I need some help here. I've read here and on several other forums that the Pedersoli 2nd Model Brown Bess is not a correct version of the Short Land Pattern Musket. Can someone tell me what is wrong with it? I have Anthony Darling's "Red Coat and Brown Bess", Ahearn's "Muskets of the Revolution and the French & Indian Wars", and Neumann's "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution." Maybe I'm not looking in the right place. I hate to show my ignorance, but just can't find the info I'm looking for.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Authenticity of Pedersoli Bess
- Thread starter scroggwe
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Except for a couple errors, the Pedersoli is a relatively close copy of the first type Short Land, New Pattern (often called 2nd model). Granted the screws are probably metric and things like that, the musket is fairly accurate with the proper styled and shaped lock and stock. The two obvious faults are the "ears" at the rear of the lock and side-lock panels which had become mere projections by that time and the mismarked lock. The Ordnance Board had mandated locks be marked "Tower" and not the makers name prior to the beginning of the manufacture of the model. It probably wouldn't have been possible to back-fit a maker's marked lock since they would have been more "banana" shaped, being late Long Land Pattern production. This could be changed and be fairly correct since the lock has the correct engraving on lock face and frizzen front, single screw through behind the hammer for sear, tip on top of frizzen arm above frizzen spring bolt, correct type hammer with proper flint cap styling and flat lock bottom. Another minor touch would be to lower the height of the tang surround, originals didn't stand as tall as the modern copies. A little rework would make the gun a descent copy of the guns produced up until about 1775 when some changes appeared in lock style and ramrod guides. Hope this helps.
I agree with Wes here and would add that the so called "2nd Model Brown Bess" should be more correctly referred to as the Short Land Pattern musket which was introduced Ca.1744 as a Dragoon weapon and wasn't issued as an Infantry arm until Ca.1769,De Witt Bailey,Ph.D.,"Pattern Dates for British Ordnance Small Arms 1718-1783" P.57.This gun is therefore not appropriate for the F&I War. Reenactors have been forced into using it for that period simply because there were no commercially made Long Land Pattern muskets available.We had Kit Ravenshear convert a Short Land Pattern into a Long land Pattern although the barrel length remained at 42".Since Long Land Pattern muskets with 42-46" barrels are not excssively rare,the conversion worked very well for Indian use.A number of 2-4" barrel sections have been found on Rogers Island indicating that barrel shortening of 2-4" was not all that unusual.What is very rare are the so called "Ranger Muskets" and "Bess Trade Muskets with barrels less than 40" in length.These along with "Blanket" and "Canoe Guns" are really just fantasy guns.
Tom Patton
Tom Patton
The Pedersoli is a pretty fair facsimile of Bailey's 1769 pattern short land. Would be better without the "1762" on the tail of the lock plate and the side plate should be convex not flat. As Wes has pointed out, the lock panel moldings are overstated. For the AWI reenactor I think it is a great choice. Only whackos like myself might notice the minor discrepancies. With this musket on your shoulder you would be pretty darn authentic as a continental or a bloody back.
I happened to be at Cabelas the other day where they always seem to have one on the black powder rack. Just about everyone who sees it takes it down and puts it on their shoulder probably because for them it is a novelty. I looked it over and was impressed by the workmanship.
I happened to be at Cabelas the other day where they always seem to have one on the black powder rack. Just about everyone who sees it takes it down and puts it on their shoulder probably because for them it is a novelty. I looked it over and was impressed by the workmanship.
Hey guys, thanks for the responses! After reading your responses, I went back to Darling's book and Ahearn's book and now I'm still confused as to the contemporary names of these muskets. Darling states that the contemporary name of the Short Land was "Short Land Service Musket (New Pattern)". Then in the same paragraph he calls them "Short Land Pattern Muskets." He does the same thing for the Long Land Muskets; "Long Land Service" and then in the same paragraph or same page "Long Land Pattern."
In Ahearn's book, he calls them "Long Land Musket Pattern of 1730", "Long Land Musket Pattern of 1742" and so on. Ahearn's method actually makes more sense to me. Also the Musket that Ahearn calls the Pattern 1730 seems to be the same musket that everyone else calls the Pattern 1728!
