He didn't ask if there were FACTORY MADE short barreled bess guns in N. America, Russ. He asked if these are Historically correct for the period? You and other seem to want to insist that if a factory did not build such a gun it didn't exist, and therefore cannot be the subject of replication.
That's a nice idea, but that is not THE definition of Historically correct. Until you change your name to Noah Webster, I appreciate your ideas of what " HISTORICALLY CORRECT" might mean, but you are not God, and God did not appoint you to define these terms.
For example, I know of NO firearms that were made with Tacks put in the stocks for decoration at FACTORIES. But, its historically correct to have guns so adorned, because they did exist, and there are plenty of examples in museums all over this country.
By telling people that ONLY guns actually shown to have been made in a factory can be historically correct, you argue in the face of reality, and do much mischief here on this forum. A lot of new members look to you and others as " well-informed " and you are, to some extent. But, you are not Gods, and no one gave you the right to start calling people names, or sneering at guns you don't like just because the guns don't meet your idea of what guns might have been made in some factory.
My Lord, Man, you treat factory records as if they were an addendum to the Ten Commandments. There are all kinds of errors in Factory records, then, and now. How can you not agree with that proposition considering the Hudson Bay invoice that was reprinted here? Does it not show an order for short barreled guns? Was that not in the 18th Century? Does it matter if the guns eventually delivered had their barrels shortened at a factory in England, or if they were done at the Hudson Bay Company main Warehouse here in N. America, before being shipped West? Those invoices are a HIStORICAL Record of something that apparently did exist, no matter what the factory records may show.
As someone noted, several firms were contracted to produce Brown Bess guns, and these short barreled guns ordered by the Hudson Bay company may have been made by a subcontractor. If so, they may not show up in the factory records of the crown Armory.
Webster defines " Carbine " as a rifle with a shorter barrel".
car·bine Listen to the pronunciation of carbine
Pronunciation:
\ˈkär-ˌbēn, -ˌbīn\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French carabine, from Middle French carabin carabineer
Date:
1592
1 : a short-barreled lightweight firearm originally used by cavalry 2 : a light short-barreled repeating rifle that is used as a supplementary military arm or for hunting in dense brush
There is NO Fixed definition of what constitutes a " Carbine LENGTH barrel". There are some general definitions in modern manuals, but they refer to modern guns, and not the 18th century version of a " carbine". Note the second definition above.
I was pleased to learn here, for the first time, that the .65 cal. guns made later with a slightly smaller action, and with shorter barrels, existed. In looking at a collection of Brown Besses I would not have noticed the difference in either caliber or size of lock, unless two guns were put side by side for comparison. Since NO company is making replicas of this later model, but they are making this short barreled Brown Bess " Carbine", I think people who are portraying rangers, or scouts, can be armed with such a firearm replica, or with a full size Brown Bess as they choose, and still be Historically Correct.
I would not expect to see these short guns being used in a uniformed Re-enactment group demonstrating volley fire. I think you are absolutely correct that the ground pounders in the British Army would have used the longer barreled Brown Bess in formation fighting units.
I have no argument with what you have found as original records concerning Brown Bess production. There exist, however, too may guns in museums, and collections that don't fit those records, to believe that factory records then were kept any better than factory records are kept now.
My brother has a Winchester rifle that, According to Factory records, Never left the Factory. I know many collectors of Colts who have similar situations with guns in their collections. The Factory has NO record of that particular gun being made, for one reason or another, or of that gun leaving the factory. I don't see where denying what is obviously before our eyes furthers historical research, or historical truth. And putting blinders on so that ONLY GUNS that are shown in Factory records to have been produced, can be considered historically accurate arms is an artificial standard that is just silly. :blah: :hmm: :hatsoff:
