north star west officers fusil

[ayetter2003]

on page 29 of " the book of the continental soldire" by Harold L. Peterson you will find a photo of an officers fusil that looks very similiar to the one that north star makes including the sideplate. this fusil is part of the colonial willimsburg collection. so that should keep the pc nuts quite for a while, or just stir them up, it dosnt take much.

based on this i will be ordering one soon and will happily carry it in the woods hunting and trekking.

 

[tg]

Who was suggesting that this gun was not a reasonably correct gun from a historical stanpoint.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Looks like you have enough documentation to suit you. Unless you plan on seeking approval from a group that disapproves of it, you have only yourself to please. :grin:

 

[rkmeyer]

Lets see a picture please.

 

[B. Miller]

I contacted NSW in the middle of August and ordered a Officers Musket. I recieved a completion estimate of approximately four months. On Monday I recieved a call from Matt and got a chance to talk to him on Teusday. He let me know that my Musket would be finished on Wednesday, which is today!. I mailed in the balance today. It will be shipped next Wednesday. So overall it was slightly over three months from ordering to completion. Not bad they beat their estimate by about a month.

Bruce

 

[Okwaho]

on page 29 of " the book of the continental soldire" by Harold L. Peterson you will find a photo of an officers fusil that looks very similiar to the one that north star makes including the sideplate. this fusil is part of the colonial willimsburg collection. so that should keep the pc nuts quite for a while, or just stir them up, it dosnt take much.

based on this i will be ordering one soon and will happily carry it in the woods hunting and trekking.

This Northstar West gun has been the subject of some discussion before.As TG has correctly implied,it is a reasonably good recreation of a British officer's fusil musket from the mid to late 18th century. Guns of this type were purchased privately by officers so that it and others like it vary from gun to gun and from maker to maker.I looked at the one illustrated by Peterson as well as several others and no two guns matched.They were not issued by the British Board of Ordnance but rather, as pointed out above, were private purchases from different makers such as Egg,Manton,and the like by officers and may or may not have seen military[url] use.De[/url] Witt Bailey in "Pattern Dates for British Ordnance Arms 1718-1783" does not show such guns since they were after all privately made and purchased by officers.
This gun would be correct for one portraying a British officer,civilian,or perhaps even an Indian although it might be a tad heavy for Indians who preferred light weight guns and to some degree longer barrels.
As to the ownership by Colonial Williamsburg being proof positive of authenticity, there are numerous examples of less than correct guns,axes, horns,and other militaria reposing in major museums and which are not unknown to collectors and other students of such material.

Tom Patton,
"PC Nut" :hmm: :v

 

[Stumpkiller]

Here is the late Kit Ravenshear with my (former) 1758 Light Infantry Fusil. I believe it would pass muster for most as a representative officer's fusil.

16 bore, 42" barrel.

The 15" socket bayonet was an original broad arrow marked he picked up along the way that happened to fit.

The question might arise why was said officer messing with a musket (on foot?) when he should have been directing his troops. :wink:

 

[Capt. Jas.]

I miss Kit. Used to enjoy watching him give a new creation to some kids to drag around in the dirt for "honest wear and patina".

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

"so that should keep the pc nuts quite for a while, or just stir them up, it dosnt take much."

Why on earth would you make such an arrogant and ignorant and gratuitous statement about people that you do not even know who happen to care sincerely about the history of our nation and the weapons that were such an important part of it's formation? If this is an example of your manners, then I would not be surprised to learn that you belch loudly in public places and urinate in the middle of your living room carpet. I shall reserve final judgement on these matters until a later date as I would not want to jump to conclusions.
Anyway, welcome to the forum and enjoy your new fusil. The maker is first rate and historically speaking, it is just fine.

