Building the King's Muskets and a Bit More

[dave_person]

Hi Folks,
My Braintree Hill gun shop is humming with work. My apprentice, Maria, and I are busy arming reenactors and building museum pieces. If you look in from the road, you can hear sawing, hammering, rasping, welding, forging, and filing much like it probably was in the 18th century. This is a summer of muskets and carbines. The first project out the door was a Ferguson rifle followed by a complete make over of a Miroku Charleville musket. The Charleville was badly rusted inside and out, and the stock covered with a dull, ugly, black-brown waxy finish that was dented, scratched and abused. The lock and hardware were corroded messes. It was known as the "dirty French musket" by the reenactor unit to which it belonged. That name no longer applies.

Next up are two pattern 1769 short land British muskets. One will be marked "Tower" and the other "Dublin Castle". Because getting complete parts sets from the Rifle Shoppe prevents timely work, we opted to merge some components from Miroku and a Pedersoli reproductions. The following musket uses the barrel from a Pedersoli reproduction and some Miroku lock parts fitted to a lock plate, frizzen, and cock from TRS. The Japanese made lock parts are of exceptional cast steel, and the Pedersoli barrel is very good steel but is a little small in all dimensions. However, we may wait a long time for the proper barrels and the Pedersoli will work with some care and adjustments. The next post will begin the King's musket work.

dave

 

[dave_person]

Hi Folks,

Today Maria and I will start our thread on building copies of the British "King's Pattern" (Brown Bess) musket and making them as historically accurate as our circumstances permit. I hope you will find this thread entertaining and useful. I apologize up front for the amount of text and some of you may think me pretentious posting this thread but so be it. I believe in education and think this forum is an ideal venue for disseminating information that I know some will value. I gave a seminar at the Kempton's Gunmakers Fair about the Brown Bess and this thread is a follow up to that talk.

Maria and I are making 2 short land and a long land British musket, as well as an Elliot light dragoon carbine. We will focus first on the 2 short land muskets. Here is an example:

It is a pattern 1769 short land musket probably issued during the time of our Revolutionary War. These muskets have shorter 42" barrels differentiating them from the long land muskets with 46" barrels. They and their later variants were the primary British muskets during the latter period of the war (late 1777 - 1783). Early in the war, older pattern long land muskets predominated but not exclusively. I describe the muskets as long or short land and by dated patterns. Let me spend a little time explaining those details. The "land" designation differentiated the guns from those designed and issued for "sea" service. The patterns refer to research by DeWitt Bailey who created a viable taxonomy for British muskets based dated warrants specifying guns as patterns. Previously, collectors and historians focused on "models" of the muskets, something never adopted by British Ordnance. It was simply a convenience for collectors and it glossed over many details. George Moller complicated things by referring to different types within models adding further confusion and adding nothing to the discussion. Bailey cleared it all up by linking dated British government warrant specifications to the various muskets, revealing the different patterns associated with specific dates. Moreover, the British never referred to the musket by models or types. It was always the old King's pattern and the new King's pattern. Here is a sample of the patterns that were used in North America during the 18th century up to and during the Rev War.

Pattern 1730 Long Land First Official King's Musket

Most were upgraded with a newer lock with pan bridle, stronger trigger guard, and often a brass nose band when issued for service in America.

Pattern 1742 Long Land, the workhorse during the French & Indian War

All the lock moldings were gone, the gun simplified but made more massive. Many were converted to steel rammers and fitted with brass nose bands.

Pattern 1756 Long Land Musket, last of the long lands.

New lock with straighter lock plate, designed for steel rammer, long trumpet front ramrod pipe, cast brass nose cap. These muskets were not issued to troops in America during the F&I war. They were the primary muskets issued to British troops during the first 3 years of the Revolution.

Pattern 1769 Short Land Musket.

Same lock as pattern 1756, shorter 42" barrel, simplified buttplate, and flat side plate. The first of these muskets arrived in America with troops supported by the Irish establishment. Hence, they were marked "Dublin Castle" . By the 1776 New York campaign, many "Tower" marked short lands made their way to America. After about 1777, an updated variant of the pattern 1769 began to show up with British troops. This was the pattern 1777.

It had a new simplified lock showing 2 screws behind the flint cock because it used a short sear spring, the finial on the feather spring was simplified, and so was the flintcock. The top jaw screw was given a hole for a tightening bar. Additionally, the mouth of the second ramrod pipe was flared allowing easier entry of the ramrod.

There are other variants, but these are the major ones aasociated with American history.

dave

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Amazing info, thank you!

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
The King's musket was the product of a partnership between the Royal government and private businesses. The government (Ordnance) specified the patterns and specifications for components, which were made by private contractors and delivered to either the Tower in London or the arsenal at Dublin Castle, Ireland. The components were stored and when the government needed muskets, it ordered them to be set up from those parts by goverment and selected private "setter uppers" working in or near the Tower or Dublin Castle. The plan was not to buy finished muskets and have to store them for long periods until needed. Rather, it was more efficient to have the stored components on hand and make them into muskets when needed. During the days of poor environmental controls within buildings, a finished and stored musket was a persishable commodity. Hence, the dates marked on the tails of musket locks do not indicate when the musket was made, only when the lock was made. The lock might have been in storage for a decade before use.

The King's pattern was adopted during the 1720s. It came about from earlier protoype designs dating as early as 1700 or so. The immigrant Dutch gun maker, Andreas Dolep, submitted a design around 1710 that introduced many if not most of the features adopted in the official pattern. In 1722, Master Furbisher of the government's Office of Small Arms, Richard Wooldridge, commissioned French immigrant gun maker, Lewis Barbar, to make 19 prototypes of differing designs from which King George I would select the official pattern. Thirteen were mounted with iron and had 46" barrels and 6 were mounted in brass with 42" barrels. The king chose a gun with a 46" barrel but he wanted the mounts to be of brass not iron. This became the first official musket pattern eventually designated the pattern 1730 and it was truly the "King's Pattern". It is very ammusing that the iconic British musket was mostly designed by immigrant Dutch and French gun makers who were persecuted by the London gunmakers for being "foreigners".

The musket was issued without field testing and almost immediately there were complaints that the trigger guard was too weak. The guard design likely was strong when made of iron, but the brass version was too weak. The musket was continuously upgraded with new trigger guard, brass nose bands, and lock with a pan bridle. The upgraded versions were likely the first King's pattern muskets to see service in America.

dave

 

[springfield art]

Besses are just plain HANDSOME!

 

[akroguy]

The original looks sleeker than the modern repros. Such a beautiful musket!

 

[RB POWELL]

Hi,
The King's musket was the product of a partnership between the Royal government and private businesses. The governement (Ordnance) specified the patterns and specifications for components, which were made by private contractors and delivered to either the Tower in London or the arsenal at Dublin Castle, Ireland. The components were stored and when the government needed muskets, it ordered them to be set up from those parts by goverment and selected private "setter uppers" working in or near the Tower or Dublin Castle. The plan was not to buy finished muskets and have to store them for long periods until needed. Rather, it was more efficient to have the stored components on hand and make them into muskets when needed. During the days of poor environmental controls within buildings, a finished and stored musket was a persihable commodity. Hence, the dates marked on the tails of musket locks do not indicate when the musket was made, only when the lock was made. It could be in torage for a decade before use.

The King's pattern was adopted during the 1720s. It came about from earlier protoype designs dating as early as 1700 or so. The immigrant Dutch gun maker, Andreas Dolep, submitted a design in around 1710 that introduced many if not most of the features adopted in the official pattern. In 1722, Master Furbisher of the government's Office of Small Arms, Richard Wooldridge, commissioned French immigrant gun maker, Lewis Barbar, to make 19 prototypes of differing designs from which King George I would select the official pattern. Thirteen were mounted with iron and had 46" barrels and 6 were mounted in brass with 42" barrels. The king chose a gun with a 46" barrel but he wanted the mounts to be changed to brass. This became the first official musket pattern eventually designated the pattern 1730 and it was truly the "King's Pattern". It is very ammusing that the iconic British musket was mostly designed by immigrant Dutch and French gun makers who were persecuted by the London gunmakers for being "foreigners".

The musket was issued without field testing and almost immediately there were complaints that the trigger guard was too weak. The guard design likely was fine when made of iron, but the brass version was too weak. The musket was continuously upgraded with new trigger guard, brass nose bands, and lock with a pan bridle. The upgraded versions were likely the first King's pattern muskets to see service in America.

dave

Pretty. I like it.

 

[dave_person]

The original looks sleeker than the modern repros. Such a beautiful musket!

Almost anything looks sleeker than the modern repros made in India, Italy, and Japan.

dave

 

[dave_person]

Hi Guys,

Enough history nerd stuff and I'll finally get to the projects. I've been crazy busy and not able to get to it. The first subject is a British Tower assembled pattern 1769 short land pattern infantry musket. It might have come to America with British troops arriving on Staten Island, NY during June 1776. It could have been taken by an American soldier sometime during the New York campaign. This thread will not cover basic stuff about building guns. We will focus only on those details that relate to making historically accurate British muskets. The first task is making good scaled drawings derived from photos and actual specimens. If all you have handled are Pedersoli, Miroku, or India-made Besses, you've not experienced a real King's musket. A real one will surprise you a lot with respect to the quality of the inletting, the thinness of wood along the fore stock, the massiveness of the wrist, lock area, and butt stock. The design of the musket has a basic formula regardless of pattern and barrel length.

On a pattern 1769, the lock is 6 7/8" long and 1 7/32" wide behind the pan. The photo below shows a cast copy of an original lock plate versus one from a Pedersoli repro. The repro is considerably smaller.

The height of the stock at the breech is 2 1/16"-2 1/8", the width at the lock (including the lock) is 2 1/16" - 2 1/8".

The height of the wrist is 1 7/8" at the nose of the comb and 1 3/4" wide. Comb is about 8/ 1/2" - 8 7/16" long from screw in the heel to the nose.

When you put your hand around the wrist of the gun, you will appreciate how big it is and how scrawny all the repros are. The height of the butt plate is 5 1/4 - 5 3/8" and the maximum width is 2 1/16". All the commercial repros are less than 4 7/8" high and less than 2" wide. This photo shows you how much smaller the Pedersoli butt stock is compared with a casting from an original.

The comb is 8 7/16" long from the center of the heel screw to the top of the nose. Length of pull is usually 13 5/8 - 13 3/4" and drop at heel of the buttplate is usually 2 1/4" or less. You cannot build a historically accurate musket with those small butt plates and the result will always look off. If you want to make a Bess for shooting, I recommend you consider the earlier long lands because they have more drop at heel.

Although the King's pattern is thick in the wrist and butt, it is slim in the forestock. You won't find big wide flats on top of the barrel channels like you do on all the repros. A key element to designing a correct musket is to incorporate the dimensions I describe and note 2 critical details. First the face of the buttplate is almost perpendicular with the barrel. Second, if you draw a straight line along the comb, it will go right through or slightly below the screw head for the flint cock. That feature is virtually universal for all King's muskets.

More to come as we describe the barrels.

dave

 

[lexington1]

A most excellent post! Thank you Dave and am looking forward to more.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Thank you Lexington1!
dave

 

[PathfinderNC]

I would bet that your musket will be even more beautiful than an original ever was !

 

[Tumbledown]

Regarding the 1769 and the Irish troops- would those troops coming to Boston in 1775 have been equipped with the 1769 SLP?

 

[dave_person]

Hi JB,
That is a good question. I know without a doubt many troops sent from Ireland to rescue Quebec in April 1776 were armed with Dublin Castle pattern 1769s. Not all, however. At least one regiment delayed sailing from Ireland by a month so it could be armed with long land muskets. I am not sure any troops sent to Boston in 1774 and 1775 had short land muskets.

dave

 

[dave_person]

Hi Guys,
Let us discuss barrels. The Rifle Shoppe supplies proper barrels but it can take a while to get them. Alternatively, and in the case of our 2 short land pattern muskets, we are going to use Miroku and Pedersoli barrels. The reason is we cannot wait for barrels from TRS. We have no idea when they will be available and we have to move forward. The good news is that Miroku barrels are top flight with respect to steel and safety with Pedersoli a little bit lower on that scale. The bad news is the barrel dimensions are too small. As I wrote before, if all you know is a Pedersoli Bess, you do not know much about the real gun. The repro barrels are 1.21" at the breech or about 1/16- 1/8" inches smaller than the originals. We will make that up by making the side plate side of the stock at the breech 1/16" wider than the lock side. You will have to look very closely to see the asymmetry and the thickness at the wrist will be preserved. All of the lugs on the Japanese and Italian barrels are positioned incorrectly. They are soldered on and we pop all of them off. We cleaned up the barrels and started work.

King's musket barrels are not hard to inlet. Most of the taper is over 10" from the breech and the rest of the barrel tapers a little but is almost like a straight pipe. We use a dado cutter to cut out the minimum dimension of the barrel and then gouge out the rest of the bulk of the wood.

This allows the barrel to partially sit down into the the inlet enabling accurate tracing of the outline.
We stab in the outline and then gouge the bulk of the wood out. Then we use a wooden plane with a 3/4" rounded blade to deepen, smooth, and clean up the channel. Eventually, the barrel sits down into the channel.

Next we inlet the breech plug and tang to finish the barrel job.

With the barrels in place, we coat the barrels with paste wax, then coat the barrel channels with tinted Acra Glas epoxy. We bed the barrels in a varnish thin coat of Acra Glas, which strengthens the barrel channel 3-10 times over bare wood. Since a reenactor's gun might fight the Rev War over 40 or more years (5 times the duration of the real war) the epoxy bedding offers a bit of an insurance policy against breaking the stock particularly since we shape the fore stock like the originals, which means thin walls (don't think for a minute that your Italian, Japanse, and India-made guns have authentically shaped stocks).

dave

 

[PathfinderNC]

Dave, I was imagining a rounded-blade plane that could be used for a barrel channel. Sounds like a good tool to have. Do you have a photo of yours?

 

[ArmorerRoy]

Dave

What is your opinion of the Indian made Dublin Castle copy that Veteran Arms sells? What would be the first thing you would change? Mine in the pics…

 

[morehops52]

I wish you had made my rifle. Nice work indeed.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Bob,
Here are pictures of our barrel plane.

It is a handy tool but has to be razor sharp.

dave

 

[dave_person]

Dave

What is your opinion of the Indian made Dublin Castle copy that Veteran Arms sells? What would be the first thing you would change? Mine in the pics…

View attachment 247564

View attachment 247565

Hi,
The first thing I would look at is the lock since that is the heart of the gun. I don't fret about India-made barrels like some do but all of the India-made Besses I've worked on had horribly undersized barrels. The breech should be 1 5/16 - 1 3/8" wide and the India guns are barely 1 1/16" at the breech. However, the locks were terrible. Here is an example from a India made Bess that my shop salvaged and made functional and safe:

May be yours is better. I hope so. The internals were not heat treated properly. We fixed it but I am reluctant to work on them anymore. Too many problems. I cannot advise you on your gun because they vary so much. Look at photos of original pattern 1730s and compare yours. Get a copy of Bailey's "Pattern Dates for British Arms" and check yours against the data from originals. Good luck.

dave