Officer's Fusil Again

[Swampman]

You are mistaken. It was copied from an original gun. I spent a lot of time talking to the owner of NSW.

 

[matt denison]

After a lot of looking and soul searching,I have come to the conclusion that this gun is a Curly Gostomski original conceived and "designed" by him and I think he created a really nice gun drawing on his many years of looking at these old guns.So call it a composite or fantasy, I think it was and still is uniquely Curly.I can just imagine him laughing about all the hullabaloo he started.
Tom Patton :v :hatsoff:

I've been watching this thread develope on it's own without making any comments. It's interesting to sit by and see/hear other peoples ideas and opinions. I think that Curly was probably slapping his knee laughing until now. This last comment is a tough one to ignore. First, remember that Curly didn't start this "hullabaloo", people on this board did. Curly "designed" a perfect copy of an original gun, reguardless of whether it can be documented in a book. He was very proud of it and so am I. I assure you all it is not a composite gun or a "fantasy" of Curly's. His only fantasy was to "create" perfect copys of original guns on a production level. To be able to build/ship X number of guns per year requires some genious and considerable "design" of the manufacturing process. Every part on this gun is a direct copy from the original including the funkadillic sideplate and the smallish rammer pipes. Please remember that Curly didn't choose this gun to copy to please us in 2006. He was making a marketable gun to sell to the reenactores of the early 1990's who wanted a "Ranger" gun. The dates of this gun listed are from the Smithonian's own records. The gun is not and was not on display. It is/was in storage in the basement somewhere and that is part of how Curly had access to it. I have pictures of the original in Curly's shop during and right after he coppied it. (thank you Paully Meuller, Curly's grandson)

I have enjoyed learning from all the research posted here. I have tried to track this gun down myself and your information is helpful. At the same time you all are not finding much more than I have. I don't think this detracts from the credibillity of the gun. Always remember that this was a privately bought and owned gun. I have seen several similar guns, none are dead on the same. Was there ever a twin? Wouldn't expect there to be one myself. Is anybody ever going to find an exact description or photo in a research book? Doubtful. Does that mean that this gun didn't exist...?

I do not mean to sound defensive or to fuel a contreversy. I only comment to try to set the record straight to protect Curly and his "Last Gun". Believe me, I come to this site to learn from the folks who post here. If any one has any information on this type of gun I would love to hear it.

With respect,
Matt Denison
North Star West, Inc.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I have pictures of the original in Curly's shop during and right after he coppied it.

I have tried to track this gun down myself and your information is helpful. At the same time you all are not finding much more than I have.

So, how about posting the pictures of the original so we can help you figure out what it is?
I don't think anyone meant any disrespect for Curley, there's just a genuine intrest in what this gun actually is.

 

[bnail]

I do not mean to sound defensive or to fuel a contreversy. I only comment to try to set the record straight to protect Curly and his "Last Gun". Believe me, I come to this site to learn from the folks who post here. If any one has any information on this type of gun I would love to hear it.

Matt, it's your baby, you have every right to be defensive.
I read you post with great interest, and I must say, again, it's your gun; consequently, it's up to you to provide the pedigree for the design.
If you want this musket to be taken seriously, you must be the authority on it and if there are photos, by all means, show 'em!
BTW, it looks like a great piece, and I wouldn't mind one myself if I were in the market for such.
keep up the great work, we need more artisans like you :hatsoff:

 

[mastrsgt]

Matt,

I was also pleased to see you involved in this discussion. I just purchased this gun through Dixie Gun Works and am quite pleased with the workmanship. I have not had a chance to fire it yet, but am looking forward to doing so this coming weekend.

Don R

 

[mike alexandre]

Don. If its of any help I've ended up with the following load. .640 ball/.020 patch 1.5" dia with a good smear of Stumpys Moose snot/ either 70grain of FF or 80grain FFF. No wiping needed in our climate(fairly humid).I tried a wad between the powder and the patch/ball combo but the pattern didnt seem to like it. Good shooting.

 

[[email protected]]

As I was actually involved with Curly in the research of the Light Officers Fusile, I thought I would add my "two cents" to this. First, Curly was very concerned about the authenticity of every firearm he introduced. When the F&I movement began growing, he was approached by many to make a "proper" smoothbore for the period. He had me chasing all over the country searching libraries and every obscure book or reference for information verifying that the firearm he had was indeed made in quantity and not a cut down "something." From a marketing standpoint, he lamented over making it the correct caliber, because it meant making another barrel. In the end, historical accuracy won out over cost of production. There are pictures, but not many. All the research papers and books I found died with Curly. His wife Irma, doesn't know what happenned to them. I asked at the time. I do know that this is firearm, like all Curly every made is real. Thanks for listening. Dick NieKamp

 

[Mike Brooks]

I met Curly years ago at Friendship and sat around and shot the bull with him and his buddies on several occasions. He was a fine man and very encouraging and helpfull to a young and novice gunbuilder as myself. His character or his intentions are not in question here. I'd just like to know what the gun was that he used as his pattern piece. I'm just trying to gain a little education here, nothing more, nothing less. :thumbsup:
I obviously need Dewitt Bailey's book to bring myself up to speed. Does anyone know where there is a copy for sale?

