British M1776 rilfe

[Mike Brooks]

I just finished this and thought you guys might like to see it before it disapears.
These are TRS parts, the stock is from a blank. The barrel is a Colerain. This one is in .54 cal, the original was .65. The barrel is just a little over 28". The stock is a super hard piece of Michigan walnut with a nice bit of figure in the butt. There's also a hellacious not right at the nose of the lock.....I think I pretty well got that covered. :shocked2: I had to make the swivel thingy that the steel ram rod slides in. This is the second one, the first wasn't very cool. :redface: Hooked breech with keys...I hate keys. :cursing: Double leaf rear sight too, I'm not sure how effective that would be, but it looks pretty cool non the less. :winking:

 

[Roy]

Another beauty Mike :bow:

 

[Puffer]

Mike, GREAT looking Rifle.

Can you give me the orig. background for it. I have been unable locate it (n DeWitt's book on Brit. Mil. Rifles doese not list a "1776 Pattern.

As you may know I just finished a Baker & this would be a predicessor.
Any help would be appreciated

Thanks, Puffer

 

[Stumpkiller]

Stumpy like! Very nice.

 

[Okwaho]

Mike, GREAT looking Rifle.

Can you give me the orig. background for it. I have been unable locate it (n DeWitt's book on Brit. Mil. Rifles doese not list a "1776 Pattern.

As you may know I just finished a Baker & this would be a predicessor.
Any help would be appreciated

Thanks, Puffer

See "British Military Flintlock Rifles 1740-1840",{2002} by De Witt Bailey,Ph.D.,PP.25-34,'The Birmingham-Made Pattern 1776 Infantry Rifle'. See more particularly pp.28-29 for a rifle I believe was used by Mike as a pattern.See also "American Military Shoulder Arms" Vol.I,Colonial and Revolutionary War Arms by George D. Moller,{1993}PP.265-268 @ 266 which references rifles made in Birmingham during the Revolutionary War and Dr. Bailey's research in that area.
Mike, this is a great rifle and one which needed to be recreated since so little is known about them.
Tom Patton

 

[Wes/Tex]

Got to agree with Tom about Bailey's book on British small arms pattern dates. Have only seen one reference to their use during the AWI. When the 16th Light Dragoons sailed for North America, they added a dismounted Light Infantry Company. Some have tried to assign this as the start of a mixed Legion of horse and foot operating together but it's my belief the company was for local security and may have tagged along on hay raids. One source has assigned the M.1776 rifle to this light infantry company but I'm not sure that a new weapon would be issued out so early as to accompany the regiment to be in New York in September of that same year. The only period account mentions caps similar to light infantry and hatchets instead of swords, etc. but no mention of firelocks...surely it would have been worth noting if it was a new issue. Just my 2-cents.

 

[Wes/Tex]

"In the meantime, just revise that last revised revision!"

A check tells me the 17th Light Dragoons were on the Irish Establishment and left Ireland the end of march and landed in Boston on May 24, 1776. Think this well eliminates the possibility that their Light Infantry Company carried the M.1776 rifle unless it was brought over later...wouldn't think that too likely.

 

[scott k]

What does the swivel thingy do for the ram rod?
Very nice as always Mike :hatsoff:
Lehigh...

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

"before it disapears" :shocked2:

Don't say that! That is a beautiful rifle and well done! It won't disapear, I'm sure it will grace mantlepieces/gunracks and (hopefully) shooting ranges for the next 200 years at least, in other words this and others are your ticket to gunmakers immortality. Fine work Mike, keep it up and please let us see more.

 

[Mike Brooks]

What does the swivel thingy do for the ram rod?
Very nice as always Mike :hatsoff:
Lehigh...

It makes it so the rod is permanently attatched to the gun. To use the rod you draw it out untill it stops, then swivel it over the muzzle, then ram home the ball. Then swivel it back over the pipes and stow it away again. I thought it a pretty hoaky deal untill I actually used it and now consider it a pretty cool and hangy gizmo. :applause:

 

[Mike Brooks]

"before it disapears" :shocked2:

Don't say that! That is a beautiful rifle and well done! It won't disapear, I'm sure it will grace mantlepieces/gunracks and (hopefully) shooting ranges for the next 200 years at least, in other words this and others are your ticket to gunmakers immortality. Fine work Mike, keep it up and please let us see more.

The owner picked it up yesterday on his way to a Wyoming vacation. He plans to wring it out while he's out there. He seems pretty excited about it, he had me file up the sight notch just the way he likes it while he waited. :thumbsup:

 

[Pork Chop]

That sounds like a neat contraption and a good solution for a potential battlefield problem of losing a ramrod - thus having a gun go off line. Of course, if you shoot with that ramrod still in the bore, things would get REALLY interesting then...

 

[paulvallandigham]

YOu think so, Pork Chop?Try using the damn thing when you are being shot at, and are hiding behind a log, reloading on your belly.

Thre is a reason this system was dropped by the military, or we would still have it today!

