Brown Bess Carbine...

[Mike Brooks]

But is George Neumann wrong then when he says that they did make carbines that were short Besses and not scaled down?

Yes, according to all of my resources he is wrong on this. But, you must remember that alot of his research occurred many decades ago and there has been alot of new research since those early days.

The other thing is Mike I'm very interested in Naval Arms. I think it was JD that stated that these carbines were some type of mystery. I don't know why they would be a mystery if there are examples of them. Can you shed any light on this.

There are several pre 1750 sea service muskets. The 1738 Bright (long) 40-46" barrel finished bright. Flat faced lock. And the 1738 Black (short) 36 - 38" barrel with a blackened finish, same lock as the bright model. None of the hardware resembles the Land Pattern bess.

 

[J.D.]

J.D. A lot of British soldiers were killed on the battlefield, and the guns picked up by colonials, or by Indians. That is how they got into civilian hands.

The common practice for captured weapons was for the victorious army to collect them for storage, or possible later use. Mixing nonconforming weapons in a military unit creates HUGE logistics problems, then as now,so that was frowned upon.

And, not every British officer or soldier was as honest as might be required by regulation.

While that is true, the Kings Muskets were...the Kings, and in a world where minor infractions resulted in hundreds of lashes of the "cat" I suspect that any soldier would think more than twice about stealing the Kings stores.

Another consideration was the weight and unwieldiness of the Kings Muskets as compared to say, a militia musket. Commercial militia muskets, or English fowlers of musket bore, were pretty common. They were also relatively inexpensive, much lighter than the Kings Musket, and more finely made. Also, a civilian caught with the King's property would be severely punished even by 18th century standards.

Do you think, for instance, that every gun from every fallen British or Colonial soldier killed with Braddock was recovered and returned to Virginia??? :nono: :surrender: :thumbsup:

I seem to remember reading that Kings muskets captured from Braddock's troops turned up as a part of the french inventory at Louisburg. Braddock's cannon found their way to Quebec, if I remember correctly.

One has to remember that Fort Duquesne was a french fort, and it was near enough to the Braddock battlefield that all of the captured Brit stores could be transported there very easily.

I'm sure that the NDNs absconded with those items they deemed valuable, but IMHO, I suspect, from what I have read, that the NDNs probably did not view the heavy, unwieldy Kings Musket as a particularly valuable item...and if they did find them valuable, how would large numbers of those Kings Muskets have found their way to Louisburg?

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Hi Mike. I think the problem is that what they thought of as a carbine back then and what we think of as a carbine now are two very different things. And butchered muskets having the appearance of a short barrelled carbine do exist just to confuse the issue. Then figure in the fact that, as you pointed out, new information over the years has rendered a number of authors work incorrect on some points and you wind up with a real can of worms. Then there are the folks who really want there to be an historical gun just like the gun they bought from Dixie Gun Works or Navy Arms and the whole mess goes off the tracks in a hurry. Some people just don't want facts getting in the way of their fantasies! :surrender:

 

[chuckpa]

Mike
These are the book pages that I told Rusty I would get scanned. I will be real interested in your comments and others in the forum.

 

[paulvallandigham]

I research what I am interested in, not what you are interested in, unless you pay me, Mike. Seriously, I have spent a life time doing research. I just don't have any interest invested in your HC issue involving what Brown Besses looked like, and whether any of them were cut down by folks here in America. I don't care if someone calls a short barreled gun a " canoe gun" or a buffalo gun, or a Trade musket, or a blanket gun. Those names do communicate what they are talking about, and its just not important to history to know for sure who did what 200 years ago when it comes to guns. To you, who copy guns for a living, it may be more important. I conceed that to you.

You might at least give page citations for those 11 books you listed, so that other members here can read your sources. Otherwise, you have just listed books, and without knowing if they are Primary sources, or Secondary source materials, or if secondary, are the statements Quotes from primary sources, that are supported by citations, the books may just be another writer's idea about what happened back then, the same thing you accuse me of doing here. I have spent many hours in libraries finding out that books listed in bibliographies, or cited as sources, in fact are no such thing.

When you don't cite actual text language, or describe the sources as primary or secondary, and the books themselves don't cite original( Primary) sources, your argumentative use of lists of books in your library degenerates to the " Bags of Letters defense", ie. " Your Honor, I have bags of letters from people all over the world that say they didn't see my client shoot the victim....." Everyone has lots of book in their libraries, if they have a library. If I feel like it, I will take your list to the library and check out your references. You may not want me to do so, however.


I wrote one research paper on a small international incident, and found 15 different books written on the matter, on the library shelf. One was worth the time reading. The other 14 were worse than terrible. But they got published!

The same thing occurs in researching the Second Amendment. There are dozens of Law Review articles written on the subject, but the anti-gun ones are the true light-weights on the shelves. All of them.

Some of the pro-gun ones are embarrassments, too, but the vast majority of the articles favoring the private ownership of firearms are well written research, with good citations. That all became painfully obvious when the City of Washington's law firm filed their briefs in D.C. vs. Heller. They are so bad, the firm was fired by Washington, D.C. the next day, and the city tried to get additional arguments filed through Amicus Briefs filed by supporters. The two dissenting opinions did a horrible job of arguing the issue, and I am sure those dissents will be discussed in law schools across the nation this Fall.

I think your attempts to restrict this argument to what was shown in British records as being built for shipment to the colonies shows how desperate you are to limit the facts to be considered. No one is disputing you, or others, that Brown Bess muskets were probably not shipped with shortened barrels, until the Dragoon model was made. But records from the Hudson Bay company( A British concern) indicate clearly that short barreled guns were ordered, and in substantial quanties. I had thought when that post was made, here, that this would have ended the arguing about short barreled guns. But, No, you have to continue to press the issue.

I am done.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

They're nice and they are certainly interesting, but they aren't Besses. Some of them are special issue guns like the grenade launchers and the marine muskets. I doubt if any of them were ever built especially to be sold/traded as trade muskets--just to get back to the topic that we began with so long ago.
If you want a short barrelled Bess either to hunt with or to try and re-enact with or just to hang on the wall go for it. It won't be historically or period correct, but if they'da had 'em they'da used 'em...right?

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I research what I am interested in, not what you are interested in, unless you pay me, Mike. Seriously, I have spent a life time doing research. I just don't have any interest invested in your HC issue involving what Brown Besses looked like, and whether any of them were cut down by folks here in America. I don't care if someone calls a short barreled gun a " canoe gun" or a buffalo gun, or a Trade musket, or a blanket gun. Those names do communicate what they are talking about, and its just not important to history to know for sure who did what 200 years ago when it comes to guns. To you, who copy guns for a living, it may be more important. I conceed that to you.

I dunno Paul. It's always been of importance to me who did what with guns and when they did it. I even like to know the proper terminology that was used if such is possible. History is about people and places, but it is also about facts. And facts, it seems to me become very important in a discussion like this one. Given that this thread has been going on for as long as it has, others must care about the facts, too. And that's a fact!

 

[Mike Brooks]

You tire me Paul. I hate getting into these kinds of debates with you as they are time consuming and accomplish little . You are a master at obfuscation and confusing the issue with your injections of rambling irrelevant material in the thread.

You might at least give page citations for those 11 books you listed, so that other members here can read your sources.

Considering probably a grand total of 3 or 4 people that have read this thread actually own any of these books, listing page citations would be an incredible waste of time.....I actually do have to build guns from time to time to put food on the table. Those 3 or 4 people that own those books are well aware of what is historically correct because of the material these books contain. In other words, go buy these books and bring yourself up to 2008 and leave the outdated material of 1960 behind. It's not my responsibility to supply you with the information. It's out there if you care to look it up, I even gave you the books to look for. I could easily suggest quite a few more so you'd be well rounded in 18th century history.

