TOW Willits Brown Bess Lock

[FlinterNick]

The Willits Brown Bess 1742 lock has always been a kind of mystery, since there are no records of Willits making a 1742 lock.

After measuring a Rifle Shoppe 1742 kit i have, some facts. The 1742 Tower lock is larger than the Willits lock and the banana curve is deeper.

I happened to compare the Willits lock to a Regimental Contract lock marked Clinton, and the specs are nearly identical. These locks have some similarities and minor differences, the internal parts of the TOW lock are a little smaller with a larger mainspring.

Per the owner of the Rifle Shoppe, the Willits lock was designed by himself and the molds were sold TOW many years ago.

And the TOW 1742 long land is what was described to me as a beefed up Regimental Contract Musket, while many of the features are nearly the same as a 1742 the musket itself is actually intended to be slimmer in proportion to an actual 1742 long land (mostly in the stock design).

Ironically TOW’s catalog does state that the Clinton lock by TRS will drop into the TOW bess stock.

So if anyone is looking for a more authentically marked lockplate, the Clinton lock may work.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Nick,
Good detective work. I don't think there are any locks marked "Willets" that predate 1762. Your post should remind folks who care about historical accuracy that they need to do careful research and never trust the catalogs as primary sources.

dave

 

[FlinterNick]

Hi Nick,
Good detective work. I don't think there are any locks marked "Willets" that predate 1762. Your post should remind folks who care about historical accuracy that they need to do careful research and never trust the catalogs as primary sources.

dave

Thanks Dave

Now I’m very intrigued into having a period correct regimental contract Brown Bess, which i had always assumed was a Wilson musket, I couldn’t find the name Clinton in any sources i have, going to keep searching.

 

[Artificer]

Hi Nick,

On Clinton..........

I checked English Gunmakers: The Birmingham and Provincial Gun Trade in the 18th and 19th Century Hardcover – by De Witt Bailey, Douglas A. Nie and it's not there or other sources I have.

I'm wondering since a major branch of the Clintons moved to Ireland in the 1650's, if that is an Irish Lock?

Maybe David Minshall has something on Clinton?

Gus

​

 

[FlinterNick]

Hi Nick,

On Clinton..........

I checked English Gunmakers: The Birmingham and Provincial Gun Trade in the 18th and 19th Century Hardcover – by De Witt Bailey, Douglas A. Nie and it's not there or other sources I have.

I'm wondering since a major branch of the Clintons moved to Ireland in the 1650's, if that is an Irish Lock?

Maybe David Minshall has something on Clinton?

Gus

​

Hi Gus, that’s very possible that this Gunmaker was an Irish maker, that would explain why the lock is somewhat smalller than a regular 1742 lock but not in carbine size, its just over 6 1/2 inches, a regular long land is around 6 7/8 to 7”.

I did manage to find a 1747 Willits lock that was used on a short land musket for Dragoons (Moller, page 225, Volume 1) there’s a picture with no specifications as to the dimensions, i’d imagine the lock was somewhat smaller.

Moller does state that Willits was contracted to make a type 2 long land musket which would have been the 1748-1755 patterns (page 219, vol 1). That woudln’t explain the lock plate being smaller though, even on the so called transitional long (steel rammer 1742) lands, those 1742 locks were full sized.

So far for commercial muskets, the following names popped up, J.Hall, Wilson and Smith. This research definitely has me leaning towards doing some defarb work on my TOW long land. I’m leaning towards just keeping in generic, with Tower.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Gus,
Unfortunately, Nie and Bailey does not go back very far in the 18th century. They relied on business directories, which don't cover everyone or the entire century.

dave

 

[florkinliege]

Gents,
Colonial Williamsburg has a p42 Bess they purchased in 1935 with a Willets 1746 marked lock. There is at least another Willets lock in a dragoon musket with 1747.

 

[boman]

Gents,
Colonial Williamsburg has a p42 Bess they purchased in 1935 with a Willets 1746 marked lock. There is at least another Willets lock in a dragoon musket with 1747.

Sir, might I ask how you know this information and any particulars on the Williamsburg long land musket with the Willits lock? I know the foundation purchased an extensive collection of English muskets from an estate in England in 1935 but have only studied those that I can research from their online collections. I am familiar with the short land dragoon with the Willits lock.



Steve

 

[FlinterNick]

Sir, might I ask how you know this information and any particulars on the Williamsburg long land musket with the Willits lock? I know the foundation purchased an extensive collection of English muskets from an estate in England in 1935 but have only studied those that I can research from their online collections. I am familiar with the short land dragoon with the Willits lock.



Steve

Hi Steve

I’ve built a TOW Wilets long land musket and have worked on a few Rifle Shoppe 42’s since then.

One thing i can say for sure about the TOW Wilets lock is that it’s not a full sized infantry musket lock, its about 6 1/2 in length, TOW’s website has its size very wrong.

The Rifle Shoppe 1742 lock is considerably longer and wider and the plate is thicker.

My personal opinion is that the Wilets 1746 lock is not really a true land pattern musket lock, but is likely a surplus lock made for contract muskets, or Carbines.

It’s not likely that its an actual land pattern lock as its not a designated lock in any well researched book.

Bailey has one example of this lock and it’s listed as a dragoon lock.

Jess Melot of the Rifle Shoppe stated that he made the moulds for Track of the Wolf and its intended for his Regimental Contract Musket which uses a lock marked Clinton.

I’m not very well versed on exactly what regimental contract muskets are, and there is very little documentation on them.

While I think its dangerous to assume facts… I will do it here and say its likely that Regimental Contract muskets were intended to fill supply shortages by approving contracts with lock makers, rough stockers and casters and barrel makers.

Say BW gets a contract to build and set aside 500 locks in 1746 … just in case Englands arms contracts fail to meet supply or if war demand increases.

That’s my best assumption on what regimental contract muskets were.

 

[florkinliege]

boman said:

Sir, might I ask how you know this information and any particulars on the Williamsburg long land musket with the Willits lock? I know the foundation purchased an extensive collection of English muskets from an estate in England in 1935 but have only studied those that I can research from their online collections. I am familiar with the short land dragoon with the Willits lock.


Steve,
The Williamsburg Emuseum database isn't complete as to all of their holdings, not everything is online. This particular gun (accession # 1935-294) was purchased in Portsmouth Va in 1935. The barrel was cut down during it's working life to in front of the forward rammer pipe. Other than being shortened a little it looks like one would expect a p42 Long land.

 

[florkinliege]

Hi Steve

I’ve built a TOW Wilets long land musket and have worked on a few Rifle Shoppe 42’s since then.

One thing i can say for sure about the TOW Wilets lock is that it’s not a full sized infantry musket lock, its about 6 1/2 in length, TOW’s website has its size very wrong.

The Rifle Shoppe 1742 lock is considerably longer and wider and the plate is thicker.

My personal opinion is that the Wilets 1746 lock is not really a true land pattern musket lock, but is likely a surplus lock made for contract muskets, or Carbines.

It’s not likely that its an actual land pattern lock as its not a designated lock in any well researched book.

Bailey has one example of this lock and it’s listed as a dragoon lock.

Jess Melot of the Rifle Shoppe stated that he made the moulds for Track of the Wolf and its intended for his Regimental Contract Musket which uses a lock marked Clinton.

I’m not very well versed on exactly what regimental contract muskets are, and there is very little documentation on them.

While I think its dangerous to assume facts… I will do it here and say its likely that Regimental Contract muskets were intended to fill supply shortages by approving contracts with lock makers, rough stockers and casters and barrel makers.

Say BW gets a contract to build and set aside 500 locks in 1746 … just in case Englands arms contracts fail to meet supply or if war demand increases.

That’s my best assumption on what regimental contract muskets were.

