• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Proper period weapon in Colonial Williamsburg

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

JackAubrey

45 Cal.
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
586
Reaction score
5
I was reading with interest in the flintlock rifle section a post which asked "what type of weapon would a middleclassman own in pre-revolutionary Williamsburg,Virginia.The consensus was an English fowler of varying qualities befitting ones' status.My question is this,would it be out of place for a civilian to own a brown bess musket?Being it a military weapon,were they restricted to military personell or would they have been available to common subjects of the Crown?If they were available to the masses,what strata of society would have chosen them? Best regards,J.A.
 
I don't know why a middle class person couldn't have had a military musket, or Brown Bess. That being said...HOW they aquired it may be more of the question. Could they have gotten into trouble having it if caught by the wrong people (British soldiers or officers)??? Good Question.
 
The answer is yes. There were some commercial long land pattern muskets manufactured for customers in the colonies before the Revolution. Four are shown in "Battle Weapons Of the American Revolution" by George C. Neuman {PP.72-75}The State of New Jersey purchased 500 muskets in 1755 and more in 1770-1774 from Richard Wilson of London. The State of New York purchased 1000 from Wilson in 1755.It is my understanding that at least some of these muskets purchased by New Jersey were slimmed down versions of the military muskets.In addition until about 1740 the Colonels of the various regiments purchased muskets privately and some of these could have found their way to the Colonies and of course individual purchases of commercial muskets were very possible.Having said that,I do think it unlikely that there were very many purely civilian owned commercial muskets. I'm not sure when the East India Company began buying muskets .I have a lock bearing the logo of the East India Company dated 1779 but am not sure about earlier ones.I hope this helps.
Tom Patton
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe it would have been very normal for the common man to have a Brown Bess. The British supplied the weapons for the militia units. Every able bodied man was a member of a militia unit. By law, each man was to have a musket, ball and powder at home. If you did not have a musket, one could be issued to you or purchased from the militia unit. The march on Lexington and Concord was an attempt by the British to reclaim these weapons. First attempt at Gun Control. If a man did not have his own rifle or fowler, he would most likely have a Brown Bess. Just my thoughts on what I have read.
 
cowpoke1955 said:
I believe it would have been very normal for the common man to have a Brown Bess. The British supplied the weapons for the militia units. Every able bodied man was a member of a militia unit. By law, each man was to have a musket, ball and powder at home. If you did not have a musket, one could be issued to you or purchased from the militia unit. The march on Lexington and Concord was an attempt by the British to reclaim these weapons. First attempt at Gun Control. If a man did not have his own rifle or fowler, he would most likely have a Brown Bess. Just my thoughts on what I have read.

I would really like to see the documentation on British issue of muskets to state militias as well as the the march on Lexington and Concord being done in order to reclaim these "issue muskets" from the militia.As noted above, the states of New Jersey and New York both purchased muskets prior to the Revolution and both the New Jersey and New York examples illustrated by Neuman were marked with the name of the state indicating state ownershiip.I had always thought that local state militiamen were required to furnish their own arms and accoutrements when summoned to duty.
Tom Patton
 
I thought the march on Lexington was to sieze the powder. Without powder all you have is a club, and you'd need a slingshot to hurl the bullets at them.
 
cowpoke1955 said:
I believe it would have been very normal for the common man to have a Brown Bess. The British supplied the weapons for the militia units. Every able bodied man was a member of a militia unit. By law, each man was to have a musket, ball and powder at home. If you did not have a musket, one could be issued to you or purchased from the militia unit. The march on Lexington and Concord was an attempt by the British to reclaim these weapons. First attempt at Gun Control. If a man did not have his own rifle or fowler, he would most likely have a Brown Bess. Just my thoughts on what I have read.

What you say is true about a poor militiaman being issued a musket, or sold one on credit, if he could not afford his own. Such a weapon would have come from the colony's stores, which would generally NOT have included the issue-type (Ordnance Board)"Brown Bess." Rather, it would have been either a "commercial grade" or private contract version of the "Bess" - which, as stated, were purchased in large numbers by the colonies - or even more likely a Dutch infantry musket. These latter were like the "AK-47's" of the early to mid 18th century! They were everywhere, and were purchased in huge numbers both by the Crown, for army use (a major purchase of these occurred in 1710), and by the N. American colonies, especially in the 1750's.

The statement that "the British supplied the weapons for the militia units" is simply incorrect. Yes, some few were issued from Royal stores - which were under the control of the colonies - but the vast majority of miltia arms were privately owned, by law...!
 
"" Rather, it would have been either a "commercial grade" or private contract version of the "Bess""

Did the makers of these commercial versions of thew Bess build them to any kind of standard or did they "build them the way they liked?" which is so popular today.... :grin:
 
tg said:
"" Rather, it would have been either a "commercial grade" or private contract version of the "Bess""

Did the makers of these commercial versions of thew Bess build them to any kind of standard or did they "build them the way they liked?" which is so popular today.... :grin:

They were based upon the "Bess" pattern, but with cost-cutting features, such as: no end-caps, entry pipes, or wrist escutcheons; simplified butt-plates, side plates, and trigger guards (to reduce the need for inletting), cheaper wood, no carving, etc.

Here's a (crappy) pic of a commercial-grade Long Land "Bess" from one of Neumann's articles:
commercialbess.jpg
 
How far behind in numbers were a trade gun or Fusil to the fowler?

Would the answer be different if we were wanting to know what the lower class would have owned?

I was trying to decide on a smooth bore and want something to reflect what most people would have.
 
rja72 said:
How far behind in numbers were a trade gun or Fusil to the fowler?

Would the answer be different if we were wanting to know what the lower class would have owned?

I was trying to decide on a smooth bore and want something to reflect what most people would have.

Well, a working man without a lot of money to spend might have an "obsolete" military musket, such as a dog-lock or other "Pre-Bess" type. When "Bess" came along, tons of the older type arms were dumped onto the commercial market. Or, one might own a locally-produced musket featuring a mish-mash of old parts restocked.
Also, popular with militiamen who could only afford one gun were the so-called "fowler-muskets" which were dual-purpose pieces for hunting and militia duties. They combined the lightness of a hunting gun with the larger bore of a musket, the stock often cut back at the fore-end to accomodate a bayonet. Jim Chambers has a nice kit for one of these latter: http://www.flintlocks.com/RK-09.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When you say pre-Revolutionary War Williamsburg, how early do you mean? If memory serves, Williamsburg was named around the end of the 17th century, so that gives you a lot of latitude in choosing a firelock--at least in terms of the time period. You could have anything from a dog-catch fowler or musket to an English fowler or surplused musket to a "bitsa" gun or a trade gun. Depending your persona's social status and age, you could have a number of different guns and you aren't limited to the standard guns that a lot of folks carry. Sounds like a great opportunity to be creative and still adhere to the requirements of the era.
 
Colonial gunsmiths scavenged any part they could get their hands on. They would have assembled these to a rough simplified "pattern" based on the common muskets and fusils at the time. Based on this, you would not go wrong getting a Northwest Trade Gun, provided it was not marked with the common trade markings of the later date (sitting fox, bow & arrow, etc.) Just replace the large bow triggerguard with a guard from an old French or British musket (you'll probably need to trim the long trigger down) and the sideplate with a "generic" pattern. Track of the Wolf has these parts in their catalog and the pictures are full scale, so you can tell roughly if the part will fit your trade gun. The triggerguards and serpent sideplates of today's commercially available NW trade guns are generally surface-mounted, so it should be a relatively easy swap. The trade guns were based on the muskets and fusils of the late 17th-early 18th century, so the architecture is generally correct.

Similarly, you could order a French trade gun or fusil de chasse and request the markings be left off. This would give you a colonial fusil made with scavenged French parts and built with French architecture, also common at the time.

If you already have a Bess, I suppose that removing the lock markings would yield a Colonial gun. The steel ramrod would be out of place; a wooden one would be more appropriate.

Just some thoughts, for what they're worth. I'd recommend "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution" and "Flintlock Fowlers" for their indispensible and profuse illustrations. Pore over those and you'll see where my suggestions are coming from.
 
Excellent posts,Gentlemen.It was mentioned that the Colonial Williamsburg era was a broad time frame encompassing a large array of weaponry,I hadn't considered this,my apologies.I suppose what I envisioned was a man,not poor yet not wealthy either.Has a family and has learned to make due w/ what he has,a military musket.I just didn't know if thet were available to civilians.Good posts,thank you for your in put.Best regards,J.A.
 
A fellow living in Williamsburg proper with no intrest in hunting probably carried a pocket pistol if he was traveling in the bad side of town , and that was about it. You're average Joe wasn't toting a musket in hand while going about daily business in town anywhere on the eastern sea board.
How many of you carry your AR 15 when you go to the grocery store? :hmm:
 
Mike Brooks said:
A fellow living in Williamsburg proper with no intrest in hunting probably carried a pocket pistol if he was traveling in the bad side of town , and that was about it. You're average Joe wasn't toting a musket in hand while going about daily business in town anywhere on the eastern sea board.
How many of you carry your AR 15 when you go to the grocery store? :hmm:

True, but the militia statutes required him to own and maintain a musket (or other appropriate long-arm)for his militia obligation - whether he was a hunter or not! He still had to turn out once a month for muster.
It's also true that such city fellows were often fined for NOT properly maintaining their militia guns, showing up at muster with dirty, rusty, or broken weapons. The hunters out in the country at least kept their guns in good order...!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top