Search results

If you want to go a higher end scope , Montana Vintage Arms will make them up to 36". I'm having one made for my original Billinghurst rifle now. They are a few months out on orders though.

I think you guys are right, but the stock to me is definately German or Dutch, with those stubby tear drops behind the lock mortice. It's like a mixture of everything. Still a really nice fusil!

It's a 1742 Pattern, with the lock by Jordan dated 1746. This one was used by the Royal Irish Regiment, the 18th.

If the stud was used for a sight, why in the heck would they have them set up like this? I can tell you that scope was way ahead of it's time and could extend the range of a Bess out to 60-70 yards. (sorry, just some dumb humor...)

That was a pretty good deal! I had just bought one or I would have been all over this one.

You're right. Also the German and Dutch military muskets are crazy large! This is on an early Dutch musket.

A really cool gun. I would say it's German or Dutch, maybe 1760ish. I only use that date because I have a military Rev. War Jaeger rifle with almost exactly the same lock. It could be earlier, though. German and Dutch guns can fool you. I have no idea about the barrel marks. I have seen several...

Very nice!

Yes it is, lol.

You are right. I had always wondered why Jess Melot had referred to this as a Short Land musket, when it clearly is reduced scale and smaller bore size. It never bothered me, in fact I thought it was pretty cool to have an early carbine built for a steel rod.

Here is my 1744 Short Land musket for Dragoons that I built several years ago. It is TRS parts and is .66 caliber, with 42" barrel. I showed it next to the original artillery carbine just to show size perspective. I wanted something that was reduced scale from a full-sized land pattern, yet...

You could well be right. They had to be getting paper thin. I bet that even if they did dovetail them they filled the area well. I have a 1776 Royal Artillery carbine that has had the muzzle dented and the sight was knocked off and you can definately see where it was filled in slightly around...

Looking at the Besses in my collection, I don't think they were dovetailed as much as they had a small flat filed at the postion where the sight sat. The barrels are pretty thin at that spot and I don't see dovetail cuts on any of these. I would think it would be nearly impossible to dovetail...

That's a good article!

It wasn't called a Brown Bess in period manuals either, yet here we are all referring to it as a Brown Bess. I know I'm kind of being a smart ass, but this is what my life has devolved to.. Come on Spring!

Oh whatever....You know I could pick up any number of books out of my library and they refer to it as a bayonet lug. Why would all of these authors call it a bayonet lug? You are correct in calling it a sight, but the point is that it is generally accepted practice to use the term bayonet lug...

But you know what we're talking about, right?

Ok, I gotcha. Personally, I think it comes down to general aesthetics. People find the Bess quite pleasing to the eye, at least I do. I'm a rifle person myself. I do enjoy playing with the smoothbores, but they more or less seem like a novelty, to some extent. I like them all, well except...

Amen brother!

You are absolutely right. I have been collecting originals and shooting repos since the 70's. In my experience there is nothing cooler than studying originals. But, a lot of the repos actually are better choices as far as fit and shootablity. As an example I have 1742 Pattern Bess built by G.L...