| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Brown Bess Flintlock Musket: Difference between revisions
Commando552 (talk | contribs) (→Sea Service?: new section) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Additional Images== | |||
[[Image:Brown Bess left 2.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Brown Bess musket. Left side.]] | |||
[[Image:Sea Service pattern Brown Bess.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Royal Navy Sea Service Musket (1778 model)]] | |||
== Is this a converted Brown Bess? == | == Is this a converted Brown Bess? == | ||
| Line 16: | Line 21: | ||
Are we sure that this repro is supposed to be a Sea Service? | Are we sure that this repro is supposed to be a Sea Service? | ||
https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:BB_Musket_repro.jpg | |||
If it is one, it is an absolutely awful replica. Firstly it is way too short, the Sea Service should only be a couple of inches shorter than an India pattern. Secondly, although it has the correct number of ramrod pipes they are of the wrong design, with the Sea Service having two identical barrel shaped pipes and no tail pipe, rather than a trumpet one at the front and a tail pipe into the stock. Thirdly, this has an escutcheon on the wrist (brass plate on the top of the stock behind the action). Fourthly it has a the more complicated finial trigger guard which was used on the Land pattern but not the Sea Service. Fifthly the Sea Services never had a nose cap (well, some did that were chopped down from Indias but this is not the norm). Lastly, this appears to have the standard rounded butt plate found on all the Land patterns, rather than the square sided one of the Sea Service. As basically nothing about it is correct for a Sea Service, my guess is that it is meant to be a replica of something else. | If it is one, it is an absolutely awful replica. Firstly it is way too short, the Sea Service should only be a couple of inches shorter than an India pattern. Secondly, although it has the correct number of ramrod pipes they are of the wrong design, with the Sea Service having two identical barrel shaped pipes and no tail pipe, rather than a trumpet one at the front and a tail pipe into the stock. Thirdly, this has an escutcheon on the wrist (brass plate on the top of the stock behind the action). Fourthly it has a the more complicated finial trigger guard which was used on the Land pattern but not the Sea Service. Fifthly the Sea Services never had a nose cap (well, some did that were chopped down from Indias but this is not the norm). Lastly, this appears to have the standard rounded butt plate found on all the Land patterns, rather than the square sided one of the Sea Service. As basically nothing about it is correct for a Sea Service, my guess is that it is meant to be a replica of something else. | ||
Latest revision as of 15:06, 13 September 2023
Additional Images
Is this a converted Brown Bess?
I would like help to identify this Musket, it's origin and model have been bugging me for a while. I know this site is not for help on personal weapons, but i'm not a member on any other firearms site. If my question is unwanted here, you may delete this topic.
This is a percussion cap musket, but after extensive searching the only firearm it resembles is the Brown Bess, thus i have been thinking it may be converted from flintlock. It is marked "Tower", and dated 1830. Am i on to something or is it a completely different firearm?
As for it's relevance, i own it. Thanks a lot in advance. Z008MJ (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2013 (EST)
- My guess would be that it is a Pattern 1839 Brown Bess, which was a percussion version. The date of 1830 on your's pre-dates this, but as they were converted from old flintlock rifles I guess this would be the production date of the original gun. --commando552 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2013 (EST)
Thanks a lot, it is nice to finally know what model it is. Z008MJ (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2013 (EST)
Sea Service?
Are we sure that this repro is supposed to be a Sea Service?
https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/File:BB_Musket_repro.jpg
If it is one, it is an absolutely awful replica. Firstly it is way too short, the Sea Service should only be a couple of inches shorter than an India pattern. Secondly, although it has the correct number of ramrod pipes they are of the wrong design, with the Sea Service having two identical barrel shaped pipes and no tail pipe, rather than a trumpet one at the front and a tail pipe into the stock. Thirdly, this has an escutcheon on the wrist (brass plate on the top of the stock behind the action). Fourthly it has a the more complicated finial trigger guard which was used on the Land pattern but not the Sea Service. Fifthly the Sea Services never had a nose cap (well, some did that were chopped down from Indias but this is not the norm). Lastly, this appears to have the standard rounded butt plate found on all the Land patterns, rather than the square sided one of the Sea Service. As basically nothing about it is correct for a Sea Service, my guess is that it is meant to be a replica of something else.
My guess is that it is a Brown Bess carbine, but that raises another question, does this actually exist? I know there are replicas of them, but I think they may be a modern invention just based on a chopped down land pattern. The closest model to this I know of would probably be the Elliot Light Dragoon carbine, but there are several differences most notably the number of ramrod pipes and the ramrod itself.
While I'm here, does anybody know when the stepped nose cap (like on the Enfield Pattern 1853) was introduced on the Bess? I think it was the New Land Pattern, but I am working on something now where there are a large number of what look to be India Patterns (they have the original style stock and non swollen ramrod) except with the later nose cap and am trying to work out if this is technically an error or if this did exist. --commando552 (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2014 (EST)