 

[mastrsgt]

Mike,

TOTW has the one I have used as a reference earlier. there price seems pretty good compared to DGW and amazon.

Don R

 

[thomas]

Matt, Thanks for posting! :thumbsup: I agree with all you have said! :hatsoff:

Thomas

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Mike, The one curly used was one he had with all his trade guns and chiefs grades and at the time wasn't even sure of what it was. That's why when he realized what it appeared tp be, he had me running all over the country verifying it. i was in commercial aerospace at the time and traveling all over the place anyway, so the old fox put me to work. This was also during the time I was M/L Education coordinator for the NMLRA, so I had no excuse not to stop in Dayton while in Indiana. Matt Dennison at NSW has the pictures of Curly with the original. As I said earlier, I only wish I knew what happenned to everything else I found for him . Holler If I can be of any further help.. Dick

 

[Okwaho]

After a lot of looking and soul searching,I have come to the conclusion that this gun is a Curly Gostomski original conceived and "designed" by him and I think he created a really nice gun drawing on his many years of looking at these old guns.So call it a composite or fantasy, I think it was and still is uniquely Curly.
Tom Patton

I wrote that and stand by it.I would,however, like to take this opportumity to clarify two terms ie,composite and fantasy which I have long used in connection with guns.Neither term was intended to be used in a derogatory manner.Composite guns are those guns built usually at a time when arms were scarce and gunsmiths were desperately trying to satisfy the need for guns for an armed conflict either impending or ongoing.The vast majority of such guns were made by colonial gunsmiths before and during the F&I War or the Rev.War.During the F&I War they would have been made for Americans and British both regular and irregular.During the Rev.War they were made almost exclusively for Americans.They range from simply made to very well made and "Battle Weapons of the Revolution" as well as other books illustrate many examples. They are among my favorites and I have long studied them. I call them "make do guns" and they played a great part in our Country's military heritage.I have never seen the gun that was used as the basis for the gun in question and so I can only speculate as what it was.To me and many other veteran collectors and arms students the term composite guns is hardly an insult but rather a compliment to those unsung and unknown gunsmiths who built them during a time of need.

The term fantasy as to guns can represent a myriad of terminologies.On the one hand it represents guns built where no or extremely few examples exist such as blanket guns,canoe guns,sawed off Ranger guns,and shortened Brown Bess trade guns.This is obviously not the case here and the term "Fantasy" as I have chosen to use it, represents an entirely different concept.These are guns built within a type but in a style based on the individual gunsmith's experience and desire to create an attractive and functional gun outside the norm but remaining within the basic type.The classic example here is Heschel House with his iron mounted early Kentucky rifles.Many believe that none or at best a very few such guns were made.Others such as my friend Wallace Gusler believe otherwise and hopefully Wallace will have a lot to say about these guns in his forthcoming and highly anticipated book. The point is not,however,who is right or wrong.The point is that for the first time in this century and since Calvin Hetrick identified the Bedford County rifles in the 1950's a gunsmith has created a new school of Kentucky rifles.This school has, with much gentle humor, been called the Woodbury [Ky.]School of Kentucky rifles or as I prefer in deference to my friend Herschel,"The Herschel House School of fantasy Rifles".Far from showing derision I use that term as the highest compliment I can give to a gunsmith who has accomplished what he has succeeded in doing.

To say as I did that the gun in question is a "Curly Gostomski original" or "uniqely Curly" is not to say something is amiss but rather that regardless of whatever the basis or inspiration for this gun it is a very attractive and well built gun which anyone should be happy to own.
Tom Patton

 

[mike alexandre]

Two things. First, Gosh - I wish I was as good as you at explaining something I said. It would come in handy next time my two teenagers are having a constructive conversation with me. :bow:
Second. I was stunned when we put the two fusils together as to how close they were given the manufacturing processes of 1800. Differences yes, but to my eye certainly out of the same bed. But then again I'm not an expert.
:hatsoff:

 

[[email protected]]

Sorry Tom, but you couldn't be farther off base on this one. Like I said earlier to Mike, I WAS THERE. In addition to the one curly had in his hand and the one in the Smithsonian he comapared it to, look on page 65, No. 2 of the "Collectors Illustrated Encyclopedia of the American Revolution" and the Light Dragoon Carbine illustrated there. this is the same basic firearm. I mentioned earlier and I will reiterate here, Curley literally lost sleep over this gun, making sure that it did exist and matched the FEW KNOWN examples of a limited, even by the standards of those days, legitimate firearm. He could have short-cutted a lot of things with this, particularly the caliber, but didn't. It is, today, the most accurate representation of a British F&I firearm outside of a Brown Bess, shortened, modified or whatever. If you have any doubts or questions, please feel free to contact me here or direct. I am Dick NieKamp

 

[Okwaho]

Thanks for the kind words, and as to conversing with teenagers,I have two sons,34 and 40 and I can say from great experience that very few parents have "constructive conversations" with teenagers.Your comments about the two guns was indeed food fot thought.Thanks
Tom Patton