Historically accurate or Fantasy??

[CMHouchins]

https://www.sittingfoxmuzzleloaders.com/product/f-350-british-officers-light-dragoon/

Curious if this is correct or another fantasy pc.. Thanks

 

[Youngblood]

I dont know how correct they are but these so called officers fusils that are basically a smaller Bess are common today.

 

[MAPMFF]

I think that's certainly in the realm of something that would have been seen in the last half of the 18th Century, early 19th.

British officers did often carry "cut down" versions of the Land pattern muskets, not necessarily to say they were cut down and field modified. They would be made by a private gunsmith, and so purchased. They were based, roughly off the military pattern of the day but often would have some finer details and customization that would not be found on an enlisted man's weapon. Remember that Officers at this time purchased their commissions, uniforms, etc, so I would guess that having a snazzy weapon would be something to show off among their fellow officers.

 

[MAPMFF]

Not the best quality image, but an extant example taken from the 18thC Material Culture slideshow.

 

[tenngun]

There is a thread about middlesex village trading, and the quality of their product and service.
This is just off their site, I’ve never done business with them and make no recommendations here
But
I love their site, the owner has a good FAQ page that has good info for new shooters
They offer this gun. A general copy of an officers fusil. Original was .54, they made .62. This is their repo and the original
Officers didn’t normally fire a gun in battle, except hand to hand and then it was sword and pistol. However some had such guns. Well made, but not fancy as a fowler, and looking like a bess

 

[OldMaineWoodsman]

Questions about their knowledge and research went up as soon as I read Ordnance misspelled.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
That gun is a fantasy and a poor one at that. Where is the side rail used on all dragoon firearms? Ordnance did not issue officer's firearms, they were purchased privately by the officer or occasionally batch orders where made by the regimental colonel. Keep in mind, many senior officers including Cornwallis, Clinton, and Burgoyne discouraged officers from carrying fusils. They wanted the officers leading the men not loading and firing. The gun would definitely have a bayonet stud for the same bayonet used on guns of other ranks. The stock is poorly shaped with lock panels that look like they were carved by a first time builder. Even the lock has the wrong frizzen spring. This is no copy of anything in the Smithsonian.

Tenngun, that MVT offering is no officer's fusil. They grossly misidentify the original, which was a New England militia gun from the early 19th century I believe to have been cut back. It was made with Ketland export components. Almost all true officers fusils had sling swivels and mounted a full sized bayonet. Here are some photos of that particular gun so you can judge the quality.

It looks to be inlet using a dull screw driver. The lock was particularly bad with the tumbler post not protruding through the lock plate far enough. When you tightened down the tumbler screw on the flint ****, the **** was simply tightened against the lock plate causing tremendous friction. I really hate it when these guys market their stuff as "exact" or "faithful" copies of originals. They are not even close. I am sympathetic with the need to produce guns at a reasonable price but I really get angry when a product is willfully marketed as something it is not. It is an affront to the buyer and to the talented tradesmen who made the originals long ago.

dave

 

[Brokennock]

Hi,
That gun is a fantasy and a poor one at that. Where is the side rail used on all dragoon firearms? Ordnance did not issue officer's firearms, they were purchased privately by the officer or occasionally batch orders where made by the regimental colonel. Keep in mind, many senior officers including Cornwallis, Clinton, and Burgoyne discouraged officers from carrying fusils. They wanted the officers leading the men not loading and firing. The gun would definitely have a bayonet stud for the same bayonet used on guns of other ranks. The stock is poorly shaped with lock panels that look like they were carved by a first time builder. Even the lock has the wrong frizzen spring. This is no copy of anything in the Smithsonian.

Tenngun, that MVT offering is no officer's fusil. They grossly misidentify the original, which was a New England militia gun from the early 19th century I believe to have been cut back. It was made with Ketland export components. Almost all true officers fusils had sling swivels and mounted a full sized bayonet. Here are some photos of that particular gun so you can judge the quality.

