• 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

Brown Bess, Stock Wrist, Thumb Piece (Plate) Questions

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Hi Dave,

I did not doubt you for a second, but thank you for providing the reference. My copy of that book is so worn from use I have to be careful opening that book. Not sure how I missed that as I made a point of studying original nomenclature when I was reenacting as a Private Soldier in the 42nd RHR. :shocked2: :redface: :haha:

I am very glad you brought this up, though, as it reminded me of other examples of how British Ordnance upgraded and improved Pattern Muskets as time went on and that goes to more examples of what Tenngun was wondering about.

While British Ordnance was Re-Arming the Entire British Army for the very first time worldwide with the P1730 Muskets, and even before they got that job completely finished, there were some deficiencies noted and some improvements begun before they completely finished the re-arming. The stronger trigger guard was actually one of the improvements that was applied to some P1740 muskets that helped distinguish them from the P1730. (That stronger trigger guard was so good, they used it at least to the end of the 18th century.) The other two modifications were 1. Adding a Pan Bridle to the Lock thereby making it a “Double Bridle” Lock and 2. Dropping the fancy carving around the tang and lock panels to a more simplified carving, though this was a cost savings measure - it did allow them to speed up production to get muskets into the hands of the troops faster. Bailey notes that a P1740 could have any two of these modifications, but not all three, as they were working through the modifications towards the next Pattern Musket.

This list of modifications is intended for Tenngun and others as to give an idea of what the modifications from then through the AWI were for, though it is not a complete list of every tiny modification.

P1742 Land Pattern Musket. 48” Barrel, Simplified Carving, Stronger Trigger Guard and ALL Locks were the improved “Double Bridle Locks” from this pattern on for Land Pattern Muskets. This was THE most common British Musket used by British Regulars and British Americans during the FIW, until they captured the 15,000 French Muskets at Fort Louisbourg.

P1744 “Carbine” for Dragoons. The only thing that made these “Carbines” was the shorter barrel as they still used the standard .76 cal Musket Bore. Though these were not used by most of the British Regular Infantry, this musket marks the first time British Ordnance shortened the Barrel to 42” for a major number of muskets. Some of these were issued to Highlander Infantry Troops, though.

P1748 Land Pattern Musket. 48” barrel. The huge improvement here was the introduction of the Steel Rammer to replace the Wooden Ramrod. The problem with these, though, was the larger hole ramrod pipes for the Wooden Ramrod were reduced by soldering bushings into them for the smaller diameter Steel Rammers and they used a rather flimsy spring in the Entry Pipe that commonly broke in use. Also, they didn’t quite get the tempering correct on many of the Steel Rammers. This was also the last major run of Muskets with the “Banana” Shaped Lock Plate. These were begun production in the last year of the War of the Austrian Succession, so only around 5,000 were made and they ALL went to British Regular Forces serving on the Continent (Europe) or at home. Bailey notes none of these were ever used in the American Colonies.

P1756 Land Pattern Musket. 48” Barrel. There is some evidence that a very few of the initial run of these were made with left over parts, so a very small number had Banana Shaped Lock Plates and perhaps a tiny number had Wood Ramrods, but the most significant changes were the Flatter Bottomed P1755 Locks and Steel Rammers. Though the Lock change may have looked cosmetic, it was easier to inlet and took a little less wood away from the stock, thereby making that area of the stock a bit stronger and faster to get into production. It also had the first Brass Nose Cap to keep the front of the stock from splitting and the much improved Rammer Pipes that were made for the Steel Rammers ”“ a vast improvement over the modified Wood Rammer Pipes.

This Pattern Musket was considered such a huge upgrade to the P1742 and P1748 Muskets, that they were kept for use on the Home Islands and for Regulars serving on the Continent. British Regular Regiments who had these Muskets prior to being sent to America, had them “taken from them” and re-armed with P 1742 Muskets. This because the greater threat to England was on the Continent and the War in the Colonies took a back seat to that threat. Some of these were sent to America for replacing broken/damaged P 1742 muskets, but not many and only near the end of the FIW.

