As to the Pedersoli Brown Bess not being authentic, one of the main problems often cited is the flat side plate and that comes from Dr. De Witt Bailey's works. However in the book, The Brown Bess, by Erik Goldstein (A Curator at Colonial Williamsburg) and Stuart Mowbray - they argue that most original British (Tower) and Irish (Dublin Castle) marked P1769 SLP's still extant actually have the FLAT side plates and only the very earliest P1769's MAY have had rounded sideplates.
The next thing cited as being wrong about the Pedersoli Bess is the lockplate markings for P1769 SLP's. This actually has a lot more merit from original guns. As per 1764, the British changed from having Private Contractors' names and dates inscribed on the locks TO only having Tower or Dublin Castle marked on them. It is possible that SOME left over locks marked "Grice" and "1762" marked locks were used in the earliest models or when taken from unserviceable muskets and fitted to new P1769's in later years, but there would not have been the huge numbers of them seen in the repro's today.
One suggestion to this "problem" of the early locks with the flat sideplates, as Loyalist Dave has mentioned, is to get a rounded sideplate from TRS and fit it to the musket.
Actually the four mistakes are merely cosmetic, as I pointed out, but for a SRP of $1500 for a full musket, it's my opinion that they should be corrected.
If Pedersoli can completely retool their Hawken to produce a left-handed version for 2015, there is no excuse for the continued poor accuracy of their Bess, or at least why not offer a 1st Model as well?
To begin, the barrel is too short. It should be 46" if you are going to use it for F&I, and can be ignored with a wink-and-a-nod for the AWI. Barrels were shortened by specific units in
small numbers up to and during the AWI, but the vast majority of the Bess muskets used would've had 46" barrels folks.
Second the original 1769 "Short Land Pattern" Bess
which was issued to troops that were sent to North America had rounded side plates. They arrived here in North America in limited numbers. What was produced and kept on racks in England does not change what should be "seen" here...
Third, the lock is marked "1762", but the straight locks were not introduced until the 1777 version. OK so how does the armory make straight sided locks in 1762, fifteen years before tentative production and new Bess with that lock plate begins? ESP??? OH and the 1777 upgrades of the Bess were not seen in North America as they were brand new and so many of the older model, 1st Model Bess existed, many in unfired and unused condition, that it was decided not to issue the 1777's.
Again if you can completely swap the location of the lock mortise on a Hawken, you can change the lock mortise and the side plate on the lock of the Bess, and end all arguments.
Fourth, and only slightly more troublesome to the maker than swapping out the side plate, are the butt plate comb and the trumpet ramrod thimble.
The "issues" might not even be up for discussion if the lock was changed...., reenactors might ignore the barrel length, might opt for after market parts, retro-fitting of the butt and side plate. The modification of the lock plate could still incorporate the same lock hardware, instead of a completely different lock. True it would not be a correct "1756" lock in size, but it would be better.
As I said these are purely cosmetic.
It's funny how some people are critical of folks "defending" the India made bess, alleging it's purely from price, THEN they defend their Pedersoli Bess as the end-all-be-all vs. an actual copy from The Rifle Shoppe Inc.....which is a defense based on price....usually the first salvo is the "proofing argument", but if you're Ike in Germany, and your India made musket has been proofed in the German proof house (at a higher standard btw than the Italians proof the Pedersoli in the Italian proof house) then that argument is moot.
LD