It looks to be inlet using a dull screw driver. The lock was particularly bad with the tumbler post not protruding through the lock plate far enough. When you tightened down the tumbler screw on the flint ****, the **** was simply tightened against the lock plate causing tremendous friction. I really hate it when these guys market their stuff as "exact" or "faithful" copies of originals. They are not even close. I am sympathetic with the need to produce guns at a reasonable price but I really get angry when a product is willfully marketed as something it is not. It is an affront to the buyer and to the talented tradesmen who made the originals long ago.

dave

Well,,,, there you have it folks. Whether you like it or not, there is your answer.

It is so hard for so many, myself included at times, to remember that almost anything put on a vendor's site is meant to sell you something, not to educate you.

 

[Grenadier1758]

https://www.sittingfoxmuzzleloaders.com/product/f-350-british-officers-light-dragoon/

Curious if this is correct or another fantasy pc.. Thanks

British Ordnance did not have specifications for Officers' fusils. There were specifications or patterns for light infantry carbines and artillery carbines.

As stated above, officers were discouraged from carrying firearms in battle. The officer's purpose was to lead, not shoot. Now since battles were not an everyday occurrence, some officers wanted a light firearm for hunting, mostly fowling. A light firearm of the pattern of a light infantry carbine was procured from private contractors. As @dave_person observes, these light carbine caliber smoothbores would be of much finer construction than the light infantry or artillery carbines and mostly used as a fowling gun for the officer's recreation.

 

[Twopoint]

this here might be what it is supposed to be?

https://www.rockislandauction.com/d...iotts-light-dragoon-pattern-flintlock-carbine

 

[dave_person]

this here might be what it is supposed to be?

https://www.rockislandauction.com/d...iotts-light-dragoon-pattern-flintlock-carbine

Hi,
Well their first problem is the Elliot had a 28" barrel not 37" like their product.

dave

 

[CMHouchins]

Thank you for the education gentleman… greatly appreciated!!

 

[Artificer]

At best, that arm has only slightly passing similarity to the P1756 Artillery/Serjeants/Highlanders Carbine, though besides the front sight being wrong and other things Dave Person mentioned, there is even more wrong than that. This even when looking up the closest possible original pieces.

This is just a SWAG on my part, but I'm guessing they were after a market for the FIW as well as the AWI.

The crown engraved on the Lockplate is only half of what was known as the "King's Cypher." Under the crown would have been the initials of the King, so there should be a GR under the crown, BUT these weren't engraved on Officers' Fusils because that Cypher (actually even just an engraved crown) meant it was the property of the King and his government.

A small number of the earliest P1756 Artillery/Serjeants/Highlanders Carbines were made with "Nose Bands" like this repro, but most were made with Nose Caps on the front end of the stock. Even though they were supposed to have been made with an Iron/Steel Rammer from the very beginning, there was also a huge problem with the temper of British Iron/Steel Rammers when this Pattern went into production, so some of the earliest examples still had wooden Ram Rods and larger Ram Rod Pipes.

Bottom line, it isn't an accurate copy of anything as Dave Person mentioned and I strongly suspect it is an extremely poor copy of the now defunct North Star West Officer's Fusil.

Gus

 

[smoothshooter]

I think that's certainly in the realm of something that would have been seen in the last half of the 18th Century, early 19th.

British officers did often carry "cut down" versions of the Land pattern muskets, not necessarily to say they were cut down and field modified. They would be made by a private gunsmith, and so purchased. They were based, roughly off the military pattern of the day but often would have some finer details and customization that would not be found on an enlisted man's weapon. Remember that Officers at this time purchased their commissions, uniforms, etc, so I would guess that having a snazzy weapon would be something to show off among their fellow officers.

 

[smoothshooter]

They were normally of a smaller caliber. Somewhere around .65.
In the British military this was considered “ carbine bore “ size.