Pilgrim guns

[Artificer]

Miss Cynthia,

Like you, I sometimes find it confusing to follow some of the terminology they used in the 16th and early 17th centuries - especially since the same terms were sometimes used during both periods, but for different guns.

In this case, I will draw from the link I posted above for this information:

"The musket is described as by the 1630 English Martial Arms list as a piece with a barrel four feet long, an overall length of five feet two inches and a bore of .74 caliber. A musket can be further described as a heavy military gun of the 16th to early 17th century with a matchlock. Muskets weighed approximately 16 pounds and required a forked rest to support it."

I realize that did not explain what a ******* Musket was, but I think it important to understand the "Standard" Musket was so heavy it needed a forked rest to use. A ******* Musket was slimmer and lighter (down to about 10 pounds or a bit less) and thus did not need a rest, but was still the same caliber. Though the lock, stock and barrel shape would change in the next century, this meant the ******* Musket was more like the later British Infantry Musket that was used from 1720 onwards and remained pretty much the same through the Revolutionary War.

I hope this was helpful and my apology for being unable to post pictures or a drawing.

Gus

 

[Gene L]

I think "*******" means "common" or "ordinary," like a mill ******* file is a common file for cutting metal, rather than a wood file or a machine file.

In other words an "ordinary" musket. It probably meant a lot more back then than it does now. I'd say a matchlock as opposed to a snaphance, but that may be off entirely and is based only on the fact that some sources denote snaphances as a specific type.

 

[Zonie]

IMO, there are several different degrees of roughness when it comes to files.
The common degrees of roughness are "course", "second cut" and "smooth" files.

A ******* files roughness is midway between the "course" and the "second cut" files so it was named a "*******".

The military muskets used in the late 16th and early 17th century had bore had a 12 guage (12 balls/pound) and the Caliver (arquebus)was a 20 guage gun.

The "******* musket" had a bore of 16 balls/pound making it half way between a Caliver and a Musket.
https://books.google.com/books?id=...ved=0ahUKEwiv3crpvNXJAhVJ7WMKHUcWBHkQ6AEIHDAA

 

[Artificer]

Hi Jim,

I am not so sure we can take a somewhat standardized military terminology for Matchlocks and apply it to these civilian purchased and owned/used snaphance muskets?

Your source on military matchlocks also mentions that "During the 1630's, a lighter musket was developed that still had the full musket bore of 12 bullets to the pound."

Looking at the quote again from 1630:

80 ******* Muskets,w snaphances
4 foote in the barrel w/out rests

The second line in the quote makes me strongly suspect they were "Musket Bore" or approximately 12 balls to the pound, due to the length of the barrel and the fact they described them as "w/out rests."

However, with the common mixed up use of terms at the time, these arms could well have been 16 bore.

Gus

 

[smoothshooter]

There is a good chance that the gun found in the door fàcing at the Alden house did belong to John Alden, but an even better chance he acquired the gun well after landing in America.

 

[smoothshooter]

I believe the term " ******* " when applied to firearms and other items in times past meant " non- standard," or " out of the ordinary".

I have seen this term used in period references to firearms before, usually when describing a musket or hunting smoothbore in a caliber different than whatever the common musket bore size(s) was / were in whatever country the discussion was taking place in ( usually England ).

 

[Joel/Calgary]

In that inventory you posted it mentions "******* Muskets".

What is a ******* Musket?

When I have read the term used with sufficient information to identify the difference, it has consistently been, as has been mentioned already, a firearm more like a musket than an arquebus or a caliver but of a somewhat smaller (but implicitly or explicitly standardized) bore, possibly somewhat shorter, and lighter weight. I have also seen this usage for similar-but-smaller-size in artillery back when guns (and maybe howitzers and mortars, but I cannot recall any of those off-hand) were identified by a name rather a type & weight of shot, i.e. ******* culverin or ******* cannon.

Regards,
Joel

 

[Muskeg Stomper]

Arquebus & Matchlock

Includes a brief description of various arms including ******* muskets

 

[Artificer]

Just found a source on the earlier list of arms from Boston, that is more descriptive of the arms.

From: "Regiments and armories of Massachusetts; an historical narration of the Massachusetts volunteer militia, with portraits and biographies of officers past and present" https://archive.org/stream/regimentsarmorie01hall/regimentsarmorie01hall_djvu.txt

"ARMES FOR loo MEN
3 drums. 2 ensignes.

2 partizans for Captain and Lieut.

3 halberts for 3 Sariants (sergeants).

80 ******* Musketts with Snaphaunces, 4 foote in ye barrill.

6 large ffowling pieces, with muskett boare, without restes, 6 ffoote long 1-2.

4 large ffowling pieces, ******* muskett boare, 5 1-2 ffoote long.
loFFuU musketts, 4 ffoot barrill, match cocks, and restes.

90 bandeliers for musketts with bullett bag.

10 home flaskes for the fowling pieces, ilb. ea.

100 swords with belts, 60 corsletts, 60 pikes, 20 half pikes.

This list was afterward enlarged to include two hundred muskets."

The emboldened line, above, did not appear on the earlier mentioned lists. This line indeed does strongly suggest (if not definitely prove) the "80 ******* Musketts" were of smaller bore than standard Muskets - even though the barrels were longer than normally found on ******* Muskets earlier than 1634, to later during the English Civil War.

Gus

 

[Alden]

Of course Joel. Like a *******, or hand-and-a-half, sword. Really is pretty well known and simple...

 

[Rifleman1776]

BTW, the First "Thanksgiving" in what would become America/The United States was celebrated in Virginia on December 4th of 1619 at Berkeley Hundred (later known as the Berkeley Plantation), the year before the Pilgrims landed.

Gus

The first Thanksgiving was 1621. This is well documented and discussed in a great non-fiction book "The Second Thanksgiving". No time at the moment but I'll look up the author later. The story, in brief, was a favorite of Abraham Lincoln and he told it often to visiting children. Hint: the second thanksgving was not 1622. Agree or not, the book is a great read and gives insight into the genesis of many American rights we now have, such as free enterprise, 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, elections and more.

 

[Rifleman1776]

BTW, the First "Thanksgiving" in what would become America/The United States was celebrated in Virginia on December 4th of 1619 at Berkeley Hundred (later known as the Berkeley Plantation), the year before the Pilgrims landed.

Gus

The first Thanksgiving was 1621. This is well documented and discussed in a great non-fiction book "The Second Thanksgiving". No time at the moment but I'll look up the author later. The story, in brief, was a favorite of Abraham Lincoln and he told it often to visiting children. Hint: the second thanksgving was not 1622. Agree or not, the book is a great read and gives insight into the genesis of many American rights we now have, such as free enterprise, 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, elections and more.

Too late to edit. The author is: Douglas Lloyd McIntosh

Also, forgot to mention, the genesis of private ownership of property.
Did I say "great read"? It is.

 

[Artificer]

BTW, the First "Thanksgiving" in what would become America/The United States was celebrated in Virginia on December 4th of 1619 at Berkeley Hundred (later known as the Berkeley Plantation), the year before the Pilgrims landed.

Gus

The first Thanksgiving was 1621.

Actually, America's Second Thanksgiving also happened prior to 1621. However, since these colonists were mostly massacred in 1622, they never got the "press" or the bias that has come down on the side of the pilgrims.
http://www.washingtonian.com/2015/...ing-took-place-in-virginia-not-massachusetts/

It took until 1962 for JFK to "officially" correct the error for much of the country.
http://yesweekly.com/article-20655-jfk-and-the-first-thanksgiving.html

Gus

 

[BillinOregon]

Gus, once again I find myself in your debt. I was unaware of Woodlief's story. Thank you.

 

[Muskeg Stomper]

It may have even been the third or fourth Thanksgiving! Mosh folks don't even know about Popham Colony.
Popham Colony

The Peopling of North America

 

[Artificer]

Glad you brought that up.

May have been even more prior Thanksgivings than that if we add in the Roanoke Colony. However, we don't have evidence of that there was to be an annual Day of Thanksgiving until that first done in what is now Berkeley Plantation, Virginia in 1619.

Gus

 

[BillinOregon]

Thanks Stomper. More American history I was ignorant of.
That article was written in 2004. I wonder if there have been subsequent excavations.

 

[Muskeg Stomper]

Did you look at the second link? It appears to me that they found quite a bit more details but I'm not sure if they are still doing further digs at the site. Fascinating stuff.

 

[Barkeater]

So fun loving that 30% or so of the children born were born 3 months premature.... if you go by marriage records.

 

[tenngun]

It's economics 101, or basic group survival. They needed babies. In seven years children could start helping with chores. By fourteen could do an adults work. As sexist as it sounds a man could not afford to marry a women who had any difficulty conceiving a child. Pregnancy at marriage prove she was worth marrieing. Likewise for the lady it proved her husband was worth her lifes investment. She would know her husband was capable of fathering children and giving her a retirement program