Pattern 1776 or Baker kit

[LeftHandGuy]

Hi all, hoping to start a discussion - perhaps even a couple of well mannered arguments - to help me make a decision and start planning for what will be (for me at least) the significant purchase of a custom built rifle.

Basically I want a high quality flintlock rifle whose primary use will be the PA flintlock deer season, but that gives a significant nod to my own history as a Brit in general, and my connection to the British Army in particular.

I already know that I want a Rifle Shoppe kit, and am narrowed to their Pattern 1776 like this one or their (historically questionable) left-handed Baker like this one. Left handed is important because I'm blind in my right eye. The side the lock is on I don't think matters so much, but the cheek piece and (possible) cast of the Baker stock does.

I'd be interested in hearing from anybody who has built or had built for them, either of these kits - especially if you've hunted with it - but really anything at all is valued!

I'd also be grateful for any suggestions for gun builders to use - especially any close to NE PA who I might be able to actually meet in person.

I've been delaying writing this post for a while now, so I'll just let this go now and see what responses I get!

Thanks all, Guy

 

[cositrike]

Hi all, hoping to start a discussion - perhaps even a couple of well mannered arguments - to help me make a decision and start planning for what will be (for me at least) the significant purchase of a custom built rifle.

Basically I want a high quality flintlock rifle whose primary use will be the PA flintlock deer season, but that gives a significant nod to my own history as a Brit in general, and my connection to the British Army in particular.

I already know that I want a Rifle Shoppe kit, and am narrowed to their Pattern 1776 like this one or their (historically questionable) left-handed Baker like this one. Left handed is important because I'm blind in my right eye. The side the lock is on I don't think matters so much, but the cheek piece and (possible) cast of the Baker stock does.

I'd be interested in hearing from anybody who has built or had built for them, either of these kits - especially if you've hunted with it - but really anything at all is valued!

I'd also be grateful for any suggestions for gun builders to use - especially any close to NE PA who I might be able to actually meet in person.

I've been delaying writing this post for a while now, so I'll just let this go now and see what responses I get!

Thanks all, Guy

I don’t find that the lock or cheek piece causes any problems shooting left handed. I’ve been doing it for nearly 50 years, without trouble. As to which gun, I just like the 1776 more.

 

[LeftHandGuy]

I don’t find that the lock or cheek piece causes any problems shooting left handed. I’ve been doing it for nearly 50 years, without trouble. As to which gun, I just like the 1776 more.

Yeah - I think I am leaning that way too. I know from shooting straight stocked flintlocks and dog locks that the lock being in the right doesn’t bother me, but having a cheek piece in the “wrong” side would (at custom gun prices!) Also the1776 has that Revolutionary War connection that obviously the Baker does not.

But I could be swayed…

 

[tenngun]

Baker is a military gun. And shoots but was robust. I find civilian guns more graceful

 

[LeftHandGuy]

Baker is a military gun. And shoots but was robust. I find civilian guns more graceful

yeah - for sure I wouldn’t have any real use for the Baker’s bayonet lug whilst whitetail hunting!

 

[Rod Man]

I think Bakers are really neat rifles, but under the circumstances and the (Wrong handedness - I am as well) preference, I am thinking the 1776 is the way to roll. Especially when you consider the vision aspect. I grew up shooting right handed guns as a kid since I could not afford left handed ones. Now that I can, I shoot left handed guns.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Lefthandguy,
I am very familiar with making 18th and early 19th century British guns. Muskets, carbines, Ferguson's, fusils, fowlers, sporting rifles, dueling pistols, horse pistols, and turn off pistols. I've made them all multiple times and my objectives have always been that if you aged and scratched up my guns, they could be displayed along with museum collections and fit right in. The Baker rifle offered by TRS is a good parts set but not historically accurate because they added a bit more drop at heel to their stock compared with the originals. British rifleman complained constantly about the straight stocks of the Bakers and even went so far as to have them steamed and bent to increase the drop. TRS would not sell many Bakers if they made them as the originals. The pattern 1776 Birmingham rifle is a good gun but suffers from a mediocre lock. The stock would also benefit from more drop. There were other British rifles imported from Germany and used in the Rev War that were pretty well made and designed. They look a bit more like German jaegers. The best fitting British ordnance issued rifle during the 18th century was the Ferguson. It is hands down the best fitting and shooting British military rifle from that period. However, it suffered a fatal flaw in that the stock was extremely weak around the lock. Most Fergusons from that era that show major use have stocks broken by the lock and breech. So, where am I going with this? I think in your situation either a nice left hand British sporting rifle or a rifled officer's fusil might be the ticket. Both usually did not have cheek pieces during the 18th century. Rifled fusils were rare but some British officers had fusils made with rifled barrels so they could hunt big game in North America while on service. Below are photos of my rifled officer's fusil. It is my go to rifle an is very accurate. It is based on an original by John Twigg and the TRS cast lock is a copy from Twigg's gun. You could make one of these (simple or ornate) lefthanded or right.

dave

dave

 

[Rod Man]

Nice!!! There you go, “The Master” has spoken!

RM

 

[LeftHandGuy]

many thanks @dave_person I shall study your response carefully when I am home and try not to drool over my keyboard at your pictures!

 

[LeftHandGuy]

@dave_person a Ferguson would certainly have been on my list but as a breach loader I don’t think I would be able to use it in the M/L seasons, although I know it was supplied with a ramrod and designed to be able to be loaded from the muzzle in the event that the breach mechanism became inoperable. And I think it’s by far the most remarkable British military flintlock rifle, the more so for being the first. Should I ever become rich enough to commission one for the simple joy and pride of ownership I shall!

I had heard about Baker stocks being steamed to reshape them, but had always understood that they were being reshaped but had always understood/assumed that it was done horizontally to give them greater right handed cast. It must be said that at the point in my life where I was reading about such things I wouldn’t have understood a term like “drop at heel” anyway. Anyway, so much for the Baker repro’

With regard to the 1776, I’m disappointed to hear that you rate the lock as mediocre, I had assumed that it was solid ordnance pattern one that would deliver a repeatably strong spark. But I guess that was more wish thinking on my part….

I love your fusil. I note you say the lock is from TRS, but I am assuming that the rest not a kit, rather your own selection of components?

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
The problem with the pattern 1776 rifle lock is the flint **** does not over hang the pan very much so you need a pretty long flint to make sure the frizzen is kicked over quickly and completely, and it does not have a fly detent. Without the fly, you have to be very careful adjusting trigger pull because if too light, the sear may catch in the half **** notch when fired. The later Baker rifle locks were designed better and included a fly. I think the TRS part set for the pattern 1776 lock is actually better than the originals (although it is really hard to say because so few survive for examination), which is the same for the Ferguson lock. Both rifles were originally rushed through production to get them into service by mid-late 1776. Although the Ferguson essentially disappeared within a couple of years the Birmingham rifle was issued broadly and famously to units like the Queen's Rangers. They appear to have served well until the end of the war. My rifled fusil is inspired by a Twigg gun but I updated the styling a little more toward the fashions of the 1770s including the checkering. The lock functions very well but it has some of the same limitations as the pattern 1776 lock. It does not have a fly and it needs long flints to function properly. However, I shaped the tumbler and tumbler notches, and positioned the sear such that risk of catching the half **** notch when firing is nil and I was amble to bring trigger pull down to 2.5 lbs. I would not go lighter than that because of the lack of a fly. You have to remember, British makers did not make a lot of rifles during the 18th century (civilian or military) and their smooth bored guns really did not require fine triggers so they did not generally make locks designed for rifle shooting as the Germans did. Anyway, my fusil used lock parts and trigger guard from TRS, butt plate from Chambers, Colerain Griffin profile D weight octagon/round barrel in 62 caliber, and thumb plate, side plate, and ramrod pipes hand made. The stock was a blank of English walnut.

dave

 

[LeftHandGuy]

Once again, thanks @dave_person I don’t think I could even pay for that knowledge.

 

[wahkahchimaol.com]

@dave_person in your opinion is the Baker Rifle as good as they say? How does it compare to the 1803? Thanks for any information.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
I cannot compare it to the Harpers Ferry model 1803 because I have little experience with that gun other than working over Davis Harper's Ferry locks. The Baker was a good solid military rifle. The modern TRS stock has more drop than the originals and is very comfortable to shoot. The straighter original stocks don't fit me very well at all. The rifle was not remarkably accurate for the time but with slow twist and 62 caliber bore, could handle heavy charges and make occasional hits at pretty long distances out to almost 300 yards. It also mounts a bayonet, albeit a heavy sword one. In my opinion, the locks were very good, better than the Harper's Ferry locks. According to John George in his book "English Guns and Rifles", the British were very confused about how to make a good rifle barrel during the late 18th century and Ezekial Baker "unconfused" them. The fashion was for many narrow grooves and relatively fast twists that were accurate with light loads out to 100 yards. Boost the powder charge to shoot at longer ranges and the patch and bullet stripped out of the rifling. Baker, taking a tip from German makers, realized a slower twist and fewer and wider grooves would allow accurate shooting at longer ranges with enough power to be effective militarily. His rifle based on that principle out performed the other competitors and was chosen by British ordnance. It also loaded faster and was less affected by fouling. It was adequately accurate. I think Durs Egg and Nocks submitted rifles that were more accurate but Baker's rifle was sturdy, loaded faster, was kept clean more easily, and shot well. It was just a better "all rounder".

dave

 

[sportster73hp]

Untill i read this i did not realize the british had a rifled 1776. I thought we were comparing a rifle to a bess. Google is a wonderful thing to learn history just stay away from Wikipedia.

 

[rchas]

yeah - for sure I wouldn’t have any real use for the Baker’s bayonet lug whilst whitetail hunting!

Well.... you never know. Zombie deer attacks and all that....


and that's a beautiful rifle, dave_person!

 

[LeftHandGuy]

@dave_person in your opinion is the Baker Rifle as good as they say? How does it compare to the 1803? Thanks for any information.

Clearly, I am not Dave and dare not appear to approach his practical knowledge - I can comment on this from a military history standpoint and maybe add some context.

The Baker gained enough additional accuracy from the slow twist rifling to make British (and British equipped allies) consistently more effective than their smoothbore equipped French opponents, whilst keeping fouling to a minimum. Prior to this the French had known to have superior light infantry/skirmishers.

It was robust and long enough for the infantry who carried it to adopt conventional infantry formations, which soldiers armed with jaeger or long rifles would have found more difficult if not impossible. This made the infantry who carried it more versatile, and better equipped to survive a Napoleonic battlefield.

Ultimately, the Baker’s high reputation as an infantry weapon probably owes more to the fact that the British units who popularized its use (the 95th and 5th/60th) forged excellent reputations in their own right for tactical ability and good leadership, than to anything unusual about the rifle itself.

If Egg/Ferguson had between them designed a more durable and robust stock, who knows what might have happened!

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
This history is so fascinating and so rich and peopled with colorful characters. Ferguson did not invent the top loading screw plug breech loader. La Chaumette and Penteman produced excellent examples decades before Pattie. Furthermore, in the 1740s Clarkson made a version with a solid metal breech section much like the turn-off pistols at the time. That would have been a big improvement on the Ferguson if the lock and breech were integrated into a single metal unit with the butt stock and fore stock separate pieces. However, the gun would have been very, very expensive to make. There is another issue with the Ferguson that doesn't occur to most folks unless they shoot a Ferguson rifle. With one turn, the breech screw is open for the ball and charge but just one more full turn and the plug is out of the gun. With the weight of the handle at the back of the guard, it tends to swing easily and if you are not careful it can unscrew all the way. This is all easy to deal with in the comfort of the shooting range but in the heat of battle it might be easy to drop a screw plug and if lost, the gun is useless. Moreover, you cannot just get a replacement because each was hand fitted.

Here is my Ferguson. It is based on the Morristown gun, which I was able to examine closely. However, there are 2 exceptions. I shaped the lock panels with greater care and more like the DePeyster rifle because I like that style a lot more than what is on the ordnance gun, and my stock finishing is much higher quality than the original. It was built with TRS metal parts but I made the stock from a plank of English walnut.

dave

 

[LeftHandGuy]

Thanks @dave_person I admit I had been wondering why the Ferguson didn’t use a two piece stock given the notoriety of it as a weak point.

I assume when you shoot yours you do so with an unpatched ball that is just a naturally tight fit to the rifling?

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
The chamber has a shoulder like a modern cartridge gun so the ball rolls in and rests against the shoulder. I use a 0.648" ball lubed with beeswax and no patch needed. The original rifles were designed to shoot 0.615" ball that was the standard carbine load but my rifle does not shoot that size ball at all well. You also want hot and clean burning powder so I use 3F Swiss powder. The originals shot German "double strength superfine" powder which was 6-7 times as expensive as standard musket powder.

There are those who steadfastly believe if the British had replaced Brown Besses with Fergusons they would have defeated the Americans quickly and we might still have British passports. I disagree. It would have been extremely expensive to make that many Fergusons and the rifle is not well suited to ham-handed recruits. The cost of the powder alone would have been enormous. Most importantly, the British did not need riflemen to beat us in battle They knew how to do that quite well with the forces at hand. They even knew how to use light infantry to neutralize our riflemen very efficiently plus they had highly skilled German jaegers, the unsung heroes on the British side. The problems for the British were their arrogance and contempt for American forces that got them in real trouble during Burgoyne's campaign, Trenton, Princeton, King's Mountain, and Cowpens. But more importantly, their effort was doomed from the beginning by geography. America was too far from England, too large to patrol, and they rarely felt secure moving more than 100 miles from the coast because they were so dependent on ports for supplies. Instead of spending more money on Fergusons, they would do better buying more transport ships. To a certain degree, the war was ours to lose, and eventually Washington understood that better than anyone, but we came very close to doing just that.

dave