A pre 1730s Colonel's purchase gun is a different animal than later "King's pattern" procurement. From my understanding, there is no such thing as a "regimental contract" musket after say the p1730s, but that was the system in some cases prior to the "King's pattern". By the time a pattern gun was adopted, Ordnance contracts went out, individual parts lots went into the Tower (500 locks, 500 barrels and etc) then sub assemblies went back out to be rough stocked and set up. Colonel's purchase infantry arms ended in British service well prior to the p42s, and commercial muskets are a whole other ball of wax. A quick look online turns up backwards compatibility of the repro TOW Willets mainspring with TRS "1726 Clinton" locks; likely made with same internals.

 

[boman]

Hi Steve

I’ve built a TOW Wilets long land musket and have worked on a few Rifle Shoppe 42’s since then.

One thing i can say for sure about the TOW Wilets lock is that it’s not a full sized infantry musket lock, its about 6 1/2 in length, TOW’s website has its size very wrong.

The Rifle Shoppe 1742 lock is considerably longer and wider and the plate is thicker.

My personal opinion is that the Wilets 1746 lock is not really a true land pattern musket lock, but is likely a surplus lock made for contract muskets, or Carbines.

It’s not likely that its an actual land pattern lock as its not a designated lock in any well researched book.

Bailey has one example of this lock and it’s listed as a dragoon lock.

Jess Melot of the Rifle Shoppe stated that he made the moulds for Track of the Wolf and its intended for his Regimental Contract Musket which uses a lock marked Clinton.

I’m not very well versed on exactly what regimental contract muskets are, and there is very little documentation on them.

While I think its dangerous to assume facts… I will do it here and say its likely that Regimental Contract muskets were intended to fill supply shortages by approving contracts with lock makers, rough stockers and casters and barrel makers.

Say BW gets a contract to build and set aside 500 locks in 1746 … just in case Englands arms contracts fail to meet supply or if war demand increases.

That’s my best assumption on what regimental contract muskets were.

Nick, thanks for your reply. I too have a musket I built from TOW parts. Also a 1756 pattern long land built with TRS parts and two Pistor Jaegers from TRS. My Willets lock has the french internals that Dave at TOW originally sold with the plate, including the short mainspring. lockplate is 6 3/4.

I don't disagree with any assumptions in this thread, just here to glean more info, hence my previous post. I hope florkinliege replys.

FWIW, let me share my knowledge on contract muskets. I believe there were two types:

!. Regimental Contracts. These began When the "Purchase System" was in effect. the colonel of a regt. controlled the purse strings and was responsible for equipping his regiment and could engage in"contracts" for arms, uniforms, equipment etc. the system was really loose, an englishman with money could form his own regiment and comissions were regularly bought and sold like a stock exchange. It got so bad King George had an order decreed in 1722 that the colonels who desired to buy their own muskets could do so only after inspection by "Proper Officers of Ordnance". The muskets would also have to be made to a specific pattern. Hence the beginning of the ordinance system of manufacture, (and the end of a lot of graft) LOL

2. Regular contract. this I believe is what you speculate on and I agree that contracts were let in times of perceived need or actual need, such as prior to and during a war.

As far as lock and barrel contracts, I believe there were a certain amount of both constantly on order and stored in ordinance reserves until a musket order was let. then said locks and barrels were sent to the "roughstocker" with the sealed pattern(if he didn"t already have one). When the musket was completed it was returned to the "Tower" and upon reception and inspection recieved a final acceptance mark behind the triggerguard. Obviously orders/contracts for locks, barrels, hardware increased or decreased depending on state of war and/or new specifications for units.

Back to Willets. Does the picture you have of the short land/dragoon with the Willets marked lock show the lock bridle missing ground off? If so that musket is exactly the same as a long land except for a 42 in barrel according to Darling. prior to 1747 all dragoons were issued land pattern muskets and a reorganization that year specified a shorter 42 in barrel also according to Darling.