I have spent many hours in libraries finding out that books listed in bibliographies, or cited as sources, in fact are no such thing.

So, you think I'm lying to you? What would I have to gain?

When you don't cite actual text language, or describe the sources as primary or secondary, and the books themselves don't cite original( Primary) sources, your argumentative use of lists of books in your library degenerates to the " Bags of Letters defense", ie. " Your Honor, I have bags of letters from people all over the world that say they didn't see my client shoot the victim....." Everyone has lots of book in their libraries, if they have a library. If I feel like it, I will take your list to the library and check out your references. You may not want me to do so, however.

This is just a little conversation on the internet that has no bearing on anyones life, not some court case that may lead to life and death. But , please do take my list to the library if you actually care, it will be time well spent. You will find all the information discussed here plus much more.

I wrote one research paper on a small international incident, and found 15 different books written on the matter, on the library shelf. One was worth the time reading. The other 14 were worse than terrible. But they got published!

The same thing occurs in researching the Second Amendment. There are dozens of Law Review articles written on the subject, but the anti-gun ones are the true light-weights on the shelves. All of them.

Some of the pro-gun ones are embarrassments, too, but the vast majority of the articles favoring the private ownership of firearms are well written research, with good citations. That all became painfully obvious when the City of Washington's law firm filed their briefs in D.C. vs. Heller. They are so bad, the firm was fired by Washington, D.C. the next day, and the city tried to get additional arguments filed through Amicus Briefs filed by supporters. The two dissenting opinions did a horrible job of arguing the issue, and I am sure those dissents will be discussed in law schools across the nation this Fall.

What the hell? :yakyak: This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. :slap: Another attempt to divert attention through confusion and obfuscation. :shake:

I think your attempts to restrict this argument to what was shown in British records as being built for shipment to the colonies shows how desperate you are to limit the facts to be considered. No one is disputing you, or others, that Brown Bess muskets were probably not shipped with shortened barrels, until the Dragoon model was made.

Desperate? :haha: So if no one is disputing me, why is this still going on? Seems that only one person participating is this thread is having issues. :wink:

But records from the Hudson Bay company( A British concern) indicate clearly that short barreled guns were ordered, and in substantial quanties. I had thought when that post was made, here, that this would have ended the arguing about short barreled guns. But, No, you have to continue to press the issue.

Oh good Lord Paul, you are learning disabled! :haha: I'm the one that supplied the information about the inventory lists for HBC and barrel lengths. :surrender: 30" barrels are well documented for 18th century guns.
I think what the real issue here is that you assume you're the authority on everything 18th century with out having anything to back up your "expertise". In fact I've never seen you ever back up any of your fantasies with up to date documentation. So the minute somebody calls your bluff you go on a marathon writing rampage to try and bury the fact that you're all hot air and no substance.
The only reason I call you out on your BS is I hate to see your romantic 18th century folklore be accepted as truth. I think it's important to let people who really care about 18th century minutia know the latest information, not some round about rambling of a lawyer you likes to hear himself type....no matter what the subject. It's pretty obvious that you mainly have participated on this thread to belittle and argue with those that disagree with your ramblings, where a few others and I have actually added positively to this thread with relevant information and documentation. I'm sure most are very tired of all of this by this point.

I am done.

.
Thank God! :applause:

(but I don't believe it. :haha: )

 

[Mike Brooks]

Chuck,
Not much to say about these guns. They are very typical in every way. Keep in mind , many if not most of the guns pictured never saw service in North America. Most of the carbines were state of the art at that time and used by the front line troops fighting in Europe. The war in North America was pretty much a back water war for the British and obsolete equipment was generally issued to the troops that were shipped over there.
The most interesting gun pictured is the sea service musket made from old parts...very cool. I've read about those before, but I don't recall where.
I think the original question was whether or not Long Land muskets were ever cut down and issued as carbines, and also were Long Land muskets ever used as trade guns and sold to the NDN's.
None of the above pictured guns were made from Long land muskets. The parts are completely different, generally quite a bit smaller and of radically different shape.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Hey
I'm not arguing, I'm trying to find information on carbines. I know the work is 30 years old because that's about how long ago I bought the book. As a matter of fact I sold George Neumann a Dutch musket way back then.
So now let me ask the question, prior to The 1750s where the carbines cut down Besses?
If you tell me they were not could you give me the documentation.
Thanks