 

[Bearbait2]

The question might arise why was said officer messing with a musket (on foot?) when he should have been directing his troops. :wink:

Mr. Stumpkiller,
Speaking from first hand experience, though it is most certainly his responsibility to "direct his troops", a weapon in one's hand is most comforting when the combat is close. Even more so when the fighting becomes hand to hand. The bayonet charge that frequently followed after a few volleys had been fired, comes readily to mind. The musket with bayonet attached offers greater versatility than a sword alone, imho. Of course, one fights with whatever might be at hand.
The preceding is not intended as criticism but merely a sharing of my thoughts on the matter. Thank you for sharing yours as I greatly respect the knowledge you have brought to this forum and always look forward to what you have to say. :thumbsup:
Best Wishes

P.S. Fellow members, please excuse my getting a little off topic.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Most of the officer's fusils I have seen and handled in person look just like a civilian English fowler with the exception of being adapted for a small bayonet. Some of them have had no provision for a bayonet either. They almost always have military themed engraved hardware. These also almost always have keyed barrels , mostly with a two piece forestock so they can be taken down and transported easier. They are almost always of pistol or carbine bore too, and at times of musket bore.
These military styled muskets that are being spoken of again I would categorize as private purchase "Sergeants muskets" as well as private purchases by low grade commissioned officers.
Probably the handiest weapon for officers commanding men on 18th century battle fields was the pike. There isn't much else to do besides shout orders until the enemy is with in bayonet range, then a weapon with longer reach than a musket with a bayonet would be quite handy. :Wink:
So , since I'm a PC nut and you're not, why don't you just carry a .22 in the woods? It's pretty close to a flintlock rifle. I mean they do have a barrel and buttstock in common. :haha:

 

[mike alexandre]

http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/191213/post/24004 6/...
Here are some pics of my NSW O/B along side an original.

 

[Mike Brooks]

http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/191213/post/24004 6/...
Here are some pics of my NSW O/B along side an original.

I thought this all sounded familiar! :haha:

 

[mike alexandre]

Hi Mike. Yes it does seem to do the rounds. Maybe we should have a sticky on it :thumbsup:

 

[steve stanley]

And the other reason for carrying a longarm is so he does'nt stand out as the chap without one....
Steve

 

[DanChamberlain]

Rusty

Probably because people sometimes ask about the quality or a particular firearm, or one's experience about a particular firearm they are considering, and without prompting, they are told that it will not be "historically" correct for any particular historical period, even when the question didn't ask for that opinion. I've seen it too many times.

If the post doesn't ask for "historical" authenticity, then the responses shouldn't "suggest" it is not there.

Perhaps the original poster has seen this attitude before, and simply remarked in advance. I don't see anything he said that would indicate he urinates in his living room...but hey, even I like a good belch!

Dan

 

[mike alexandre]

Hi Steve. not sure I follow your thread but yes you are right - concealed and carry was not top of the list in the 1780s.

 

[tg]

"If the post doesn't ask for "historical" authenticity, then the responses shouldn't "suggest" it is not there.'

perhaps, but often the question is "what do you think about such and such a gun" quality, price, options, opinions from those who have used one and the historical accuracy issue are all traits of every ML, any or all of the different traits once known can be considered or dismissed as desired by the poster, there are likely others out there considering the same gun nothing wrong with providing a complete picture, being non PC is not a bad thing.

 

[matt denison]

I went back to the archived posts and reread it all again. It reminds me to mention that I and a crew of techs are re building my website and there will be tons of pictures for each gun. My goal is to have it posted on the server by January 1st. If I could figure out how to post pictures on this forum I would put a few up. Perhaps if one of you gents has a minute to PM me you could give me a quick lesson. Thanks.

Matt

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

It was the original poster who brought up the pc issue and did so in a rude, snide and provocative manner. I was responding to this lack of manners ( often seen in the anti-pc folks) and I am witholding judgement in case this was a one time lapse.
Since this poster bought a fusil that is pretty much a correct piece, I was surprised at his attitude. Perhaps he is very young and/or was under the influence of mind altering substances such as Triple 7 or Pyrodex fumes. Time will tell. :thumbsup: