TOW Willits Brown Bess Lock

[FlinterNick]

I know that, and never suggested one use the that lock, you're the one that originally suggested that plate might work in a TOW Willets mortise.
I suggested any of the 3 1742 locks listed on page 36 of the 2007-2008 catalogue might work

So you're saying that theirs interference with the internals, I presume either barrel or trigger position??? or the shape of TRS 1742 locks won't overlap a Willits mortise? please advise

No doubt, and I'm very familiar with all the nuiances of lost wax casting. don't know why you added this comment unless you were reading the part of my post about doubting some of what Jess told you---see below

quote from you in post nine "Steve, Jess Melot of the Rifle Shoppe stated that he made the moulds for Track of the Wolf and its intended for his Regimental Contract Musket which uses a lock marked Clinton."
If he knew what he was talking about why would he use a lock that's clearly undersize for a so called "regimental contract musket".----simply because it had a 1728 date? pretty weak IMHO

Steve

Hi Steve,

Perhaps I misspoke or you miss understood me, the TRS Clinton lock will fit the TOW Stock with some modifying, the 1742 lock or 1730 lock will not work, will not work without major modifications to the internal inlets, mainspring location and sear spring and plate outline, you’d almost certainly end. Up with a gap or two or too much wood removed from the inside.

I’ve build two TOW Bess’s and four TRS Bess’s, i have the lock castings here with me for the TRS locks and a TOW lock on my own Wilets, they’re not the same dimensions, I’ve got three bess locks on the bench I’m assembling for kits. I have the Clinton Lock on order, will let you know its dimensions when it gets here, hopefully you or I will still be alive to have this discussion lol.

I compared the TRS lock to the TOW lock about 6 months ago because a customer had a parted out kit from TOW and wanted to use a TRS 1742 lock, the plate is too long on both ends and wider and the pan section is a few MM forward where the mortise is cut on the TOW stock, could it work….. only with too significant amount of wood removed, i suggested betting the bess stock copied by Dunlap which they did.

I’m not sure what skills jess used to make the moulds, I’m not a mould maker myself, however I’m headed to the Rifle shoppe in June for mentoring from Jess on mould making, i can let you know then. My only assumption is that he likely used it as a basis to create a proof from which he modified which is very plausible as he already is the owner of the Clinton Lock Moulds. Pour the mould, change the plate, **** and frizzen and frizzen spring, not very complicated to do, the other part of this is Jess was selling the mould to CD Jaringen, its possible thats what CD Jernigan wanted lock to look like, a 1746 lock date would be appropriate for both French and Indian War and American Revolutionary War or maybe Jess didn’t want to part ways with the Clinton Mould.

 

[FlinterNick]

I know that, and never suggested one use the that lock, you're the one that originally suggested that plate might work in a TOW Willets mortise.
I suggested any of the 3 1742 locks listed on page 36 of the 2007-2008 catalogue might work

So you're saying that theirs interference with the internals, I presume either barrel or trigger position??? or the shape of TRS 1742 locks won't overlap a Willits mortise? please advise

No doubt, and I'm very familiar with all the nuiances of lost wax casting. don't know why you added this comment unless you were reading the part of my post about doubting some of what Jess told you---see below

quote from you in post nine "Steve, Jess Melot of the Rifle Shoppe stated that he made the moulds for Track of the Wolf and its intended for his Regimental Contract Musket which uses a lock marked Clinton."
If he knew what he was talking about why would he use a lock that's clearly undersize for a so called "regimental contract musket".----simply because it had a 1728 date? pretty weak IMHO

Steve

I took out my Wilets lock and put a TRS 1742 over it.

Plate mortise needs to open up in the tail by 1-2 mm but that will bring the forward bolt section out of alignment with about a 1mm gap and a 1mm gap at the frizzen bolster

The pan sections are slightly off but off enough to bring the pan too far down to the breech area, so that will need to be modified.

The bridle on the TOW lock is offset to where the TRS bridle is, i guessing bc the plate is longer it moves everything back the sear hole will need to be opened up.

The mainspring section needs to be opened up where it contacts the tumbler.

One last bit, the profile of the banana curve of the plates don’t match, TRS’s curve is longer and deeper.

 

[boman]

I took out my Wilets lock and put a TRS 1742 over it.

Plate mortise needs to open up in the tail by 1-2 mm but that will bring the forward bolt section out of alignment with about a 1mm gap and a 1mm gap at the frizzen bolster

The pan sections are slightly off but off enough to bring the pan too far down to the breech area, so that will need to be modified.

The bridle on the TOW lock is offset to where the TRS bridle is, i guessing bc the plate is longer it moves everything back the sear hole will need to be opened up.

The mainspring section needs to be opened up where it contacts the tumbler.

One last bit, the profile of the banana curve of the plates don’t match, TRS’s curve is longer and deeper.

"Perhaps I misspoke or you miss understood me", either/or no big deal. I know I some how assumed you had the Clinton plate in hand.

AS far as the issues cited above I think in my mind the only issue that would concern me if I was trying to use a preinlet Tow stock, with any new lock, 1742,1730, Clinton or otherwise would be any gap around the new lockplate. 1mm I think I could deal with by inletting and glueing a a sliver of wood or using wood glue mixed with wood filings from the stock, possibly even a dyed epoxy. removing "too much" wood internally I see no real issue with as those 1842 lock castings you have are the same dimensions the roughstockers used and Coleraines long land barrel is same as originals according to Scott. Of course pan and touchhole may be an issue and some metal may need to be removed from mainspring, barrel etc. Keep in mid too that internals can be substituted if lock plates haven't been drilled, my Willets is a case in point. YMMV I don't have the castings in hand.
When you get time, I would like you to measure the plate lengths of those 1742 lock sets you have. Based on my knowledge of the long land pattern all locks that I can document with measurements come in at 6 7/8 to 7 in. in length. The Clinton plate should measure 6 5/8 according to the information Jess supplied you. it should be dated 1726, I think I said 1728 in an earlier post.
This kind of info posted on line will help guys who are or become interested in the Bess out of curiosity or wanting to build or acquire.

FWIW, The best thing to me to come out of this whole discussion, from a historical perspective is establishment of the existence a true long land with a Willets lock---dispels some "internet myth". LOL

Oh---and by the way I should still be around---73yrs old and reasonably healthy---LOL

Steve

 

[Artificer]

A pre 1730s Colonel's purchase gun is a different animal than later "King's pattern" procurement. From my understanding, there is no such thing as a "regimental contract" musket after say the p1730s, but that was the system in some cases prior to the "King's pattern". By the time a pattern gun was adopted, Ordnance contracts went out, individual parts lots went into the Tower (500 locks, 500 barrels and etc) then sub assemblies went back out to be rough stocked and set up. Colonel's purchase infantry arms ended in British service well prior to the p42s, and commercial muskets are a whole other ball of wax. A quick look online turns up backwards compatibility of the repro TOW Willets mainspring with TRS "1726 Clinton" locks; likely made with same internals.

I'm enjoying this discussion immensely.

Besides the pre 1730s Colonel's purchase arms, my next thought when the term "Regimental Contract" came up in the mid/late 18th century was Carbines for the Cavalry; specifically the Elliot and Blues Carbines, as well as lesser known carbines and some pistols. This because some patterns either came from suggestions of some of the Commanders or Regiments, or were somewhat unusual patterns for certain regiments. One such example below:
https://collections.royalarmouries.org/battle-of-waterloo/arms-and-armour/type/rac-narrative-532
However, there does not seem to have been similar "specialty" (my term) pattern or Regimental Contract muskets intentionally pre-planned and "set up" or finished at the Tower after the P1730 muskets were adopted. Yep, that's a teaser folks, GRIN.

Shortly after the Tower re-armed the ENTIRE British Army in the late 1730's, the War of Jenkin's Ear broke out in 1739 that morphed into the War of the Austrian Succession. The Tower had barely a chance to say, "Whew, we finally finished re-arming and now there is a huge need for more arms." To further exacerbate this new challenge, the winter of 1739-40 had record freezing temperatures that froze streams and rivers and effectively stopped the water driven trip hammers and grinding wheels in England and Ireland so necessary to large production of arms.

British Ordnance was therefore required to procure 15,000 "Dutch" Muskets and an additional 36,000 barrels to meet the demands of war. For the purpose of our discussion, we can discount the 15,000 complete Dutch muskets British Ordnance procured, but what about those 36,000 barrels that may or were probably supplied with British locks to set them up as finished muskets? I keep looking for any surviving example of such muskets, but so far have not run across one so identified.

Of course, British Ordnance was not happy they had to resort to Dutch made muskets and barrels and I don't believe they felt they were up to British Standards. As an example, as quickly as they could, British Ordnance got rid of the Dutch Muskets as fast as possible and many of the later Sea Service muskets were made from barrels of broken up Dutch Muskets. They ALSO supplied 10,000 Arms to the American Colonies at the beginning of the FIW and many, if not most of them were those earlier Dutch muskets or at least made with Dutch barrels. So, it is possible a musket of that period made with a Dutch Barrel and English lock has survived here in either Canada or America and has yet to be so identified.

Finally, even though Dublin Castle was supposed to follow Tower Pattern Arms as closely as possible, let's just say they often seem to have gotten a wee bit creative or somewhat fast and loose with those patterns, as there are a number of things they sometimes/often did at least a bit differently than the Tower. Some truly surprising variations from the standard British patterns have been observed in extant Irish muskets. But I rather discount them for this discussion because I don't know if they ever purchased English locks for their arms?

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

"Perhaps I misspoke or you miss understood me", either/or no big deal. I know I some how assumed you had the Clinton plate in hand.

AS far as the issues cited above I think in my mind the only issue that would concern me if I was trying to use a preinlet Tow stock, with any new lock, 1742,1730, Clinton or otherwise would be any gap around the new lockplate. 1mm I think I could deal with by inletting and glueing a a sliver of wood or using wood glue mixed with wood filings from the stock, possibly even a dyed epoxy. removing "too much" wood internally I see no real issue with as those 1842 lock castings you have are the same dimensions the roughstockers used and Coleraines long land barrel is same as originals according to Scott. Of course pan and touchhole may be an issue and some metal may need to be removed from mainspring, barrel etc. Keep in mid too that internals can be substituted if lock plates haven't been drilled, my Willets is a case in point. YMMV I don't have the castings in hand.
When you get time, I would like you to measure the plate lengths of those 1742 lock sets you have. Based on my knowledge of the long land pattern all locks that I can document with measurements come in at 6 7/8 to 7 in. in length. The Clinton plate should measure 6 5/8 according to the information Jess supplied you. it should be dated 1726, I think I said 1728 in an earlier post.
This kind of info posted on line will help guys who are or become interested in the Bess out of curiosity or wanting to build or acquire.

FWIW, The best thing to me to come out of this whole discussion, from a historical perspective is establishment of the existence a true long land with a Willets lock---dispels some "internet myth". LOL

Oh---and by the way I should still be around---73yrs old and reasonably healthy---LOL

Steve

Hi Steve

I took some measurements.

When I measured I lined the the forward ends of each lock plate.

Lockplates measured, 1730 BrownBess Marked 1728, 1742 Brown Bess, Wilson Brown Bess Lock, and Queen Ann Preeden lock dated around 1706.

The Queen Ann lock is the most similar to the Wilets lock and is around 6 1/2 inches long but is not as wide because of the detached pan. This lock could actually work in the TOW stock.

The Wilets lock on my TOW bess is just about one mm past 6 1/2 inches on the tail end, to be exact I’d put it at 6 11/16 just shy.

1730 just under 7”
1742 just over 6 3/4 but just shy of 6 15/16.
Wilson lock 7”

Of all the locks, the Wilson lock is the longest, i think because when these muskets were ordered they were made from the private moulds / templates of Richard Wilson.

Notice how the pan sections do not align, this is because TRS long lands have a their lock set slightlly further back, on the stocks i have this is pretty clear, and it eliminates any gap between the breech area and the pan’s fence section, the Wilets Musket actually is supposed to have a slight gap because the lock is overall smaller.

The other issue is the shape of the banana curve, you would need some extra wood on the TOW stock on the bottom panel, or file off some of the 1742 plate to fit the mortise’s banana curve.

Lastly the width of the plates are different from the top down picture you an clearly see this, this presents another issue of making the inlets lightly up for the internals and plate.

My personal opinion is that one ought not use the TOW stock with a TRS long land lock, i would use the TOW stock profile to draw a blank for sure ! But cut a new stock with extra wood and a little extra drop in the wrist to accommodate the banana curve or leave some extra wood around the bottom panel.

When i get the Clinton lock for assembling, I plan on customizing it to fit the TOW stock if it works out.

The Wilets lock i have from TOW was not the greatest quality casting set, there were voids. All over the plate which I had to drill and TIG weld and the sear spring notch in the plate was over cut to the point of it actually going through the plate, i had to TIG weld that and start over with a shallower notch,

Which leads to another issue that the sear spring is just too larger for the lock, the sear spring needs to be shorter and narrower.

 

[FlinterNick]

I'm enjoying this discussion immensely.

Besides the pre 1730s Colonel's purchase arms, my next thought when the term "Regimental Contract" came up in the mid/late 18th century was Carbines for the Cavalry; specifically the Elliot and Blues Carbines, as well as lesser known carbines and some pistols. This because some patterns either came from suggestions of some of the Commanders or Regiments, or were somewhat unusual patterns for certain regiments. One such example below:
https://collections.royalarmouries.org/battle-of-waterloo/arms-and-armour/type/rac-narrative-532
However, there does not seem to have been similar "specialty" (my term) pattern or Regimental Contract muskets intentionally pre-planned and "set up" or finished at the Tower after the P1730 muskets were adopted. Yep, that's a teaser folks, GRIN.

Shortly after the Tower re-armed the ENTIRE British Army in the late 1730's, the War of Jenkin's Ear broke out in 1739 that morphed into the War of the Austrian Succession. The Tower had barely a chance to say, "Whew, we finally finished re-arming and now there is a huge need for more arms." To further exacerbate this new challenge, the winter of 1739-40 had record freezing temperatures that froze streams and rivers and effectively stopped the water driven trip hammers and grinding wheels in England and Ireland so necessary to large production of arms.

British Ordnance was therefore required to procure 15,000 "Dutch" Muskets and an additional 36,000 barrels to meet the demands of war. For the purpose of our discussion, we can discount the 15,000 complete Dutch muskets British Ordnance procured, but what about those 36,000 barrels that may or were probably supplied with British locks to set them up as finished muskets? I keep looking for any surviving example of such muskets, but so far have not run across one so identified.

Of course, British Ordnance was not happy they had to resort to Dutch made muskets and barrels and I don't believe they felt they were up to British Standards. As an example, as quickly as they could, British Ordnance got rid of the Dutch Muskets as fast as possible and many of the later Sea Service muskets were made from barrels of broken up Dutch Muskets. They ALSO supplied 10,000 Arms to the American Colonies at the beginning of the FIW and many, if not most of them were those earlier Dutch muskets or at least made with Dutch barrels. So, it is possible a musket of that period made with a Dutch Barrel and English lock has survived here in either Canada or America and has yet to be so identified.

Finally, even though Dublin Castle was supposed to follow Tower Pattern Arms as closely as possible, let's just say they often seem to have gotten a wee bit creative or somewhat fast and loose with those patterns, as there are a number of things they sometimes/often did at least a bit differently than the Tower. Some truly surprising variations from the standard British patterns have been observed in extant Irish muskets. But I rather discount them for this discussion because I don't know if they ever purchased English locks for their arms?

Gus

Thanks Gus

I had assumed that the regimental contract bess was a surplus musket.

I reminds of the read about Abercrombie’s march on Carillon, he had ordered a large cache of contract muskets to fit the demand of the offensive on Carillon, these were New York and New Jersey Contract Muskets, very much made like a Brown Bess with some minor omissions and alternations in the furniture.

There were definitely a lot of contracted infantry arms, why the Wilets musket and Clinton muskets are so rare is a mystery.

 

[Artificer]

boman said:

Sir, might I ask how you know this information and any particulars on the Williamsburg long land musket with the Willits lock? I know the foundation purchased an extensive collection of English muskets from an estate in England in 1935 but have only studied those that I can research from their online collections. I am familiar with the short land dragoon with the Willits lock.


Steve,
The Williamsburg Emuseum database isn't complete as to all of their holdings, not everything is online. This particular gun (accession # 1935-294) was purchased in Portsmouth Va in 1935. The barrel was cut down during it's working life to in front of the forward rammer pipe. Other than being shortened a little it looks like one would expect a p42 Long land.

View attachment 199308

Would you happen to know if that lock is a P1728 Single Bridle Lock (No pan Bridle) or a P1740 Double Bridle Lock (with Pan Bridle)?

Gus

 

[Artificer]

There were definitely a lot of contracted infantry arms, why the Wilets musket and Clinton muskets are so rare is a mystery.

Perhaps the 1746 Date of the Willets Lock florkinliege showed and the 1747 date of the Willets lock you mentioned are the key? The peace negotiations began in 1746 and the war ended in 1748, so the answer on the Willets muskets may be as simple as British Ordnance had either caught up with production and/or had enough locks/muskets in store and being fitted up to take them through the end of the war?

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

Fo

Perhaps the 1746 Date of the Willets Lock florkinliege showed and the 1747 date of the Willets lock you mentioned are the key? The peace negotiations began in 1746 and the war ended in 1748, so the answer on the Willets muskets may be as simple as British Ordnance had either caught up with production and/or had enough locks/muskets in store and being fitted up to take them through the end of the war?

Gus

From the research I’ve done, mostly with interviews from several collectors and curators in Williamsburg, Yorktown, West Point and Ticonderoga is they feel that Benjamin’s Willets likely didn’t not make locks for a 1742 ‘ordinance’ pattern musket. The main issue with that being that there is no documentation and the locks by Willets are dated for land pattern pistols, and non-full sized musket or carbine locks. One interesting fact that was made apparent to me was that carbine locks of the 1740’s era were not much smaller than an actual musket lock, sizes ranged between 6 1/4 - 6 13/16 for those found on light infantry fusils and dragoon muskets of the era, this is largely because contractors given were given orders that did not stipulate the lock sizes, so contractors would save a little cost on iron by making the locks smaller. In the case of the Willets lock. Jess Melot stated he designed the lock plate based on an original specimen that he didn’t have available to cast. I believe this to be the case with the Willets lock. I think Jess also wanted the lock to be different from his kits, so that nobody could use it on his stocks, maintaining continuity of his products so that people wouldn’t think they can buy a stock from track of the wolf for his parts. However Track of the Wolf maintains on their website the Clinton lock castings can be used on their stock, Jess disagrees with this because the internals are different.

 

[boman]

Would you happen to know if that lock is a P1728 Single Bridle Lock (No pan Bridle) or a P1740 Double Bridle Lock (with Pan Bridle)?

Gus

Flokinridge needs to answer this one. I'm assuming based on his description it has a pan bridle. It clearly began life as a long land based on his description and should have pan bridle based on lock date.

Steve

 

[boman]

Nick, reply to your post 25. Thanks for the measurements and sounds like you have a plan with some options.

Some comments FYI.
Nick said "My personal opinion is that one ought not use the TOW stock with a TRS long land lock, i would use the TOW stock profile to draw a blank for sure ! But cut a new stock with extra wood and a little extra drop in the wrist to accommodate the banana curve or leave some extra wood around the bottom panel." That's fine, but one would be better served, IMO, if wanting to reproduce a more accurate long land pattern using one of TRS preinlets or actual measurements from an original for a pattern. The TOW stock is undersized from the lock back. The buttplate is a full half inch shorter from heel to toe and tang is shorter. the length of comb, drop at comb and heel as well could be different on the TOW from the original pattern.

Nick said "Of all the locks, the Wilson lock is the longest, i think because when these muskets were ordered they were made from the private moulds / templates of Richard Wilson." Locks and the parts therein were forged, not cast, in those days. Historical documentation leaves no room for debate here; proper wording instead of mould would be die which the foundries probably used for scale of production.

Nick said "The Wilets lock i have from TOW was not the greatest quality casting set, there were voids. All over the plate which I had to drill and TIG weld and the sear spring notch in the plate was over cut to the point of it actually going through the plate, i had to TIG weld that and start over with a shallower notch,"
Everything here is indicative of hand poured wax, and /or poor quailty mold. The fact that the void was left after pattern was removed indicates poor quality control, patterns can be repaired before submitting to foundry. Most really good wax patterns are produced with an injection machine.

Steve

 

[FlinterNick]

Nick, reply to your post 25. Thanks for the measurements and sounds like you have a plan with some options.

Some comments FYI.
Nick said "My personal opinion is that one ought not use the TOW stock with a TRS long land lock, i would use the TOW stock profile to draw a blank for sure ! But cut a new stock with extra wood and a little extra drop in the wrist to accommodate the banana curve or leave some extra wood around the bottom panel." That's fine, but one would be better served, IMO, if wanting to reproduce a more accurate long land pattern using one of TRS preinlets or actual measurements from an original for a pattern. The TOW stock is undersized from the lock back. The buttplate is a full half inch shorter from heel to toe and tang is shorter. the length of comb, drop at comb and heel as well could be different on the TOW from the original pattern.

Nick said "Of all the locks, the Wilson lock is the longest, i think because when these muskets were ordered they were made from the private moulds / templates of Richard Wilson." Locks and the parts therein were forged, not cast, in those days. Historical documentation leaves no room for debate here; proper wording instead of mould would be die which the foundries probably used for scale of production.

Nick said "The Wilets lock i have from TOW was not the greatest quality casting set, there were voids. All over the plate which I had to drill and TIG weld and the sear spring notch in the plate was over cut to the point of it actually going through the plate, i had to TIG weld that and start over with a shallower notch,"
Everything here is indicative of hand poured wax, and /or poor quailty mold. The fact that the void was left after pattern was removed indicates poor quality control, patterns can be repaired before submitting to foundry. Most really good wax patterns are produced with an injection machine.

Steve

Hi Steve

yea, by mould i meant what ever dies they were using at the time, swage dies etc.

I had to return my TOW lock parts a few times, and settled for the final one which was what I’d describe as average quality. I did have to swap out the frizzen spring, the one that was with the kit was not long enough on the upper leaf.

Hands down my favorite long land model is the 1728/30 pattern which I’m working on now, just need a barrel.