Chuck, you have answered your own question with the post of the plates from Harold L. Blackmore"s "British Military Firearms, 1650 - 1850" that you have scanned above. No. Check the photos closely and you can see the differences in dimensions.

(1)The Sea Service muskets are a red herring in this discussion, they were not used in British land service, land forces never had access to Sea Service weapons, they were purchased by the Senior Service for their own use - Marines and sailors only. They were also very different from the Land Service weapons, especially in their hardware.

(2)The grenade launchers illustrated were specialty weapons intended for a specific purpose - that of launching grenades. True, with the grenade cup removed they could be used to fire a ball but they were rare and can not be called in any way standard except within their type. I am not even sure that they were used to any extent in North America.

Now, the question was about Brown Bess carbines. It is easy to say by looking at photographs that they look the same and therefore, supposedly, ARE the same but in the case of real "in hand" comparison, the dimensions of parts are quite different. Locks, triggerguards, buttplates, barrels etc. are all formed similarly but they are of different dimensions and, most importantly, weight. Usually, though not always, they are of different caliber - .65 as opposed to .75. It depended on the type of troops the carbine was to be issued to. Weight of the weapon and usually ammunition were lighter because of the troops' deployment: weapons of mounted troops (cavalry and Dragoons) needed to be lighter so that the horse could carry the weight. Weapons of the then new light infantry also needed to be lighter (but not to the same degree as mounted troops) so that those troops could stand more activity than that required of line infantry. The light troops carried slightly shorter weapons (the barrel was 2 inches shorter) and much lighter yet still effective carbine bore(.65 cal.) ammunition. European horse troops had been carrying specialty weapons of specific pattern since the first days of the issue of firearms, there can be no doubt about it. If you carefully read Blackmore he gives dimensions of the weapons and discusses why they were made the way they were. Thanks for posting the Blackmore plates.

 

[paulvallandigham]

History is NOT about people and places. That is Grade School and High School history. That is what so many people THINK History is about, and hate it. That is the kind of " history " that had people react with SHOCK when they found out I was majoring in History in College.

History is about the interaction of culture, places, and events involving humans.

My Freshman year in college, I was living in a dorm with a Senior History major, who had memorized something that happened somewhere in the world, for every year since the Birth of Christ. He used to dare guys( engineering students) to give him a date where he could not tell them something that happened. They all thought he was a great " historian".

He was the worst. He had spent so much time memorizing dates that he hadn't learned how to relate one event to another. You get a much better understanding of what History is by watching the History Channel programs today. Being a Freshman, I knew this guy was wrong, but since he was a Senior, and I was just starting out, I listened and kept my thoughts to myself. His plans were to go on to Grad School, and earn his Masters, and PHD in History. I have never heard of him again. Oh, I prepared for my first History Exam memorizing dates and names, and darn near failed the test! The only question on the test was: " Discuss the role of the Church on the development of British Constitutional history through 1688( The Reformation)!"

 

History is NOT about people and places.

....

History is about the interaction of culture, places, and events involving humans.

It's not about "people and places", it's about "places and humans"? Attorney speak! :rotf:

Paul, you can't have "culture" without "people".

 

[Mike Brooks]

History is NOT about people and places. That is Grade School and High School history. That is what so many people THINK History is about, and hate it. That is the kind of " history " that had people react with SHOCK when they found out I was majoring in History in College.

History is about the interaction of culture, places, and events involving humans.

My Freshman year in college, I was living in a dorm with a Senior History major, who had memorized something that happened somewhere in the world, for every year since the Birth of Christ. He used to dare guys( engineering students) to give him a date where he could not tell them something that happened. They all thought he was a great " historian".

He was the worst. He had spent so much time memorizing dates that he hadn't learned how to relate one event to another. You get a much better understanding of what History is by watching the History Channel programs today. Being a Freshman, I knew this guy was wrong, but since he was a Senior, and I was just starting out, I listened and kept my thoughts to myself. His plans were to go on to Grad School, and earn his Masters, and PHD in History. I have never heard of him again. Oh, I prepared for my first History Exam memorizing dates and names, and darn near failed the test! The only question on the test was: " Discuss the role of the Church on the development of British Constitutional history through 1688( The Reformation)!"

And just how again does all of this relate to Brown Bess Carbines and Brown Besses as Indian trade guns? :rotf: I must have missed a couple pages somewhere...... :haha:
I guess once you've started to dig a hole to bury yourself in it won't hurt to dig it a little deeper.... :yakyak:

 

[Robert Egler]

Paul, you can't have "culture" without "people".

Ah! But you certainly can have people without culture! :grin:

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

History is NOT about people and places. That is Grade School and High School history. That is what so many people THINK History is about, and hate it.......

I started a long, detailed reply but I will simply say this: Paul, you are confused. :bull: History, on the basic level is about people and how their times affect them and what they do about it. That does not make people hate history, it is what makes people find history interesting. Memorizing bland place names and the names of important documents without understanding how they affected the people will kill anyone's interest very quickly. Learn from primary research about the everyday people and what they did and thought, how they did things and how they felt about things that were going on around them and anyone will love history. See how they fit into their cultures. You said it yourself when you discussed your upperclassman friend that "impressed" the engineering students with useless information - wasted information taken out of context is dry and boring. Even an engineer should know that..... (A big apology to my father, the engineer.)

How in the heck did we get here with this discussion..... :shocked2: I think Mike is right, more smoke and mis-direction.

 

[chuckpa]

Rusty
We seem to have problems with communications. I Am not interested in reenacting. I'm not trying to prove the existence of a fantasy gun. I'm interested in finding the truth out about the carbines. Not arguing about it. That is why I'm asking questions. I don't have an axe to grind.

 

[chuckpa]

Thanks Mike and Va.
I think I might have to start a different thread on the carbines, because I don't seem to be able to make my questions clear. I'm not interested in whether or not the carbines were used in North America, or if they were ever cut down from Besses.
I'm not interested in justifying a fantasy gun made by some manufacturer who doesn't give a fig for history just marketing nor do I care about if they were used for trade with the native people here.
Heretofore I Believed that some carbines were made using Bess parts and short barrels, not cut down Besses and that these carbines were used by British military forces. By British military forces I mean Navy, Marines, and Army and not limited to any or unlimited to any particular geographical area.
The large-bore carbine by John Probin sure looks like was from full scale Bess parts to me. Please note I will not argue this point.
I'm off to buy some new books and do more research.Maybe sometime in the future I might start a new thread just on British military carbines.
Thanks again fellows for all of your opinions.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I think your question has been answered but you could start a new thread to be sure. This one dealt with a fantasy gun and the notion that this historically non-existant gun was deliberately manufactured in England for trading to native peoples in North america. From there it went in lots of directions and you received responses that sometimes referred to the original post, when we were able to recall what it was. I think this may have con fused you a bit--it certainly did me. :v

 

[chuckpa]

Thanks Rusty
But this thread did stimulate me to get out and get some new books and do some research. I am finding the subject of These British Carbines to be very fascinating.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

You've been a lawyer too long and have become most adept at splitting hairs. Without people and places the tapestry of our past not only would not be rich and precious, it would not exist at all! There can be no interaction of any sort either in history or in the present without people. Freshmen often think that they know more than Seniors. Few are still bragging about this youthful arrogance over four decades later.