And now for something really different...

[gew8805]

Patrick, that is a fascinating example of late 18th - early 19th Century musketry, thanks for sharing it with us. I have to admit that I am at a loss as to what exactly is. It has French styling, even the front band is very close to that of the French M1763 (the US copied the French M1766 for all of our "Charleville Pattern muskets") but the furniture is of course brass rather than the iron used on all of their standard infantry arms though the French did use brass furniture on some special purpose muskets. I did once own a French M1842 Voltigeurs Musket made with brass bands, butt plate and trigger guard bow but this musket is earlier and shows no French proof marks or acceptance/inspection marks so where did come from? Hmmmm.....

The close-grained walnut stock indicates that it is European made, not American. What can we look at from the various arms producing nations?

It is not Belgian, there are no Belgian proof marks on the barrel or inspectors marks and I can find no evidence of Belgian makers producing this specific pattern arm for any of their client states. The Belgians were rigorous in their inspection and proofing of arms for their own military and for export to other military users.

It is not Swedish or Norwegian, they did not make this pattern arm either.

The Dutch did produce large numbers of arms for their own military and for others as well, not at the level that the Belgians did but there are many examples of Dutch military arms used by nations from Europe to North Africa and the Western Hemisphere, including the United States but the US used no Dutch arms for front line troops after 1783 except in some isolated forts on the frontier and they did not last long, being produced with British and French arms after the Revolution.

Now, as to whether this musket may be American produced? Certainly not. There are no American proof marks on the barrel - all American military arms produced by the two national armories and all contractors were required to proof their arms under government supervision. This also held true for state purchased militia arms whether New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Virginia or any other state. Virginia in particular had it's own successful arms manufacturing facility in Richmond, The Virginia Manufactory of Arms which produced all of the arms needed by the Commonwealth's military forces from 1802 until 1823 when it closed down because the needs of the state militia were fulfilled for the foreseeable future. The building was maintained and became the Richmond Armory in 1861 using the machinery taken from Harpers Ferry after it's destruction by the Virginia Militia in the opening days of "The Late Unpleasantness". But I am wandering off topic.....

Suffice it to say, if you are giving this musket a connection to the US based only on the position of it's bayonet lug, you are mistaken. The US made muskets with bottom lugs early in production at Harpers Ferry and Springfield as well as several of the contractors who made what we collectors call the M1795 First Pattern musket. The 2nd and 3rd Pattern M1795 muskets as ell as the Standard Musket of 1815 and all patterns of the M1816 had the ug on top however the bayonet lug changed from top to bottom for both the US M1840 (our last flintlock musket) and the M1842 percussion musket. All of that being said, the lug's location here means very little. And it is not at all similar to the M1816 musket made at either National Armory or by any of the contractors of that pattern. Also, there is no record that I am aware of that points to this being a small, limited edition contract musket for any of the various states for use by their militias, such a gun would have been too expensive and their needs were more than adequately met by the Militia Act of 1808 whereby the Federal Government was required to provide arms for the various states to keep their militias adequately armed and equipped.

The style of the musket points decisively to it's production in Europe in the 1790 to 1810 period. My own impression is that it was likely made for one of the smaller German states or possibly Italy but my sources for the German States are practically non-existent and my Italian resources only date back to 1814. However, the use of the French pattern furniture and lock do make Italy a possibility though I am far from certain on the Italians. Maybe you can find something about it's use in Germany?

---------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

And I might add that neither Moller's American Military Shoulder Arms, Vol.2 nor Schmidt's US Military Flintlock Muskets and their bayonets; The Early Years, 1790 - 1815 show anything even remotely resembling your example. I wish I could be of more assistance.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Patrick Chadwick]

Suffice it to say, if you are giving this musket a connection to the US based only on the position of it's bayonet lug, you are mistaken.

Thanks for a well-reasoned commentary. I realize that the US connection is geographically improbable, but I pointed out that - up to now - I have been unable to find examples of top bayonet studs from any other country. That is the major problem in locating the origin.

And the barrel fittings are most certainly not today's highly malleable yellow brass, but a much tougher material that seems to be a kind of bronze. It is slightly reddish, more so than "domestic" brass, but you need natural light to see the difference. The whole long front band (upper band) was made from one piece of this material and the joints are brazed. The lower band does not fit the barrel very snugly, so I thought I could improve matters by forming the reverse curve between barrel and shaft to be a bit tighter. Hammer blows on the form piece that would have easily formed yellow brass just bounced of the stuff, and I gave up the idea for fear of starting stress fractures. But I repeat, the bands are not cast, they are formed from sheets of the hard material that looks and feels like a bronze or naval brass.

Since the front end that comes stylistically closest is Expo 355 from the Leger Museum in Delft:

http://www.collectie.legermuseum.nl/...n/i006816.html

I think my next task is to send them the photos and ask if anyone in the museum has an idea - they seem to have a couple of hundred flintlocks!