P1756 and P1760 Carbines. 37” Barrel, though some very early ones had the 42” barrel. What is noteworthy about these Carbines was the fact that British Ordnance for the first time “standardized” the “Carbine Bore” at .66 Cal., instead of earlier Carbines that could have been either .76 Cal. or .66 Cal. Both of these had the Flatter bottomed Lock and the P1756 sometimes had a Wood Ramrod or Steel Rammer, while the P1760 had the Steel Rammer. I mention these as both were used here in the American Colonies the FIW by Highlander Troops. From the P1760 onwards, barrel length for Carbines was “standardized” at 37” for all but very small runs of Carbines.

P1756 Marine and Militia Musket. The first of any Major Run of 42” Barrel Muskets and was the first to be called the “Short” Land Pattern Musket ”“ thereby making earlier and later 48” barreled Muskets called “Long” Land Pattern Muskets from then on. However, they did not have all the improvements of the P1756 Land Pattern Muskets and the missing Entry Pipe was one such feature. These were not used in the American Colonies in the FIW, but were in use by British Marines and some British Regulars as early as the Battle of Breed’s/Bunker Hill in the AWI. Some folks may see the shorter barrels as a cost savings measure, and it was, though it was more than that.

British Regular Soldiers in the 18th century on average were around 5’6” tall, though those few who were around 6’ tall were selected for the Grenadier Company in each British Regiments. So reducing the length of the barrel from 48” to 42” made it much easier for the shorter British Regulars to load their muskets rapidly and of course the lighter weight was also appreciated. To my initial surprise when I first read it and perhaps to the surprise of others, American Soldiers averaged 1 ½” to 2” TALLER than British Soldiers during the period, because the American Diet was so much better than the diet of the poorer British Soldiers as they grew up. (The average height of American Soldiers would SHRINK in the early 19th century through the UnCivil War, due to all the poor immigrants from Eastern Europe.)

P1777 Short Land Pattern Musket. 42” Barrel. This was the first run of Muskets that had all the earlier Musket improvements and with the shorter Barrel. They also added a hole in the Top Jaw Screw for the first time sometimes in addition to the Turnscrew/Screwdriver Slot and sometimes with just the hole. This made it much easier to tighten/loosen the Top Jaw Screw. This was also the first lock where you cannot see the end of the Sear Spring Screw outside the lock behind the Cock/Hammer. This because they shortened the Sear Spring as a cost savings measure and some believe it was an improvement.

Near the end of the 18th century, the British still retained some Long Land Pattern Muskets for the Grenadier Companies as they believed the LLP’s looked more elegant. However, they were at first forced to adopt the cheaper 39” Barrel “India Pattern” Musket because of the overwhelming need of Muskets in the 1790’s for the Wars against France and Napoleon, but later came around to accepting them as a standard Pattern. It was during this period that “Good Heavens” they were also forced into accepting a small number of BEECH stocked Muskets as the supplies of Walnut were not there for the enormous number of Muskets needed. However, once Napoleon was finished, British Ordnance made sure that the FIRST Muskets they surplus sold were those Beech stocked Muskets and they never again accepted Beech stocks while they still used Flintlock Muskets.

Gus
 
Hi Gus,
Good summary. You must have made a typo because the long land barrels were 46" not 48". The other thing to consider is that a sturdier musket or components might cost more but if they last longer, they save money.

dave
 
Dave Person said:
Hi Gus,
Good summary. You must have made a typo because the long land barrels were 46" not 48". The other thing to consider is that a sturdier musket or components might cost more but if they last longer, they save money.

dave

Good eyes, Dave.

Yep, I knew there was something I screwed up in that summary, but typed 48" for the barrel length the first time and just kept missing it. Duh! :haha:

That's an excellent point about sturdier musket components costing more, but saving money in the long run and it also saved lives when they kept a musket going in battle.

Gus
 
Makes one wonder about the "service life" vs actual life of the LLP and SLP muskets. We've read how they were considered good for 10-15 years, but then we see them last for three decades or more. Sometimes in the hands of British regulars, but very definitely in the hands of provincials in colonial areas.

So perhaps too one must factor in the "resale" value into the thinking of the Board of Ordinance? Reselling "worn" or "past service life for use with the Regulars" muskets for a good price would reduce the cost of producing new muskets, no? Colonies, such as Maryland and Georgia bought used muskets from The Crown. They also bought "new" muskets from civilian contractors, YET we don't know if "worn" muskets were refurbished by the civilian contractors after being sold to these contractors, OR were parted out and rebuilt with new stocks to become these civilian contracted muskets..., and then sold in the colonies around the globe. In many cases a new hammer (frizzen) and a touch hole liner would be all that was really needed to give a musket another decade of service, I'd venture to guess.

