Long Land Pattern 1742

[Ike Godsey]

Hi Folks,

I ran across a bunch for pics of an well used LLP. One of them is this:

What makes me wonder is the frizzen. It lacks the engraving, the frizzen screw looks like to be screwed in from the locks inside.
Also the frizzen spring looks different.

A repair? Or just a cheaper way of producing a weapon?

:hmm:

Ike

 

[Ron LaClair]

If that gun could talk I'd be all ears... :yakyak:

 

[satwel]

Ike,
I too noticed the lack of a screw head on the frizzen pivot. Also the finial of the frizzen spring is unusual. What I question most is the Tower 1742 on the lockplate. I'm not an expert but I believe in 1742 there should be a name of the lock maker instead of Tower. When the Brits did away with the lock maker names, they also dropped the dates. A lock with the Tower surcharge shouldn't have a date. Perhaps that lock is not original to the musket?

 

[Artificer]

Ike,

Interesting first year (by the engraved date) production for a P1742 Pattern Musket.

I think it is a safe bet the Steel/Frizzen is a replacement since it does not have the engraved border lines that it would have had when either engraved by British Ordnance or when accepted by them. The variation from the normal Trefoil on the rear bottom end of the Steel/Frizzen Spring is certainly unusual.

Do I see the almost ghostly remains of the screw slot on the outside of the Steel/Frizzen Screw that is slightly angled to the right from vertical? Or are my eyes deceiving me? I would love to see the inside of the lock to see if the screw slot is inside.

References in Bailey’s books say the first double bridle musket lock was the P1738 Lock first used on the P1740 Musket and no more than 4 years old when this lock was date engraved. The Pattern called for the screw slot to be on the outside of the lock. The Trefoil rear bottom end of the Steel/Frizzen spring was also part of the Pattern.

The engraved Crown on this lock does not look like the quality of normal British Ordnance engraving, though cleaning/polishing by soldiers would have worn the original engraving unevenly. The scroll work on the **** also does not look quite right. I wonder if the lock is actually a “Dutch” lock from the 36,000 “Dutch” Muskets that British Ordnance was forced to buy circa 1740-42 in the early years of The War of Jenkin’s Ear/The War of the Austrian Succession circa 1739 to 1748, though most of the fighting was over by/during 1742 ?

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Something else I just noticed on this lock is on the upper portion of the ****/hammer. There is the normal vertical channel that the tail of the Top Jaw fit inside and kept it from going too far right or left. However, there is also an unusual dished out area connected to that channel that appears to have been chiseled out and not finished smoothly. I wonder if it was done that way because the hole for the Top Jaw Screw may have been drilled a bit off center and angled towards the rear of the ****? I wonder about this because if the Top Jaw Screw hole was correctly drilled parallel to the channel, there would be no reason to have that gouged out area. Look at other period locks from a side view and you can see how there is light between Top Jaw Screw and front face of the top of the **** in this area and that the light is parallel to the front face of the screw ”“ thereby making the gouged out area unnecessary.

Gus

 

[pargent]

It is real enough , I suspect the maker and date are modern , their lay out set off lots of alarm bells .Oh and the lock lead time is way off , the hammer screw head is just worn .

 

[Artificer]

Period "Spare Parts Kits" that were sent along with British Regimental Artificers/Armorers (especially for Regiments going overseas from the Home Islands) in the 17th and 18th centuries always included spare Lock Parts such as Steels/Frizzens along with tumblers, sears, springs and screw stock, if not actual screws and other parts and materials.

However, we do not know a lot about those parts and even where they came from, for the most part. Speculation is that they purchased spare lock parts from the same Lock Contractors who provided complete Locks to the Ordnance Board. Most of those parts most likely would have been in Die Forged, though unfinished condition. Using spare parts forged in the same dies used by the Lock Makers, would have made it much easier to hand fit spare parts, when truly interchangeable parts were still decades in the future.

Of course there is no way to tell for certain who fit the replacement Steel/Frizzen to this lock. It MAY have been done by a Regimental Artificer or it may have been done by what was commonly referred to as "A Country Gunsmith" in the geographic location the Musket was used and the Steel/Frizzen broke or worn out. I do not believe the Steel/Frizzen was replaced by the Ordnance Board or Lock Contractors who were paid to overhaul/fix worn/broken locks by the Ordnance Board, as it is a safe bet the Steel/Frizzen would have been engraved with the "border lines."

It is fascinating to see repaired locks like this and speculate on who fixed it.

Gus