Steve












I

 

[boman]

boman said:

Sir, might I ask how you know this information and any particulars on the Williamsburg long land musket with the Willits lock? I know the foundation purchased an extensive collection of English muskets from an estate in England in 1935 but have only studied those that I can research from their online collections. I am familiar with the short land dragoon with the Willits lock.


Steve,
The Williamsburg Emuseum database isn't complete as to all of their holdings, not everything is online. This particular gun (accession # 1935-294) was purchased in Portsmouth Va in 1935. The barrel was cut down during it's working life to in front of the forward rammer pipe. Other than being shortened a little it looks like one would expect a p42 Long land.

View attachment 199308

Thank you very much. I figured not everything was catalogued online and hoped you had more information. verifys that a long land pattern with a Willets lock does and did exist. Now if we only had the dragoon lock and the lock off this musket to compare side by side---
could clear up some speculation LOL

 

[boman]

Nick, I was too busy typing to see florkinliege's reply to your post. LOL he's correct in that there was also a commercial contract, so I guess 3 types It's my undrestanding both New Jersey and New York ordered muskets when they were colonies from the arms makers in England had nothing to do with British government ordinance system.

Steve

 

[FlinterNick]

Nick, thanks for your reply. I too have a musket I built from TOW parts. Also a 1756 pattern long land built with TRS parts and two Pistor Jaegers from TRS. My Willets lock has the french internals that Dave at TOW originally sold with the plate, including the short mainspring. lockplate is 6 3/4.

I don't disagree with any assumptions in this thread, just here to glean more info, hence my previous post. I hope florkinliege replys.

FWIW, let me share my knowledge on contract muskets. I believe there were two types:

!. Regimental Contracts. These began When the "Purchase System" was in effect. the colonel of a regt. controlled the purse strings and was responsible for equipping his regiment and could engage in"contracts" for arms, uniforms, equipment etc. the system was really loose, an englishman with money could form his own regiment and comissions were regularly bought and sold like a stock exchange. It got so bad King George had an order decreed in 1722 that the colonels who desired to buy their own muskets could do so only after inspection by "Proper Officers of Ordnance". The muskets would also have to be made to a specific pattern. Hence the beginning of the ordinance system of manufacture, (and the end of a lot of graft) LOL

2. Regular contract. this I believe is what you speculate on and I agree that contracts were let in times of perceived need or actual need, such as prior to and during a war.

As far as lock and barrel contracts, I believe there were a certain amount of both constantly on order and stored in ordinance reserves until a musket order was let. then said locks and barrels were sent to the "roughstocker" with the sealed pattern(if he didn"t already have one). When the musket was completed it was returned to the "Tower" and upon reception and inspection recieved a final acceptance mark behind the triggerguard. Obviously orders/contracts for locks, barrels, hardware increased or decreased depending on state of war and/or new specifications for units.

Back to Willets. Does the picture you have of the short land/dragoon with the Willets marked lock show the lock bridle missing ground off? If so that musket is exactly the same as a long land except for a 42 in barrel according to Darling. prior to 1747 all dragoons were issued land pattern muskets and a reorganization that year specified a shorter 42 in barrel also according to Darling.

Steve












I

Yes it’s missing the pan bridle, I’m guessing that it was removed for some reason.

 

[FlinterNick]

Nick, thanks for your reply. I too have a musket I built from TOW parts. Also a 1756 pattern long land built with TRS parts and two Pistor Jaegers from TRS. My Willets lock has the french internals that Dave at TOW originally sold with the plate, including the short mainspring. lockplate is 6 3/4.

I don't disagree with any assumptions in this thread, just here to glean more info, hence my previous post. I hope florkinliege replys.

FWIW, let me share my knowledge on contract muskets. I believe there were two types:

!. Regimental Contracts. These began When the "Purchase System" was in effect. the colonel of a regt. controlled the purse strings and was responsible for equipping his regiment and could engage in"contracts" for arms, uniforms, equipment etc. the system was really loose, an englishman with money could form his own regiment and comissions were regularly bought and sold like a stock exchange. It got so bad King George had an order decreed in 1722 that the colonels who desired to buy their own muskets could do so only after inspection by "Proper Officers of Ordnance". The muskets would also have to be made to a specific pattern. Hence the beginning of the ordinance system of manufacture, (and the end of a lot of graft) LOL

2. Regular contract. this I believe is what you speculate on and I agree that contracts were let in times of perceived need or actual need, such as prior to and during a war.

As far as lock and barrel contracts, I believe there were a certain amount of both constantly on order and stored in ordinance reserves until a musket order was let. then said locks and barrels were sent to the "roughstocker" with the sealed pattern(if he didn"t already have one). When the musket was completed it was returned to the "Tower" and upon reception and inspection recieved a final acceptance mark behind the triggerguard. Obviously orders/contracts for locks, barrels, hardware increased or decreased depending on state of war and/or new specifications for units.

Back to Willets. Does the picture you have of the short land/dragoon with the Willets marked lock show the lock bridle missing ground off? If so that musket is exactly the same as a long land except for a 42 in barrel according to Darling. prior to 1747 all dragoons were issued land pattern muskets and a reorganization that year specified a shorter 42 in barrel also according to Darling.

Steve












I

Odd, perhaps when TOW moved the Wilets lock over to a machinist to assemble the lock plate shrunk with the castings. But my TOW is smaller than TRS 1742’s lock parts, smaller in almost every way other than the **** and pan and frizzen, and mainspring. The internals are smaller, and the sear spring is slightly shorter because the plate is shorter.

Jess Melot stated that the Wilets lock by Track of the Wolt was custom designed by him from his regimental contract musket lock, not from an actual original lock, he made the plate, ****, frizzen, and frizzen spring moulds. TOW purchased the Moulds from C&D Jernigan whom Jess made them for and then used copies of Miroku Charleville internals at first, but then moved on over to machined parts based on the Clinton Lock. C&D Jernigan’s long land project was very short lived, only lasted around 3 years, I’m guessing they possibly made a few hundred or less, they did charge a high price back in the 1990s , 3500 was very high for a long land.

The way Jess described the regimental contract lock marked Clinton was it was a surplus lock, some sat around and were never even used. Jess stated that he’s seen similar locks marked with Beligian stamps and a removable pan, many of these were sold out for private contract muskets.

But one thing i can say for sure is the Wilets lock by TOW is not a copy of any direct original, it’s a compilation of moulds and patterns that evolved into what it is now. The assertion that is a copy of a pattern 1742 musket lock is false.

 

[PathfinderNC]

Following

 

[boman]

Nick, thanks for your reply. I too have a musket I built from TOW parts. Also a 1756 pattern long land built with TRS parts and two Pistor Jaegers from TRS. My Willets lock has the french internals that Dave at TOW originally sold with the plate, including the short mainspring. lockplate is 6 3/4.

Correction---I remeasured the lock plate, took it out of the gun, and it is actually 6 5/8, which should be 1/4 inch shorter than the Jordan plate for all you guys following. Nick, I built this lock back around 1998/99? with raw castings supplied by TOW. At the time I wanted a long land pattern representative of the 1000 in Braddocks stores for the two colonial regiments to be raised when he got to America and TOW was the only game in town short of a 6 to 8mo wait from TRS. I didn't care then nor really care now as to it being absolutely authentic. It passes the "six foot test"--LOL-- for reenactors.
I don't know anything about the history of the molds, machined parts etc other than what I've read on here and always assumed they originated with TRS in one way or another. I can say that the castings I received were very poor with no holes spotted and lots of carbide inclusions and it was pretty obvious the spring castings were from another pattern. The lock was a PIA to build compared to the 1756 pattern lock and the two pistor locks I got from TRS around 2002. see pic,

s

Getting back to "period correctness" I will say that I don't put much faith in the info you recieved from Jess about the Jordan marked lock. First of all if he made the TOW lock mold from that lock how does one explain the difference in size. He may have made the molds from and original but how he assigned that lock to a "regimental contract musket" I have no idea and don't care to speculate.
If "period correctness" is a concern, and since the TOW lock is undersized, one could order a 1742 lock, Jess lists three different plates and any of them should measure real close to the Jordan, and one of those should fill the existing mortise with additional inletting, provided one left enough wood around the original inlet.

