Need help identifying Revolutionary War era musket 🙏

[FlinterNick]

(PICTURES ATTACHED BELOW)

Hey guys, I’m new to this page but have been interested in the history surrounding the Revolution for some time. Recently, I bought what was advertised as a Second Model Brown Bess from a small dealer up in New England. He said he picked it up at an estate sale in Connecticut.

The stock, buttplate, and trigger/triggerguard are all correct for what a Second Model Brown Bess should have, and the dimensions are correct from what I was able to find online. However, there are a few notable differences that caught my eye. First, the musket has the addition of three brass bands along the barrel which are more-so attributed to the Charleville, and their patina makes them look roughly the age of the brass pieces standard for a Bess. Also, on the barrel there are no standard British markings, only a “P” with a star in the center of the loop and a small line separating the rest of the barrel from the thin metal piece that attaches to the screw. The lock was originally flintlock but was converted to percussion, I’m assuming during the Civil War. However, the lock is flat instead of rounded, typical for guns made in the colonies as opposed to ones made in England.

Could this possibly be a Committee of Safety “parts” gun? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Barrel looks like an original 1763 or 66 barrel

(PICTURES ATTACHED BELOW)

Hey guys, I’m new to this page but have been interested in the history surrounding the Revolution for some time. Recently, I bought what was advertised as a Second Model Brown Bess from a small dealer up in New England. He said he picked it up at an estate sale in Connecticut.

The stock, buttplate, and trigger/triggerguard are all correct for what a Second Model Brown Bess should have, and the dimensions are correct from what I was able to find online. However, there are a few notable differences that caught my eye. First, the musket has the addition of three brass bands along the barrel which are more-so attributed to the Charleville, and their patina makes them look roughly the age of the brass pieces standard for a Bess. Also, on the barrel there are no standard British markings, only a “P” with a star in the center of the loop and a small line separating the rest of the barrel from the thin metal piece that attaches to the screw. The lock was originally flintlock but was converted to percussion, I’m assuming during the Civil War. However, the lock is flat instead of rounded, typical for guns made in the colonies as opposed to ones made in England.

Could this possibly be a Committee of Safety “parts” gun? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

This is what collectors often call a composite musket, basically made up of random parts.

An important historical fact about composite guns is that before the Revolutionary War expanded involving formal declarations of war on england by France, the Dutch and Spain, large amounts of surplus locks, barrels, and hardware were sent over to the USA to be stocked. A large nomination of those parts were french shipped over in 1776. So it’s not uncommon to see 1728, 1754 and 1763 locks on American stocked muskets, or even french barrels on what looks like a Brown Bess type COS musket.

Barrel: The barrel is likely french, either a 1763 or 66 barrel, the breech appears to have one flat which is common on a 1763 or later pattern. the french proof mark on the top of the barrel suggests this barrel was surplus and likely came over to the USA in a parts bundle. If its a 1763 barrel it will be on average 5 lbs or more with a round vertical breech measuring 34-36mm. If its around 31-32 mm, oval shaped, with two flats it’s a 1766 barrel.

The brass bands are common french style on dragoon muskets of the 1763 pattern, could have been part of a parts shipment to america, but my opinion is that they may be modern, they look pretty new to me.

Trigger Guard is a second model guard, looks slightly smaller, and not drilled for the sling boss, this is very likely a reproduction guard for a P1756, 1769 or other fusil.


Rammer is french late 66 - 74 style, stock appears to be British style, fusil style.


Side plate is carbine plate, or could be homemade from sheet brass.

The Lock looks British, french military locks didn’t have border engravings, Dutch locks may have, but my suggestion is this is a british Made lock, not specific to any single type of military pattern likely would have been similar to a larger 1776 style lock.

The salient feature of your musket is the barrel, if it is a 1763 barrel, these are sought after by collectors to for documentation and comparison to other 1763 barrels because 1763 barrels were experimental, made shorter but heavier than the previous models 1717-1754, but made in limited numbers.

One last note, French musket barrels were in .69 - .72 caliber, the french ordinance requirements were a minimum of .69 and maximum of .72, its not uncommon to find french muskets in .72 caliber.

Here is one from Williamsburg in .72 caliber.

https://emuseum.history.org/objects/21471/model-1766-musket-with-us-markings

http://www.ladybemused.com/jaeger/NRA/The Revolutionary Charleville.htm

 

[Clark Badgett]

Do you mean this brass piece? My Pedersoli Second Model Brown Bess has a pretty similar style

Yes that would be the return. AFAIK, Pedersoli didn’t make a 1742 Bess, which is the 2nd model, they make a quasi 1769 Bess which would have been a 4th model.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Barrel looks like an original 1763 or 66 barrel


This is what collectors often call a composite musket, basically made up of random parts.

An important historical fact about composite guns is that before the Revolutionary War expanded involving formal declarations of war on england by France, the Dutch and Spain, large amounts of surplus locks, barrels, and hardware were sent over to the USA to be stocked. A large nomination of those parts were french shipped over in 1776. So it’s not uncommon to see 1728, 1754 and 1763 locks on American stocked muskets, or even french barrels on what looks like a Brown Bess type COS musket.

Barrel: The barrel is likely french, either a 1763 or 66 barrel, the breech appears to have one flat which is common on a 1763 or later pattern. the french proof mark on the top of the barrel suggests this barrel was surplus and likely came over to the USA in a parts bundle. If its a 1763 barrel it will be on average 5 lbs or more with a round vertical breech measuring 34-36mm. If its around 31-32 mm, oval shaped, with two flats it’s a 1766 barrel.

The brass bands are common french style on dragoon muskets of the 1763 pattern, could have been part of a parts shipment to america, but my opinion is that they may be modern, they look pretty new to me.

Trigger Guard is a second model guard, looks slightly smaller, and not drilled for the sling boss, this is very likely a reproduction guard for a P1756, 1769 or other fusil.


Rammer is french late 66 - 74 style, stock appears to be British style, fusil style.


Side plate is carbine plate, or could be homemade from sheet brass.

The Lock looks British, french military locks didn’t have border engravings, Dutch locks may have, but my suggestion is this is a british Made lock, not specific to any single type of military pattern likely would have been similar to a larger 1776 style lock.

The salient feature of your musket is the barrel, if it is a 1763 barrel, these are sought after by collectors to for documentation and comparison to other 1763 barrels because 1763 barrels were experimental, made shorter but heavier than the previous models 1717-1754, but made in limited numbers.

One last note, French musket barrels were in .69 - .72 caliber, the french ordinance requirements were a minimum of .69 and maximum of .72, its not uncommon to find french muskets in .72 caliber.

Here is one from Williamsburg in .72 caliber.

https://emuseum.history.org/objects/21471/model-1766-musket-with-us-markings

http://www.ladybemused.com/jaeger/NRA/The Revolutionary Charleville.htm

The more I look at it, the more I’m thinking movie prop gun.

 

[FlinterNick]

Yes that would be the return. AFAIK, Pedersoli didn’t make a 1742 Bess, which is the 2nd model, they make a quasi 1769 Bess which would have been a 4th model.

1742 is a long land pattern with a 46” barrel, the last of the long land series was the P1756, 2nd model brown Bess’s had 42” barrels there were several second model variants as well, 1769, 1777 and a 1779 pattern as well as Belgian and Irish patterns.

Pedersoli’s brown bess isn’t really patterned after any specific model bess, its a production gun, its a 7/8 scale pattern of a Brown Bess, everything is smaller in scale including the side plate and wrist plate. They made it smaller in scale because it’s cheaper to manufacture than an authentic brown bess/

 

[rich pierce]

Do you mean this brass piece? My Pedersoli Second Model Brown Bess has a pretty similar style

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/brown-bess-kit.139414/page-2

Your buttplate return or extension is very narrow. It does not start wide and step down in stages. Can you show me an original 2nd model Brown Bess with a narrow buttplate extension that does not start out wide and step down?

I’m no military gun expert but this looks obvious to me.

 

[PathfinderNC]

This is a good read with excellent resource links.

 

[Clark Badgett]

1742 is a long land pattern with a 46” barrel, the last of the long land series was the P1756, 2nd model brown Bess’s had 42” barrels there were several second model variants as well, 1769, 1777 and a 1779 pattern as well as Belgian and Irish patterns.

Pedersoli’s brown bess isn’t really patterned after any specific model bess, its a production gun, its a 7/8 scale pattern of a Brown Bess, everything is smaller in scale including the side plate and wrist plate. They made it smaller in scale because it’s cheaper to manufacture than an authentic brown bess/

I’m more in the DeWitt Bailey camp on designations instead of the much older and antiquated Anthony Darling camp. Models should be years and types should be variations.

 

[Benjamin_Martin]

Barrel looks like an original 1763 or 66 barrel


This is what collectors often call a composite musket, basically made up of random parts.

An important historical fact about composite guns is that before the Revolutionary War expanded involving formal declarations of war on england by France, the Dutch and Spain, large amounts of surplus locks, barrels, and hardware were sent over to the USA to be stocked. A large nomination of those parts were french shipped over in 1776. So it’s not uncommon to see 1728, 1754 and 1763 locks on American stocked muskets, or even french barrels on what looks like a Brown Bess type COS musket.

Barrel: The barrel is likely french, either a 1763 or 66 barrel, the breech appears to have one flat which is common on a 1763 or later pattern. the french proof mark on the top of the barrel suggests this barrel was surplus and likely came over to the USA in a parts bundle. If its a 1763 barrel it will be on average 5 lbs or more with a round vertical breech measuring 34-36mm. If its around 31-32 mm, oval shaped, with two flats it’s a 1766 barrel.

The brass bands are common french style on dragoon muskets of the 1763 pattern, could have been part of a parts shipment to america, but my opinion is that they may be modern, they look pretty new to me.

Trigger Guard is a second model guard, looks slightly smaller, and not drilled for the sling boss, this is very likely a reproduction guard for a P1756, 1769 or other fusil.


Rammer is french late 66 - 74 style, stock appears to be British style, fusil style.


Side plate is carbine plate, or could be homemade from sheet brass.

The Lock looks British, french military locks didn’t have border engravings, Dutch locks may have, but my suggestion is this is a british Made lock, not specific to any single type of military pattern likely would have been similar to a larger 1776 style lock.

The salient feature of your musket is the barrel, if it is a 1763 barrel, these are sought after by collectors to for documentation and comparison to other 1763 barrels because 1763 barrels were experimental, made shorter but heavier than the previous models 1717-1754, but made in limited numbers.

One last note, French musket barrels were in .69 - .72 caliber, the french ordinance requirements were a minimum of .69 and maximum of .72, its not uncommon to find french muskets in .72 caliber.

Here is one from Williamsburg in .72 caliber.

https://emuseum.history.org/objects/21471/model-1766-musket-with-us-markings

http://www.ladybemused.com/jaeger/NRA/The Revolutionary Charleville.htm

Thank you for your help! This was very helpful

 

[FlinterNick]

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/brown-bess-kit.139414/page-2

Your buttplate return or extension is very narrow. It does not start wide and step down in stages. Can you show me an original 2nd model Brown Bess with a narrow buttplate extension that does not start out wide and step down?

I’m no military gun expert but this looks obvious to me.

I think that’s a home made plate, looks more like a trade Gun plate.

This is an american musket butt plate from Neuman’s book.

 

[Conquerordie]

Yeah I'm with a post war parts gun. It seems to be a mish mash of parts from various styles. Committee of Safety guns I believe followed set standards set by the colony, usually similar to British guns in style and caliber. If you purchased it as a Committee of Safety musket or British Bess, you might want to contact the seller for a refund.

 

[Penske]

Benjamin
Interesting that the side plate is from an English sergeants of grenadiers carbine. A rare musket not often encountered.

 

[Clark Badgett]

Benjamin
Interesting that the side plate is from an English sergeants of grenadiers carbine. A rare musket not often encountered.

Also often found on English export grade fowlers

 

[oreclan]

(PICTURES ATTACHED BELOW)

Hey guys, I’m new to this page but have been interested in the history surrounding the Revolution for some time. Recently, I bought what was advertised as a Second Model Brown Bess from a small dealer up in New England. He said he picked it up at an estate sale in Connecticut.

The stock, buttplate, and trigger/triggerguard are all correct for what a Second Model Brown Bess should have, and the dimensions are correct from what I was able to find online. However, there are a few notable differences that caught my eye. First, the musket has the addition of three brass bands along the barrel which are more-so attributed to the Charleville, and their patina makes them look roughly the age of the brass pieces standard for a Bess. Also, on the barrel there are no standard British markings, only a “P” with a star in the center of the loop and a small line separating the rest of the barrel from the thin metal piece that attaches to the screw. The lock was originally flintlock but was converted to percussion, I’m assuming during the Civil War. However, the lock is flat instead of rounded, typical for guns made in the colonies as opposed to ones made in England.

Could this possibly be a Committee of Safety “parts” gun? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

(PICTURES ATTACHED BELOW)

Hey guys, I’m new to this page but have been interested in the history surrounding the Revolution for some time. Recently, I bought what was advertised as a Second Model Brown Bess from a small dealer up in New England. He said he picked it up at an estate sale in Connecticut.

The stock, buttplate, and trigger/triggerguard are all correct for what a Second Model Brown Bess should have, and the dimensions are correct from what I was able to find online. However, there are a few notable differences that caught my eye. First, the musket has the addition of three brass bands along the barrel which are more-so attributed to the Charleville, and their patina makes them look roughly the age of the brass pieces standard for a Bess. Also, on the barrel there are no standard British markings, only a “P” with a star in the center of the loop and a small line separating the rest of the barrel from the thin metal piece that attaches to the screw. The lock was originally flintlock but was converted to percussion, I’m assuming during the Civil War. However, the lock is flat instead of rounded, typical for guns made in the colonies as opposed to ones made in England.

Could this possibly be a Committee of Safety “parts” gun? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

It looks like a British stock. The side plate is like the pattern 1770 Sergeants of grenadiers carbine. The trigger guard is a British second model, but the butt plate looks more commercial fowler than military. As for the barrel bands there were French muskets (or Spanish)with brass bands that may have been used rather than pins.
The barrel marking I do not know. Pennsylvania marking?
The flat lock may be French or Colonial made.

 

[FlinterNick]

It looks like a British stock. The side plate is like the pattern 1770 Sergeants of grenadiers carbine. The trigger guard is a British second model, but the butt plate looks more commercial fowler than military. As for the barrel bands there were French muskets (or Spanish)with brass bands that may have been used rather than pins.
The barrel marking I do not know. Pennsylvania marking?
The flat lock may be French or Colonial made.

The trigger guard is a reproduction, the sling boss isn’t drilled, it it were an original the sling boss would be drilled.

The side plate is a carbine side plate however it may be a reproduction also.

Shrinkage around the inlets suggest and clean brass parts suggest to me that this was a restoration project.

It’s certainly not a COS musket.

 

[KevinC]

It looks like it might be an 1816 (or maybe even an 1808) contract musket. It has the proof mark.
It's definitely been converted to percussion, that was done with a lot of the good ones prior to the Civil war.
As mentioned earlier, it could be a Potsdam as well.
I'm no expert but got a pretty good education when I got an original 1808 contract that was built by Asa Waters and Nathanial Whitmore under the lock name "Sutton", for the town in which it was made. Mine was delivered to the Springfield Armory in its earliest days.
The authoritative work on the subject is " US Martial Flintlocks" by Robert Reilly.
ISBN 0-917218-21-3

You've got a very nice piece of US history there!

 

[FlinterNick]

It looks like it might be an 1816 (or maybe even an 1808) contract musket. It has the proof mark.
It's definitely been converted to percussion, that was done with a lot of the good ones prior to the Civil war.
As mentioned earlier, it could be a Potsdam as well.
I'm no expert but got a pretty good education when I got an original 1808 contract that was built by Asa Waters and Nathanial Whitmore under the lock name "Sutton", for the town in which it was made. Mine was delivered to the Springfield Armory in its earliest days.
The authoritative work on the subject is " US Martial Flintlocks" by Robert Reilly.
ISBN 0-917218-21-3

You've got a very nice piece of US history there!

What features makes you think/believe its a US contract musket?

 

[TFoley]

the P is just a PROOF mark i believe.i would guess the barrel is french, a bess barrel would have a "wedding band" at the breech. also standard 63/66 and 74 charleville's had iron bands. perhaps they are from a marine musket.??

Hmmmmmm. French for proof is 'Épreuvée' so P for proof doesn't gel.

 

[2 shots]

 

[Clark Badgett]

It looks like it might be an 1816 (or maybe even an 1808) contract musket. It has the proof mark.
It's definitely been converted to percussion, that was done with a lot of the good ones prior to the Civil war.
As mentioned earlier, it could be a Potsdam as well.
I'm no expert but got a pretty good education when I got an original 1808 contract that was built by Asa Waters and Nathanial Whitmore under the lock name "Sutton", for the town in which it was made. Mine was delivered to the Springfield Armory in its earliest days.
The authoritative work on the subject is " US Martial Flintlocks" by Robert Reilly.
ISBN 0-917218-21-3

You've got a very nice piece of US history there!

Robert Reilly’s works are not the authoritative works on US muskets. Moller’s and Schmidt’s works far outstrip Reilly’s.

No, the subject of this thread is not a contract musket.

 

[Benjamin_Martin]

Hi everyone, I have some updates with the musket in question, with pictures attached below. I was recently able to take off the lock and side plate, and on the inside of the lock the only engraving I could find is a potential hand-done “PI” but my eyes might be playing tricks on me.

The side plate that caused some debate previously is in fact original to the gun, as the piece of metal is actually surprisingly thick and its outline is etched into the wood. On the back of this side plate I have found “V??RE,” although due to pitting the other letters are very hard to read, and so help with determining what this says/means would be a great service.

The screws definitely look old, and have potential markings on their stems, although this is very hard to read as well.

Also, here is the ramrod pulled out so that you can see the full thing rather than just the tip.

I am tempted to take off the barrel to see if there are any markings underneath, although I am scared I will damage the gun as it looks like the brass barrel bands are attached with pins, and so I might have an expert do this when I take my gun in to get stabilized at the range.