Building the King's Muskets and a Bit More

[dave_person]

Hi,
Got a lot done. This will be a big post. First, let me begin with the trigger and trigger guard. We pinned the trigger so the sear of the lock hits the trigger bar about halfway back on the trigger. This gives a pretty good trigger pull with little creep and is correct for our gun given our plans and historical consistency. However, there is a problem. All the modern cast triggerguards are undersized compared with the originals. The Bess guard from Goehring is so small it is useless, the guards from Pedersolis and Mirokus are too small and mishapen, and even those from TOW and TRS are a bit smaller than the originals. That shrinkage makes it hard to move the trigger back to a proper position without the guard interfering. We solved that by giving the trigger a slight forward curve and then thinning the inside of the bow as much as we dare. The Bess guard is not hard to inlet but it must sit down firmly on the trigger plate in front and at the rear. After cleaning up the cast guard, cut the slots for the forward lug and the rear lug so the guard can be set down on the stock. Don't obsess with maiking those slots precise because the lugs are going to move as you inlet the guard. The forward lug should be long so the cross pin is within the lock mortise. Now inlet the front first but don't be worried that it does not sit down on to the trigger plate until the rear extension is partially inlet. Then start inletting the rear extension working back so as the guard sits down in the mortise, it moves a little bit forward. It is important that your trigger plate is inlet well so both the front and tail are strongly supported by the mortise. Fit the front extension first and clamp it in place, then work toward the rear until the rear extension is in. At that point pin the front and rear lugs.

Ignore the screw for the wrist plate in the photos. That gets installed later. Once the guard is in place it should rest on the trigger plate with no gaps front and rear.

Next up the wrist or thumb plate. The screw anchoring the plate goes through the trigger guard, rear of the trigger plate and the wrist, threading into the boss on the underside of the wrist plate. Our plans allow us to line this stuff up.

Then inlet the boss on the thumb plate and drill down with an undersized drill about half way. Locate where you want the screw head on the guard and drill an undersized hole using the guidelines to meet the top down hole. Then inlet te thumb plate. I gouge out the middle of the mortise so the plate sits down on the stock, and then outline and inlet it. Take out the plate and drill a hole the size needed for tapping the screw a short way into the center of the boss. Next install the plate and clamp it in place. Drill up from the bottom with the same drill such that the shallow hole in the boss catches the tip of the drill guiding it into the hole in the boss. Drill a hole 3/4s of the way through the thumb plate. Remove the plate and drill the clearance hole through the triggerguard, trigger plate, and stock. Install the plate and using a pulley tap of the right size, start threading the boss with the plate in the stock until you need a bottoming tap. Then remove the plate and finish the threads using a bottoming tap. I am typically using 10-32 screws, and taps. Finally, make a proper oval headed bolt and countersink the trigger guard for the head.

Now if you inlet the guard well, the screw into the wrist plate will pull the guard down into its mortise without pulling it forward. Regardless, if you already pinned the rear lug, it cannot move forward and you will be OK but it is better to have the guard hit the rear of the trigger plate preventing it from sinking in too far. Next up is the side plate. I made this one using the pattern in Bailey's book on British military arm patterns. It is much bigger than those on the repros, which are too skinny and anemic. I made it from 0.08" sheet brass.

It is inlet flush with the stock and does not have any cups for the lock bolts. With that, the gun is assembled. Now to final shaping. The lock panels are very thin and do not have to match side to side. The tails are usually indifferently shaped if there are any.

The butt has a well shaped rounded comb and well defined handrail wrist.

The stock forward of the lock is very slim with little extra wood.

It is an elegant gun.


More details to come.

dave

 

[PathfinderNC]

Pardon my ignorance on the matter, but I had thought these muskets had a hole in the forward trigger guard for a sling?
(Though the old Japanese repro Bess I salvaged has no hole either). I am curious.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Bob,
It will eventually, when I get to drilling it. It is not important at this stage. The boss on the Miroku guard is so thin that a hole for a sling makes it pretty weak. Don't for a moment think Miroku, Pedersoli, and India made Besses represent anything close to the real guns.

dave

dave

 

[Brokennock]

@dave_person thank you for sharing this and your other posts on the Brown Bess and its recreation. These have given me new appreciation for this gun. I have never been a fan of the military muskets of the period and had little interest in them. You do show just how nice they can actually be.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Brokennock,
They are beautiful guns and when you get past the obvious short cuts with regard to finish and cosmetics, the important stuff is extremely well done and precise. The key problem with the Bess is that it is too big and heavy to be much of anything except a fine military musket. I'd hate to hunt with one and I cannot get down on the stocks with my cheek to form a consistent sight picture. The stocks are too straight. Regardless, they were the Queens of the battlefeild in the 18th and early 19th centuries. As Kipling wrote:

"Though her sight was not long and her weight was not small
Yet her actions were winning , her language was clear;
A everyone bowed when she opened the ball
On the arm of some high gaitered , grim grenadier.
Half Europe admitted the striking success
Of the dances and routs that were given by Brown Bess."
...............

"If you go to museums - there's one in Whitehall
Where old weapons are shown with their names writ beneath,
You will find her upstanding, her back to the wall,
As stiff as a ramrod, the flint in her teeth.
And if ever we English had reason to bless,
Any arm save our mothers', that arm is Brown Bess!"

dave

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
It is black!!!

The black water-based stain shows up scratches and tool marks very well and raises the grain. I scrape and sand it off but pigment will remain in the grain giving the finish an old mellow look. When the color is gone, I know I have scraped and sanded the entire stock without missing spots. However, I will leave some scratches and tool marks, which were found on the originals that were often finished with files.

I scrape the stock but will also sand most of it with 120 grit paper, no finer. Next will be an intense coat of pure yellow water-based stain. That will also be mostly scraped off and then another coat of yellow will follow. That will completely kill the cold purple brown of American black walnut, warming it up to look like English walnut. This gun represents a Tower made musket, which tended to be darker and richer reddish brown color compared with Dublin Castle guns. However, they were not black. The dark and almost black colors of many surviving muskets is the result of the linseed oil-based varnish darkening with age. Note, I wrote "linseed oil-based varnish". These guns were not finished with raw linseed oil or in any way that produces a dull "oil in the wood" looking finish. No gun makers or setter uppers would tolerate a finish that took months to dry and offered poor protection. They used a varnish made with linseed oil (not because linseed oil was any good but it was cheap and available) and some sort of resin or copal varnish. That is the same for American long rifles. All those dull sheen "in the wood" oil finishes you see on some modern muzzleloading creations are late 19th, 20th and 21st century fantasies. The finish on Brown Bess muskets was glossy not dull.

dave

 

[Joemolf]

Thanks Dave for sharing another trade secret! You will go down in history like the Brown Bess!

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Thanks for looking and commenting folks!! Stain and finish time! I always love this part particularly the first coat of finish. All is revealed and I learn if I got the color and appearance right. After sanding the stock with 120 grit, I finished it with some judicious scraping to establish details and smooth rough areas. I left some scratches and tool marks just like the originals. I gave myself 90 minutes to clean up the last whiskering. Whatever roughness remained was left. Then I painted the stock with yellow water-basd dye and left the color. That kills the cold boring purple-brown of most black walnut including this stock Next, I painted on finish. I am using Sutherland Welles wiping varnish medium sheen, which is polymerized tung oil mixed with polyurethane varnish. This is a very weather resistant finish but one that does not look plastic and can match old linseed oil varnishes very well. I tinted the finish with brown oil soluble aniline dye and red alkanet root. Tower assembled muskets tended to have darker staining and finishes than those assembled at Dublin Castle. That was very apparent when I examined original guns in the Fort Ticonderoga collection. So I made this stock darker than my previous Dublin Castle musket project and the next one on my docket of Brown Besses. The first coat was also thinned 50% with mineral spirits to act as a sealer. After 2 coats of the sealer, I use unthinned finish.

Note in the second photo there is no need for a big ugly notch for the flint **** like you see on so many historically obtuse commercial repros.

The originals did not have the big notch either.

The final finish on these guns is a glossy varnish and often it looked thick.

So I have to figure out how I want to do that.

dave

 

[PathfinderNC]

Another for the classics!

 

[Artificer]

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

I hope Dave doesn't mind me chiming in and he is correct no P 1769 SLP's were in the hands of the British Regular Regiments then.

Just because I was curious a couple/three years ago, I researched and found every Regiment sent here before and with the British when they took over Boston in 1775. Fortunately, Bailey lists when British Regiments were re-armed with what new weapons during the 18th century from British Ordnance Records. Even more fortunate is the fact every British Regiment was listed in Bailey's records. Some of the Regiments had just been rearmed with P 1756 LLP muskets a couple to a few years before coming to Boston and others were done immediately before they came over with the British Fleet in 1775. These latter ones would have come from Dublin Castle in Ireland.

Now, that doesn't mean there were no British SLP's at the Siege of Boston, it just means none of the British Regular Infantry Regiments had them. Actually, there were between 900 to 1,100 British SLP's at Boston, but they were P 1757 and P1759 Marine and Militia Musket Pattern SLP's in the hands of the British Marines during the Siege.

Chuckle. Sorry, this American Marine could just not resist pointing out what our Royal Marine Cousins were carrying at the time, though they weren't designated "Royal" until 1802.

Gus

 

[Colonial Boy]

Dave,
As always a delight to read and see, thanks muchly.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Gus, thanks for chiming in. I always learn something when you do. No question that the long land musket was the dominant infantry musket early in the war and almost certainly in Boston during 1774-1775. I had the pleasure of examining a long land that was likely used at Bunker Hill by a soldier in the 63rd regiment. As you wrote, the marines present would have had shorter marine muskets and also several of the light companies would have had light infantry carbines with 42" barrels. However, I am finding that some of Bailey's accounts are certainly the official paper records but not always what actually happened on the ground. For example, several grenadier companies were issued short land muskets in England but when they arrived in America, Howe reissued them long land muskets to maintain uniformity among all the grenadiers. I don't know if Clinton continued that policy but Howe brigaded grenadiers and light Bobs from different regiments into individual battalians and he seems to have demanded uniformity in those units. Something I've learned about the Howe brothers, they despised the British governemnt under North and Germain's administration of the colonies. They acted contrary to orders up to the point of outright insubordination for which both men were investigated after the war.

dave

 

[Artificer]

Hi,
Gus, thanks for chiming in. I always learn something when you do. No question that the long land musket was the dominant infantry musket early in the war and almost certainly in Boston during 1774-1775. I had the pleasure of examining a long land that was likely used at Bunker Hill by a soldier in the 63rd regiment. As you wrote, the marines present would have had shorter marine muskets and also several of the light companies would have had light infantry carbines with 42" barrels. However, I am finding that some of Bailey's accounts are certainly the official paper records but not always what actually happened on the ground. For example, several grenadier companies were issued short land muskets in England but when they arrived in America, Howe reissued them long land muskets to maintain uniformity among all the grenadiers. I don't know if Clinton continued that policy but Howe brigaded grenadiers and light Bobs from different regiments into individual battalians and he seems to have demanded uniformity in those units. Something I've learned about the Howe brothers, they despised the British governemnt under North and Germain's administration of the colonies. They acted contrary to orders up to the point of outright insubordination for which both men were investigated after the war.

dave

Hi Dave,

VERY interesting some Grenadier Coy's were issued SLP's as that goes against the fact Grenadiers were deliberately chosen as the tallest/biggest men of the Regiment. Matter of fact as you know, they continued to set up/issue some LLP muskets for Grenadiers into the very late 18th century. I wonder if the weapons of those Grenadiers were so worn out, that SLP's were the only new muskets they had on hand to issue them at the time?

Of course, we also get into what I will generously call the British Ordnance Board's "peculiar" practices of how they re-armed British Regiments before shipping them out from the home islands to new "duty stations" or conflicts further away. Some of those practices made sense to a degree and frankly some didn't.

Bailey showed that during the AWI, British Ordnance did a 180 degree change from the FIW and re-armed Regiments scheduled to serve here with the most modern weapons possible. I wonder if that's why the Grenadiers lost their recently issued SLP's or was it the whim or good judgement of the Commanders? Because of their size, the Grenadier company was always considered as shock troops. Many were the times Patriots ran away when the Grenadiers advanced with LLP's and bayonets. I can see why they were so terrifying to untrained Patriots.

I wonder if the Howe brothers hated their government because the government had already tagged them as not their first quality commanders? Most of the best generals didn't deign to participate in the AWI.

Gus

 

[D.Summers]

Wow. Amazing stuff!

 

[dave_person]

Hi Gus,
The Howes were very popular with the King George but not with Germain, who thought their requirement that they be given powers of peace commissioners as well as senior military commanders indicated they would not ruthlessly put down the rebellion. Ira Gruber's book on the Howe brothers offers some great insights about why the Howes did not relentlously crush Washington's army during the NY campaign in 1776. They would beat Washington and then pause to see if they could negotiate peace. They were against independence but sought reconciliation at every turn. We are very fortunate they behaved that way. Also Gus, Don Hagist pubished a recent book about grenadiers and light Bobs called " These Distinguished Corps: British Grenadier and Light Infantry Battalions in the American Revolution". All Hagist's books are worth reading.

Getting back to King's muskets, as I review my notes and photo library of original guns I am perceiving the differences in what was likely war production versus pre- war production. There is definitely a decline in quality, particularly with respect to finish and cosmetics, as war demanded faster production. The finest examples of the muskets are those issued at the beginning of the war. At the Kempton Gunmaker's Fair, Eric von Aschwege gave me his original Liege contract musket to measure. They were much lower quality even compared with British war production and variation among them was high. This one was clearly made to the pattern 1777 musket with the Pratt second ramrod pipe but it had the old pattern 1756 lock.

dave

 

[Artificer]

Dave,

I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread on the problems and fixes of reenactor muskets. I also love seeing the way you are grooming Maria to be her unit Artificer.

I remember seeing pics of you going to some reenactments and working as an Artificer. I recently found a reference where British Ordnance sometimes sent an Artificer from the Tower workforce to work on guns overseas. It seems they sent one in the AWI and he wound up stationed at Albany with the British Arms Depot there. IOW, he did more extensive work than some Regimental Artificers knew how to do. You sort of remind me of that much better trained Tower Artificer, though you do things they couldn't do.

Also, I'm wondering if you and Maria have thought of her taking notes on the guns (especially on the lock parts) and recording them in an Artificer's Journal for her by not only the model, but also the maker of the muskets/guns in her group? I wound up falling into doing this in the 1980's when the number of makers of approved NSSA arms got ever larger and I found certain problems commonly coming up with some makers' guns. That way I learned in part how I could use other makers' parts to fix common problems and could quickly identify such parts and later on stock them for future use. WOW, was this a huge help when I became the Team Armorer for the US International Muzzleloading Team!

I began measuring lock screws not only by TPI, but also all measurements. I found sometimes I could replace screws w/too small diameters or off center by retapping and using other screws. I added all measurements I could figure on tumblers and sears and sear springs. Sometimes I think Track of the Wolf must have thought, "What the heck is he working on?" as I would order different kinds of parts that didn't seem to have a logical sense. Naturally I bought taps for all sizes of lock screws and brought them as well.

Of course I could not fix every broken or malfunctioning musket during an event, but it vastly improved the number I could fix.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Hi Gus,
The Howes were very popular with the King George but not with Germain, who thought their requirement that they be given powers of peace commissioners as well as senior military commanders indicated they would not ruthlessly put down the rebellion. Ira Gruber's book on the Howe brothers offers some great insights about why the Howes did not relentlously crush Washington's army during the NY campaign in 1776. They would beat Washington and then pause to see if they could negotiate peace. They were against independence but sought reconciliation at every turn. We are very fortunate they behaved that way. Also Gus, Don Hagist pubished a recent book about grenadiers and light Bobs called " These Distinguished Corps: British Grenadier and Light Infantry Battalions in the American Revolution". All Hagist's books are worth reading.

Getting back to King's muskets, as I review my notes and photo library of original guns I am perceiving the differences in what was likely war production versus pre- war production. There is definitely a decline in quality, particularly with respect to finish and cosmetics, as war demanded faster production. The finest examples of the muskets are those issued at the beginning of the war. At the Kempton Gunmaker's Fair, Eric von Aschwege gave me his original Liege contract musket to measure. They were much lower quality even compared with British war production and variation among them was high. This one was clearly made to the pattern 1777 musket with the Pratt second ramrod pipe but it had the old pattern 1756 lock.

dave

Dave,

Thanks for the tips on Hagist's books.

Your last paragraph about the differences in Pre-War vs War Time Production got me to thinking about some things on the possibility of differing quality of Kings' Muskets I've wondered about.

I may be mistaken, but I've gotten the impression the order of quality of firearms set up is as in the following order. I wonder if this bears out from the original arms you have viewed?

1. Tower of London
2. Birmingham
3. Dublin Castle
4. Much further down - the "Dutch" Muskets British Ordnance was forced to take when they could not meet initial quantity of arms demand when wars first broke out.

(I'm leaving Portsmouth out of the list because Sea Service Arms were by design, plainer designs to begin with. OH, have you ever come across info that showed they actually "set up" Sea Service Arms in workshops there? I haven't and am under the impression they only stored completed guns there for issue.)

At the same time, I think Birmingham has sometimes gotten a raw deal on the perceived quality of Muskets and parts they produced. I note it was William Grice in Birmingham who solved the hardening/tempering problems of Iron/Steel Musket Rammers in the late 1750's/early 1760's, for example, that had escaped the attempts by the Tower and Dublin Castle.

Birmingham was also well known in England for the excellence of making "Toys" by the mid 18th century. This didn't mean children's toys, but rather all sorts of brass buckles and findings of many sorts. I imagine they did very well on casting ramrod/rammer pipes, side plates, etc. in perhaps larger quantities than the London Gunmakers; but have not been able to document that.

Gee, how my mind sometimes wanders on these things. GRIN.

Oh, to close off this post, I do want to add the very first issuance of Brand New P 1730 Muskets to the American Colonies was in 1737 and before British Ordnance had completely re-armed all British Regular Regiments, as amazing as that was no less. These arms therefore would not have had any of the improvements of a double bridle lock nor stronger trigger guard that began being produced in 1740. These Muskets went to Governor Oglethorpe of Georgia who no doubt got them because he was a personal friend of the King.

Gus

 

[Brokennock]

Dave,

Thanks for the tips on Hagist's books.

Your last paragraph about the differences in Pre-War vs War Time Production got me to thinking about some things on the possibility of differing quality of Kings' Muskets I've wondered about.

I may be mistaken, but I've gotten the impression the order of quality of firearms set up is as in the following order. I wonder if this bears out from the original arms you have viewed?

1. Tower of London
2. Birmingham
3. Dublin Castle
4. Much further down - the "Dutch" Muskets British Ordnance was forced to take when they could not meet initial quantity of arms demand when wars first broke out.

(I'm leaving Portsmouth out of the list because Sea Service Arms were by design, plainer designs to begin with. OH, have you ever come across info that showed they actually "set up" Sea Service Arms in workshops there? I haven't and am under the impression they only stored completed guns there for issue.)

At the same time, I think Birmingham has sometimes gotten a raw deal on the perceived quality of Muskets and parts they produced. I note it was William Grice in Birmingham who solved the hardening/tempering problems of Iron/Steel Musket Rammers in the late 1750's/early 1760's, for example, that had escaped the attempts by the Tower and Dublin Castle.

Birmingham was also well known in England for the excellence of making "Toys" by the mid 18th century. This didn't mean children's toys, but rather all sorts of brass buckles and findings of many sorts. I imagine they did very well on casting ramrod/rammer pipes, side plates, etc. in perhaps larger quantities than the London Gunmakers; but have not been able to document that.

Gee, how my mind sometimes wanders on these things. GRIN.

Oh, to close off this post, I do want to add the very first issuance of Brand New P 1730 Muskets to the American Colonies was in 1737 and before British Ordnance had completely re-armed all British Regular Regiments, as amazing as that was no less. These arms therefore would not have had any of the improvements of a double bridle lock nor stronger trigger guard that began being produced in 1740. These Muskets went to Governor Oglethorpe of Georgia who no doubt got them because he was a personal friend of the King.

Gus

Hey Gus, I'm just curious (not in any way questioning or challenging anything here) in these two replies as well as past discussions of period muskets, the Bess in particular, you've often stated certain makers/places "being known for ____". Or that you and others who have handled originals notice different levels of quality between the different sources of these muskets.
Are you, or @dave_person aware of any original period texts available where commanders or troops speak to this? Any "letters home," or officer's notes complaining about certain muskets?

 

[dave_person]

Hi Gus,
Take a look at this:



dave

 

[9th Virginia]

Hi Gus,
Take a look at this:



dave

Friends-
Been gawking & passing this thread and others you all have written on defarbing Brown Besses to my friends for several years!!!!

And then, it happened. My son wanted a Bess & I got a very nice defarbed one.

A Miroku.

But the defarbing included a white lightning vent…. And a main spring which was bubba’ed.

The main spring is excellent, but was filed down at point of contact with tumbler so that anything beyond a flick of the trigger disengages the spring from the tumbler.

Any thoughts as to remedy?

Thanks!

Dave Barno