets replaced most of them by 1777. I hope Jim uses a good model and reproduces it exactly correct. Otherwise, why reproduce the musket? All of the current commercially made guns are poor reproductions. I hope Jim doesn't just add to those poor repros trying to either save money or make the gun more palatable to modern shooters. That would make the whole project a waste of time. I also urge him not to base it on one example and do the research. Now remember, no pattern 1756 muskets were used in America during the French and Indian War. Second, the vast majority of those used during the American Revolution were made after 1764 when Ordnance stopped marking the locks with dates and contractor names. If a British issued musket during the Rev war, it will be marked "TOWER" or "DUBLIN CASTLE" and no date. My advice to Jim or anyone else is do it right or don't do it at all. The 40th regiment received complete new arms in March 1775 from Dublin Castle, and again on Aug 30, 1775 possibly from the Tower. None would be marked "Grice" and dated 1756. So no 40th regiment soldier at Princeton would have a "Grice 1756" marked musket. It could be from their attack on Havana in the 176o's, which also included American provincial troops.
dave
Well, friend Dog, you caught me in the first error I've committed this year; Princeton was indeed fought in 1777. Regarding the question of whether or not a Grunt in the 40th Regiment of Foot would have had a 1759-dated Long Land musket amongst those Long Lands they carried at Princeton in 1777, I suspect we're reading the same sources: "The Brown Bess" by Goldstein & Mowbray and "Small Arms of the British Forces in America 1764-1815" by the late, great DeWitt Bailey. I was troubled by the chart on page 313 of Bailey, showing musket issues to the 40th prior to and during their stint of service in America. I attempted to contact Bailey on the subject, but, alas, he was at the time living a reduced life in a rest home. Subsequently, I had occasion to raise my concern with the historian and artist Don Troiani, who, as an aside, provided illustrations for Bailey's book. Troiani interpreted the Bailey chart for me. The 40th received a general issue of 441 Long Lands in 1764. This likely included my musket, assembled in or after 1759. In 1770 the 40th received a partial issue of Dublin Castle muskets, perhaps for new men. Again, twice in 1775 and again in 1778 (source of the 1778 weapon issue unknown) they received partial issue of Dublin Castle muskets to replace individual muskets worn in service and to augment their existing issue. He assured me there was no reason to suspect my Grice musket wasn't pointed at Washington's forces in 1777. Further, I mooted to him the thought I was entertaining of sin of having my Grice's steel parts struck bright to match the condition of almost all P.1756 muskets illustrated in Bailey and Goldstein & Mowbrey's books. Troani indicated that most all bright P.1756 muskets have come from Britain in historically recent times. Most all '56s boasting patina with dark iron, like mine, have been winkled-out in America. This, and the fact mine came out of New Jersey, where the 40th lost a number of Long Lands by capture, would be evidence mine changed sides in during the war and, perhaps, on the Princeton battlefield. As to the propriety of issuing a P.1756 Long Land replica to commemorate our Revolution, to quote Goldstein & Mowbray on page 62, answering the question of why the P.1756 is "the leader of the pack" (their words) in importance of Brown Bess patterns, they write: "The Pattern 1756 is simply 'the' pattern of musket carried by Crown forces at the onset of the American Revolution"...to which, may be added, a major pattern carried by both Tory and Patriot forces, by issue or capture. As to the cautions you articulate to Jim Kibler, I have no insight into what markings or variety of markings he'll choose for his product. Otherwise, I expect readers of this thread who are familiar with the painfully precise work he achieves will not doubt this will be the best 'Bess replica ever.
Attempted to feel-out Bailey on the