Oh my head hurts!!!! :redface: I'm confused here guys.
In Ahearn's book, he calls them "Long Land Musket Pattern of 1730", "Long Land Musket Pattern of 1742" and so on. Ahearn's method actually makes more sense to me. Also the Musket that Ahearn calls the Pattern 1730 seems to be the same musket that everyone else calls the Pattern 1728!
Oh my head hurts!!!! :redface: I'm confused here guys.
We have to keep in mind that the assingment of dates like "Model of 1730" is a modern collector convenience. The 18th century was no where near that precise and used terms like "Short Land Pattern" or "New Pattern" etc...the differences are often confusing. Add to that the fact that the conception of uniformity accepted in the 18th century is much different than we tend to think of it today...a difference of half an inch in barrel length meant nearly nothing to them. The situation is further complicated in that many arms were repaired and/or rebuilt in period and even more have been badly "restored" in modern times, often by well meaning people acting on faulty information. Its a mess...
Generally I prefer DeWitt Bailey's designations but there is room for a really comprehensive new work on the subject.
Joe Puleo
Generally I prefer DeWitt Bailey's designations but there is room for a really comprehensive new work on the subject.
Joe Puleo
Agree that these terms can be confusing. To the Ordnance Board at the time, the muskets would probably be known as Land Service Pattern to differentuate them from Sea Service Pattern muskets. The terms "Long" and "Short" showed up when the Land Pattern was shortened to 42" in the 1740's for the Dragoon Guards, etc. The barrel length was repeated in the several variations of the Sea Service Pattern and Militia & Marine Pattern and eventually chosen for the Short Land (New Pattern) which we know as the Short Land Pattern though that term should be applied to the dragoon muskets rather than the later pattern chosen for issue to the Marching Regiments. It does get silly after a bit, just think of it as "Humility Training"!! :haha:
Thanks again guys. I found DeWitt Bailey's book for sale at Track of the Wolf for $17.95. I think I will order it this week.
I love these old Brown Besses. I have a Pedersoli Bess, that is a great shooter. I plan, this year, on buying a Pattern 1728, Pattern 1742, Pattern 1756 and an India Pattern from on of the three companies that sells the Indian repros. I can't afford the originals and I would like to have one of each for my collection.
I don't have an qualms about buying the Indian repros. I already have the British Military Doglock musket from Discriminating General and am very happy with it. The only thing I didn't like about it was the very shiny metal finish and the varnished stock. I bought it last year and it shoots very well. DG claims it is a copy of an example in the Parks Canada Collection. I have a photo of the one in the Parks Canada Collection, which has an English-style stock and not the French-style stock that is on the repro. The original is also in .75 caliber. Don't know why DG chose to make this one in .69 caliber. I do wish that I had waited and bought the Doglock musket that is offered by Loyalist Arms. It seems to be a more correct copy. I don't reenact any more, but I still like my repro muskets to be as period correct as possible.
I love these old Brown Besses. I have a Pedersoli Bess, that is a great shooter. I plan, this year, on buying a Pattern 1728, Pattern 1742, Pattern 1756 and an India Pattern from on of the three companies that sells the Indian repros. I can't afford the originals and I would like to have one of each for my collection.
I don't have an qualms about buying the Indian repros. I already have the British Military Doglock musket from Discriminating General and am very happy with it. The only thing I didn't like about it was the very shiny metal finish and the varnished stock. I bought it last year and it shoots very well. DG claims it is a copy of an example in the Parks Canada Collection. I have a photo of the one in the Parks Canada Collection, which has an English-style stock and not the French-style stock that is on the repro. The original is also in .75 caliber. Don't know why DG chose to make this one in .69 caliber. I do wish that I had waited and bought the Doglock musket that is offered by Loyalist Arms. It seems to be a more correct copy. I don't reenact any more, but I still like my repro muskets to be as period correct as possible.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the current muskets from India except for a bit too much wood. There were some problems early-on but these seem to have been addressed. I too think they're a bit too shiny but a little wipe with #0000 steel wool will tone down both metal and wood finish. You can even use the Clorox thing on the metal to "weather" it down as well. Good luck.
If you leave it on very long it starts rusting.