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

YOu think so, Pork Chop?Try using the damn thing when you are being shot at, and are hiding behind a log, reloading on your belly.

Thre is a reason this system was dropped by the military, or we would still have it today!

:hmm: I'm not so sure that the military thought it was a bad idea Paul. It remained in use until the end of the military percussion era but was used mostly on cavalry weapons (pistol and carbine) where it had a definate good use - they were loading on horseback (a horse is often "restive" under fire to put it mildly :shocked2: )and an extra hand was rarely available so a ramrod on "the loose" could be a serious problem. While maybe not so useful for scirmishers (the rifleman's usual duty) it seems to me that it was a very good and useful idea...

 

[Mike Brooks]

Before I built this gun and then used the ram rod I thought it was probably an ungainly set up. But, having actually used it now I find loading is 4 simple motions, draw the ram rod up, move it over 1/2" ram the ball, draw the rammer out of the barrel, move it over 1/2" and slide it back in the pipes. It actually takes less time to do than it does to describe it.
I had originally thought the load was rammed with the big end of the rod after flipping it over, turns out this isn't the case at all. :redface:

 

[paulvallandigham]

My only point is that it requires a lot of room standing up to swing that rod around into the barrel and out again. Standing in an open field is okay, but not necessarily easy with men falling around you. Running through the wood making a tactical retreat, or redeployment is no time to be trying to use the thing. And, with the rod connected to the gun, the rod could be easily bent if it was fallen on. Then, the rod was useless, but even more troubling, it could not be thrown away, and replaced by a rod from a fallen soldier's gun. Being attached to the gun became a hindrence in actual combat.

That is the reason it is no longer used. As for the use by cavalry soldiers, I am sure it would be an aid to reloading a muzzle loader while mounted. But, I don't think history saw much of that tactic, in practice. It was far easier to fire the shot, drop the gun, and pull the sabre, and/or pistols and revolvers to fire at close range. Even with paper patched " cartridges" loading on a moving horse was quite the feat, time comsuming, and remember, you are asking men to reload as the distance between them and their enemy is closing fast. And the enemy continues to fire at them. Rule #2 says Incoming rounds have the right-of-way.
Even in the days of such heroic conduct as exhibited by Gen. Washington, and later by George A. Custer, the natual inclination of all men is to duck!

 

[Mike Brooks]

My only point is that it requires a lot of room standing up to swing that rod around into the barrel and out again.

The point is there is no "swinging of the rod around". That was what I originally thought too, but this is not the case at all. The rod is drawn straight out, then straight down the bore. You don't swing the rod around at all, the end that is in the stock is what you use to push the ball down, not the forward end with the button. The forward button won't fit down the bore anyway.
You'd be hard pressed to bend the rod too, it's 5/16" if I recall, and if it was bent, you could straighten it back out and go on with business.
This system, with a little practice would be faster to use than a standard unattached rod as there is no "flipping" the rod end for end to load.

 

[Pork Chop]

That is the reason it is no longer used.

I kinda figured that the reason it is no longer used is that the military made the switch to cartridge arms...

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

That is the reason it is no longer used.

I kinda figured that the reason it is no longer used is that the military made the switch to cartridge arms...

:rotf:


Paul, Mike's practical, from experience, loading instructions for the ramrod held in capture by this system is correct. When loading in ranks as heavy infantry did, the rod was flipped and it is possible to whack your neighbor with it, even with a standard ramrod as I am sure you well know. Light infantry and riflemen were trained as skirmishers and they were trained to fight in a relatively loose, or open, order as well as in ranks as done by the line. The captive rod on this rifle would be very practical for those situations since manipulating the rod was relatively easy and actually took out the step in loading where you had to flip the rod end over end and then repeat same to return to the stock groove. This would also help when loading prone or from behind cover as only light infantry and skirmishers were trained or expected to do. However, what you say does make a certain amount of sense. If you bend a rod there would be hell to pay with this system but that was a surprisingly rare occurance since rammers were made of tempered steel, not soft iron - that was a very tight specification insisted on by all armies and their inspectors saw to it diligently.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Thanks for the corection, mike and Va.manuf.o6. I had seen one of these where there was the swinging around, and it was a pain to use. I thought then, and now i was obviously correct, that it would work better the way you describe this one works. You can't have a wide tip on the end for pushing, if it loads the way you describe. That was the " problem" with the one I saw and tried to use once. It had a widened steel tip, and it had to fit under the front of the barrel, requiring the rod be pulled completely out, then swivel, and swung around to run down the barrel, then taken back out, run back up the swivel, and then mounted back under the barrel. If I recall, I was told it was some kind of naval gun, but I am talking about an event that happened back 50 years ago, when I was a boy being shown a man's collection. I was fascinated by the muzzle loaders and not his modern guns, which my father wanted to see. I don't recall the make of the gun, the period, or anything, other than it was darn impossible to use, and cooled my interest in military style guns for a number of years.