Steve

 

[FlinterNick]

Nick, thanks for your reply. I too have a musket I built from TOW parts. Also a 1756 pattern long land built with TRS parts and two Pistor Jaegers from TRS. My Willets lock has the french internals that Dave at TOW originally sold with the plate, including the short mainspring. lockplate is 6 3/4.
View attachment 199479
Correction---I remeasured the lock plate, took it out of the gun, and it is actually 6 5/8, which should be 1/4 inch shorter than the Jordan plate for all you guys following. Nick, I built this lock back around 1998/99? with raw castings supplied by TOW. At the time I wanted a long land pattern representative of the 1000 in Braddocks stores for the two colonial regiments to be raised when he got to America and TOW was the only game in town short of a 6 to 8mo wait from TRS. I didn't care then nor really care now as to it being absolutely authentic. It passes the "six foot test"--LOL-- for reenactors.
I don't know anything about the history of the molds, machined parts etc other than what I've read on here and always assumed they originated with TRS in one way or another. I can say that the castings I received were very poor with no holes spotted and lots of carbide inclusions and it was pretty obvious the spring castings were from another pattern. The lock was a PIA to build compared to the 1756 pattern lock and the two pistor locks I got from TRS around 2002. see pic,

s

Getting back to "period correctness" I will say that I don't put much faith in the info you recieved from Jess about the Jordan marked lock. First of all if he made the TOW lock mold from that lock how does one explain the difference in size. He may have made the molds from and original but how he assigned that lock to a "regimental contract musket" I have no idea and don't care to speculate.
If "period correctness" is a concern, and since the TOW lock is undersized, one could order a 1742 lock, Jess lists three different plates and any of them should measure real close to the Jordan, and one of those should fill the existing mortise with additional inletting, provided one left enough wood around the original inlet.

Steve

Hi steve

The rifle Shoppe doesn’t have a Jordan marked 1742 lock.

And the TRS 1742 lock will not work bc of the lock dimensions are different in length width and internal positioning.

In mould making you can manipulate a wax casting by adding wax or carving. Jess Melot is an expert at lost wax casting, you’d better believe that he could make a custom mould.

 

[boman]

Hi steve

The rifle Shoppe doesn’t have a Jordan marked 1742 lock.

I know that, and never suggested one use the that lock, you're the one that originally suggested that plate might work in a TOW Willets mortise.
I suggested any of the 3 1742 locks listed on page 36 of the 2007-2008 catalogue might work

And the TRS 1742 lock will not work bc of the lock dimensions are different in length width and internal positioning.

So you're saying that theirs interference with the internals, I presume either barrel or trigger position??? or the shape of TRS 1742 locks won't overlap a Willits mortise? please advise

In mould making you can manipulate a wax casting by adding wax or carving. Jess Melot is an expert at lost wax casting, you’d better believe that he could make a custom mould.

No doubt, and I'm very familiar with all the nuiances of lost wax casting. don't know why you added this comment unless you were reading the part of my post about doubting some of what Jess told you---see below

quote from you in post nine "Steve, Jess Melot of the Rifle Shoppe stated that he made the moulds for Track of the Wolf and its intended for his Regimental Contract Musket which uses a lock marked Clinton."
If he knew what he was talking about why would he use a lock that's clearly undersize for a so called "regimental contract musket".----simply because it had a 1728 date? pretty weak IMHO

Steve