A modern example are the numerous Ford Crown Victoria cabs that are in my community that spent their first 100,000 miles a police cars. (Curses upon me for the modern analogy - mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa ) Also look at the 3rd model muskets coming out of Nepal, with some actually being shooters when derusted and restocked. (that's a better example)

LD
 
Dave,

That is a very intriguing idea that British Ordnance may have surplused muskets sooner to help defray costs of new muskets and thus keep ever improving and better quality muskets in the hands of the troops. You may be onto something there.

One reason early musket barrel life was shorter than we would expect, was when they were still engraving the Regimental Colonel's Name on the top of all barrels and even coats of arms as well. When those muskets were taken back by British Ordnance, it was common practice to fie off the old engraving and the Colonels of the new/other Regiments to who the Muskets were issued, engraved their names on the muskets. Now, since this engraving was most often done near the breech, even filing off the first engraving would reduce the strength of the barrel.

As far as I know and I could be mistaken, they did not commonly drill out worn vent holes and replace them with a liner. I realize this was done on some high dollar guns with platinum vent hole liners, but did they do it on Military barrels? I don't think so.

British Ordnance was documented as cutting off worn breeches and then threading the cut part for the breech plug again. Barrels that were damaged on the muzzle end were cut off and used for either carbines (before they switched to "Carbine Bore") OR were used for either "Black" or "Bright" Sea Service Muskets, as were some barrels shortened at the breech end. Shorter "Black" Sea Service Muskets had the barrels blued or painted and used for Boat Crews. Longer "Bright" Sea Service Muskets were used for landing parties.

Wilson was the most prolific agent for "new" para-military or commercial flintlock muskets imported into the colonies. I doubt that would have happened if he was "cheating" and using old/reworked barrels. There would bound to have been pitting in the barrels that would be the giveaway. However, when he first started out, he got fined for filing off proof marks that proclaimed something like 30 pistol barrels had failed proof. Maybe he learned a good lesson from that?

As far as I know, British Ordnance saved the muskets worth reworking and after repair/overhaul, issued or stored them. Some of these probably went to the British Militia and some were gifted or sold to the colonies. The Muskets that British Ordnance did not think worth reworking were sold off and purchased by those who rebuilt them or used parts for the slave trade. If the muskets were really bad and British Ordnance could not easily sell them, they took the brass off and saved it to be melted to make new furniture, then sold the locks for what they could get and the barrels for scrap iron. However, this is all a bit murky as even Bailey does not go into great detail on how it was done.

Gus
 
I have to agree...it's unfortunate those who did such work probably thought it not worth recording. As for weakened stock wrists, that plagued all country's military establishments. The French even had a term for it....they called it 'faire un jambon'...."making a ham"!
 
Wes/Tex said:
I have to agree...it's unfortunate those who did such work probably thought it not worth recording. As for weakened stock wrists, that plagued all country's military establishments. The French even had a term for it....they called it 'faire un jambon'...."making a ham"!

That is interesting, especially how I have not studied French 18th century military muskets as much as British.

Actually, it some what mystifies me that the French Fort Louisbourg was captured first in 1745 by British Americans in the War of the Austrian Succession, even though it was even then one of the largest European style fortresses in North America. OK, so it was designed to repel against ships and was weaker on the land side and lower than hills around it. Still, the British Americans emptied it of French Arms and took home as many as possible.

Now one would think they learned some lessons, but it seems they did not.

OK, so the French re-stocked the place with around 15,000 Arms afterwards. So this time it was taken by British Regulars and British Americans again in 1758, during the FIW. Those captured French Arms well supplied both the British Regulars and British Americans. British Regulars armed their Light Infantry with the French Muskets, that were seen as "more robust" than British Light Infantry Carbines, but still light and handy.

I assume that any British American in the forces that captured Louisbourg got to pick out a replacement musket, bayonet and mold. What I have not been able to find out though, was what happened to the rest of those 15,000 muskets. They would have been considered "Crown Property" of course, but I also assume any serviceable muskets were brought away and stored somewhere in the British American Colonies.

Gus
 
Back
Top