Historical Accuracy of Currently Available British Muskets

[scroggwe]

I've got a couple of questions here. I am a long-time black powder shooter, but am a relative novice with British Military Muskets.

First question: I just this week recieved a British Military Doglock Musket from Military Heritage. Does anyone know if this is an accurate reproduction of actual British doglock muskets? I have looked in George Neumanns' book, "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution" and he shows several doglock muskets in there. All of the doglocks in his book are .75 caliber (the MH doglock musket is .69 caliber) and do not have the serpent sidelock plate, like mine does. Anyone know if the MH Military Doglock Musket is based on an actual example?

Question two: I have heard that the Pedersoli 2nd Model Short Land Pattern Brown Bess is not an accurate copy. I have also looked in George Neumann' book and in Anthony Darling's book, "Redcoat and Brown Bess." I can't find any difference in the Short Land Brown Besses in those books and the Pedersoli. What am I missing here? Can someone enlighten a novice here?

If neither one of these muskets is completely accurate, I won't lose any sleep over it. I am no longer a reenactor, just a shooter and collector. But I would like my muskets to be as accurate as possible. I plan on purchasing both the early and late Long Land Pattern Brown Bess and a India Pattern for my collection.

Any experts out there that can answer my questions? Thanks in advance.

 

[kb466]

One criticism of many of the Pedersoli muskets is that the breech is oversized and thus, heavier. Other Italian muskets usually have this problem, including the Civil War Muskets. I have not examined a Pedersoli Brown Bess to know if it also suffers from this problem. I have been told that it does, but cannot confirm. The Pedersoli Charlevilles clearly have the heavier breech. I sold my Pedersoli M1777 for that reason. When you look at their M1763, it is quite apparent as the lines are considerably altered by the larger breach. The original M1763's were known for their slim lines--not so with the Pedersoli repro.

So why do Pedersoli and other Italian manufacturers do this? Reportedly it is to keep from being sued by some ill-informed shooter using smokeless powder in his musket(and thereby blowing up his musket and himself) or some other similar idiocy. Considering all the litigation in this country, I can't blame them, though I don't like the result.

 

[mikee51848]

I respect your opinion, and that of all the other knowledgeable folks on this subject, including those famous authors and their materials. My contention is that during the course of the American revolution, tens of thousands of muskets were imported, and ten's of thousands more were recovered, repaired, and modified during the war. How can anyone say that the Pedersoli Bess breech never looked like that?

 

[Swampman]

If anything, the Pedersoli Bess breech and barrel are a little undersized. They are pretty good guns. They are accurate and reliable. They aren't perfect historically. The India made muskets are fairly historically accurate but don't seem quite up to snuff quality wise. I like my Jap Bess. It was cheap, and good enough for the likes of me.

 

[mastrsgt]

The MH doglock musket looks more like a trade gun than a militray issue. Take a look at 152.mm in Nuemann's book. It has a dragon sidelplate and is 69 cal. but not a dog lock. The shape of the stock is similar ( kind of french looking). The side plate on 150.mm is very much like that on the MH musket and it is a doglock like yours but the stock shape is quite different. Since my resources a pretty limited and I'm a novice at British militray muskets, these are just some some things to think about. I'm sure others more knowedgeable will be able to provide more informations.

Don R

 

[tg]

"How can anyone say that the Pedersoli Bess breech never looked like that?"

One could use the same logic to ask how we know that someone never invented and used the caplock circa 1750, and you can take this type of reasoning to the limit, but it is not how the game is played, you do not/cannot try and prove what was not done, only research for evidence as to what was.This mindset is the biggest problem with any PC discussions.

 

[benvenuto]

Ockhams razor - "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything"

 

[CrackStock]

How can anyone say that the Pedersoli Bess breech never looked like
that?

It is generally the burden of a person wanting to gain historical acceptance for an item or activity to provide evidence that their contention is accurate and supportable rather than for others to disprove the existance of the item or activity.

CS

 

[scroggwe]

Don R., you are absolutely right! I looked at illustration 150mm in Neumann's book. The MH doglock musket is an absolute perfect match for the musket pictured there, with the exception of the shape of the buttstock. The MH doglock even has the same marking on the lockplate, "Walker". The only other difference is the dog is a slightly different shape.

Neumann states that the musket pictured in 150mm was a surplus military musket shortened for provincial use in the Colonies as a trade or general utility hunting arm.

I talked to the people at Military Heritage today. They told me that it is an exact copy of a doglock musket in the Parks Canada collection.

 

[mastrsgt]

Bill

I'm anxious to hear how well it actually shoots. I have been looking at the long land offered by MVTC but the short land from MH is very appealing as well. Let us know how things work out.

Don R

 

[scroggwe]

Don R. I won't be shooting it for while. This weekend I am going to drill out the touch hole. I have used up the last of my black powder. My local source went out of business last year. I am waiting for a couple of pounds of Ffg that a friend is getting for me through his Muzzleloader Club.

I have heard and read that the quality of these Indian made muskets is not quite up to snuff. I couldn't verify this before, but the quality on this Doglock musket that I bought from Military Heritage is very good, as good as my Pedersoli Short Land Bess, as far as I can tell. I have no qualms about shooting this musket. The only complaints that I had was the uncrowned barrel and the loose cock. I have already fixed the loose cock and will crown the barrel this weekend.

I will order from Military Heritage again, as I also want one of their early Long Land Pattern Besses. Their list price on these muskets is $539.00, but you actually pay less than that with the exchange rate between the U.S. and Canadian dollars. I also want to order the Ketland Flint pistol from MVTC. I will probably order it very soon.

 

[PvtC]

IMHO the Loyalist Arms 1728 long land represents the best value. The architecture, furniture, and lock/proof marks are for the most part correct. We try to recreate an F&I provincial line regiment. LA 1728s have displaced most of the Pedersoli 2nd models over the last couple of years.

 

[mastrsgt]

I've read some good reviews of LA muskets and they are very appealing. I am especially intersted in the 1770-90 Sgts. carbine. LA told me it is being redone and they expect them some time this month. I plan on getting two muskets soon and that will probably be one of them. Actually I would like the 1728 from LA, 1756 from MVTC which is due in this month, and the Short Land from MH. The only problem I have with the MH is that the touch hole isn't drilled and doing so will void any warranty they may offer. That's why I'm anxious to hear Bill's results with his dog lock. Decisions, decisons.

Don R

 

[Rebel]

A friend of mine has their 1740's Carbine and is real happy with it. I have handled it, and it is a nice gun.