Yes, the 1756 stayed in production for the entire war and after.
Kibler Brown Bess?
- Thread starter Smokey Plainsman
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Because the Bess, or copies of it, were used by both sides. (Yes I am aware that some crown forces were issued captured French guns but those are unit specific)
Other than that, I have a slight preference for the French patterns.
One each from both sides?
For the same reasons many Rev War troops ditched their French guns when they had a chance to pick up a captured Bess.
Sea Service Bess with the slightly shorter barrel so I could portray a Pirate.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,407
- Reaction score
- 2,203
It would be great to have a Brown Bess in 20 gauge. He already has 20 gauge smoothbore barrels for his new smoothbore line. A more effective roundball with less lead to waste.
Ohio Rusty ><>
Ohio Rusty ><>
Last edited:
Kiber is going to replace Italian Arms makers...eventually? maybe?
OOPs! and indian Musketts...
OOPs! and indian Musketts...
Last edited:
Bombay is reeling at the thought of quality Musketts from Kibler
Well what Jim actually actually asked was in the context of the 250th Anniversary coming up if there would be interest in an AWI era Brown Bess, which, to my mind at least, would eliminate anything that’s not a Brown Bess from contention. 
Beyond that, it should realistically also eliminate the Third Model Bess, and narrowly limit the appeal of the Second Model Bess unless you are a British reenactor, or you want to try to argue that you have a “battlefield pickup”, or you’re kitbashing it into a COS or militia musket.
So that really leaves only the Long Land patterns, 1730/40, 1742, and 1756. The patterns 1742 and 1756 would likely be the most common on the US side in the AWI. But the 1730/40 or maybe the 1742 gets my vote because you could probably get away with using it for F&I era as well. Choice of wood or steel ramrod would be
.
YMMV…
Beyond that, it should realistically also eliminate the Third Model Bess, and narrowly limit the appeal of the Second Model Bess unless you are a British reenactor, or you want to try to argue that you have a “battlefield pickup”, or you’re kitbashing it into a COS or militia musket.
So that really leaves only the Long Land patterns, 1730/40, 1742, and 1756. The patterns 1742 and 1756 would likely be the most common on the US side in the AWI. But the 1730/40 or maybe the 1742 gets my vote because you could probably get away with using it for F&I era as well. Choice of wood or steel ramrod would be
.YMMV…
Last edited:
The 1756 was the current version used by the British troops in 1775. The 1769 came over with the first big push. The 1777 was also here shortly after introduction. The American war caused a massive build up and greatly strained the Ordnance system. The antiquated overarching 1,2&3 model system really does need to be dropped at this point.Well what Jim actually ACTUALLY asked was if there would be interest in an AWI era Brown Bess given the upcoming anniversary, which, to my mind at least, would eliminate anything that’s not a Brown Bess from contention.
Beyond that, it also eliminates the Third Model Bess, and narrowly limits use of the Second Model Bess unless you are a British reenactor, or you want to try to argue that you have a “battlefield pickup”, or you’re kitbashing it into a COS or militia musket. So that leaves only the Long Land patterns, 1730/40, 1742, and 1756. The patterns 1742 and 1756 would be the most common on the US side in the AWI. The 30/40 or 1742 gets my vote because you could probably get away with using it for F&I era as well. Choice of wood or steel ramrod would be
YMMV…
Then it wouldn't be a Brown Bess. It would be a fowler.
FlinterNick
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2018
- Messages
- 3,897
- Reaction score
- 2,929
Carbines and fusils were in 18-20 gauge
FlinterNick
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2018
- Messages
- 3,897
- Reaction score
- 2,929
Light infantry fusils were abundant during the war
FlinterNick
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2018
- Messages
- 3,897
- Reaction score
- 2,929
There are preferences for both, it’s not an either or scenario. Each has some advantages over the other. For reproducing it Navy Arms offered an excellent 1763/66 Charleville that is still going strong nearly 50 years after its initial introduction.
The company that made those Miroku made an excellent lock, barrel and hardware. Where they cut some of the costs was in the stock which was made of some very low quality birch. I know for a fact that most people that have these guns desperately want to restock them into a higher quality wood. They were absolutely very popular and still are today. There is a huge market void for those as well.
My thought on it though is a long land Bess would certainly be more desirable amongst the reenactment community headed into the 250th, the charlevilles will still be there and desirable long after that.
FlinterNick
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2018
- Messages
- 3,897
- Reaction score
- 2,929
Soldiers could just ditch their Charleville for a Bess ?
When you have to report for inspection what do you tell the armor where your charleville is that congress purchased on credit ? Laying on the battlefield next to a dead redcoat?
I doubt it happened that way, there would have been consequences to the soldier and they very much preferred charlevilles over the Bess simply because they were much lighter.
Either way my vote is for a long land brown Bess.
Last edited:
It would be really cool if Jim offered a Brown Bess kit.
However if he does I hope it’s after he makes the Hawken kit he has mentioned!
However if he does I hope it’s after he makes the Hawken kit he has mentioned!
