Boarders Away 2 - Request for info

[michaelsbagley]

Hi there,

I was wondering if any of the folks (and I assume there is a few out there) who own a copy of the book "Boarders Away 2" and also happen to have a scanner handy, would consider scanning page 182 and sending me a copy of the scan?

I do plan to buy the book (it is pretty high on my list), but I have an itching curiosity about a musket on that page and would like to read what info there is about it, and can't buy the book right now (X-Mas coming up and all).

This item at Loyalist Arms started this curiosity for me...

BRITISH SEA SERVICE MUSKET (EARLY MODEL)

I really am interested in more detail than the Loyalist Arms web site has (Like the lock plate dimensions etc.)

Anyway, any help would be greatly appreciated. Please PM or email me if you are willing to help.

Regards

[BILLY BONES]

I have it, but I'm totally inept at sending pics. Let me see what I can tell you.

[BILLY BONES]

Are you sure you want 182? There's a photo of an indenture dated 1712 listing naval ordnance issued to the Royal Navy. No dimensions or anything about a particular musket.

[michaelsbagley]

Hey Billy,

Thanks for the help... If you visit the link in my original post, there is a gun advertised as an early British Sea Service musket. The ad lists the source for their reproduction as from "Boarders Away Volume Two" on that page. It is possible that if the book has gone through more than one printing the musket could be on a different page. Or perhaps the ad just got the page incorrect altogether. Regardless, I am just trying to get as much detail about the musket as I can, particularly the lock plate size, but any other extra details would be most welcome as well.

Another Pub member has offered to send me the page, but said he couldn't get to it for a day or two. I'm not in so much of a rush that I can't wait , but if I can get the info sooner, all the better...

Edit: On rereading the ad on the above web page I posted, it says the description can be found STARTING on page 182, so I may need the page or two after that as well.... Teach me to post when I am not fully awake. Working nights is killing me.

[Matty Bottles]

I found it and will attempt to scan it tomorrow. I do not have a scanner, and have to scan it at work. If the scanner guy is there tomorrow, I can get you the pics. If not, I might have to wait until Friday.

There is a pic of a Queen Anne-era long musket on p 183; does that sound like the weapon in question? Would you like the whole description, or just the pic? I have to confess that it is, like most of the pics in BA, not a high-detail nor nigh-resolution image.

[michaelsbagley]

Thanks Bloody Jack Mad,

I am more interested in the text than the image, but having even a grainy image to compare to the pics of the Loyalist Arms musket would be nice. I am most interested in the lockplate size (if it is even given in the text), and maybe the barrel size(length) as well, but the more information I have about the musket as a whole, the happier I will be.

[Matty Bottles]

Well, here's a sneak preview:

Queen Anne period long shipboard musket, a common British Military musket with 46" barrel, 1700-1710.

The short musket featured ealier (in drawing three, which is indentical, for the most part, with the long-barreled musket) bears the markings and features of c.1700, including a three-screw, flint lock (with back-catch) engraved with Queen anne's cypher; it has a flat lokc plate, a pin-fastened .79 caliber barrel secured at the tang by a screw turning up into it from the bottom, a flat, nailed-on brass butt plate (formed by being bent rather than cast), and a brass trigger guard with a front finial formed into a ball shape. It has no sling swivels, nose cap, wrist escutcheon, or other superfluous furniture.

I have to say that it is certainly a unique firearm, at least along the trigger guard and trigger. I just looked at the Loyalist arms weapon, and it does not match much, I'm afraid to say. It lacks the distinct trigger and trigger guard, as well as the visible (faintly, but still visible) dog lock (described as a back-catch in the text above.) Also, as has been mentioned by those much, much more learned than I, the loyalist arms version has way too much wood in its furniture, the furniture frames the barrel wrong, and the loyalist arms version is the wrong barrel length (38" v. 46") and the wrong caliber (.76 v. .79).

Now, I am certainly no expert in these firearms, but this looks more like an ~ 1750's model of firearm. This is based on the examples I have in this book before me, but that is the kicker. Based of this evidence, I would say that it doesn't look right, but there are many, many others with much, much more experience than I, and I would suggest you seek their advice.

[michaelsbagley]

Thanks a ton!

I've heard the "too much wood" argument many times, but unfortunately, that seems to hold true of just about all of the India made muskets available, and it is something most re-enactors are willing to live with strictly because of the economy of the situation. (India made muskets are cheap!)

The barrel calibre being slightly off doesn't bother me, but the barrel length being wrong on the Loyalist gun, is something that does not please me, and will probably be enough to turn me off of it. I currently have my local library's copy of "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution", and pages 76 to 80 has various "British Sea Service Muskets" dated between 1746 and 1790 (all too late for my taste) many of the muskets on those pages resemble the Loyalist gun to one degree or another... In fact the Loyalist Musket does look reasonably similar to the musket on page 77 (dated to 1759) give or take the shaping of the forestock and other smaller details.

The above is why I was so interested in the text from "Boarders Away", the information from "Battle Weapons...." does not seem to support Loyalist's ad in that the weapon is accurate (or close to accurate) for 1715, I wanted to compare with the info in "Boarders Away 2" to see if that info shed more light on the situation... and it has....

Thanks for all of your help Bloody Jack!

[Matty Bottles]

You're welcome. I've learned from you over the years. The thing that bothers me is that they basically have the lock completely wrong. The musket in the book is obviously a doglock, while the loyalist arms lock doesn't have a catch. That's pretty big. Barrel lengths can be modified aboard ship and in the armory, furniture can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, but the dog lock is pretty indicative of tech levels, and they shouldn't have messed that up.

[michaelsbagley]

You're welcome. I've learned from you over the years. The thing that bothers me is that they basically have the lock completely wrong. The musket in the book is obviously a doglock, while the loyalist arms lock doesn't have a catch. That's pretty big. Barrel lengths can be modified aboard ship and in the armory, furniture can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, but the dog lock is pretty indicative of tech levels, and they shouldn't have messed that up.

Years? I was just looking at my profile, and realized I have been on this forum for just over 13 months... Or do I know you from one of the Viking Age forums?

The missing doglock is consistant with the 1750s model I mentioned. So I think Loyalist's claim for "1715 to 1740" might be exagerated to a bit too early, where is if they claimed "1740 to 1760" I think they would be more on the ball. But I'm no expert on period firearms either, and I am basing this statement off of the info from one book I've read, and a quote from a book you've read. Maybe there may be other info out there to further prove or disprove the use of that style of musket for our time.

On another note, the musket on page 52 of "Battle Weapons..." (dated 1700-1703) has a lock shaped similar the Loyalist Arms peice with no doglock. The description reads "A comparison with the proceeding longarm (from the previous page) illustrates the trend go eliminate the lock's 'dog,' which had secured the cock from premature ignition." From some further reading I have done, it seems that the English did begin to make non-"dogged" flintlocks in the early 1700's. I *Think* I even read somewhere that the dogs were cut off of some earlier locks.

Here's a pic of the 1700-1703 musket lock. Makes me wonder if Loyalist combined the 1750s sample with this to get their reproduction.... A rather unusual blend if that is the case.

[Matty Bottles]

I tend to cycle through this forum, leacing for a year and coming back for a year. Sometimes I get things all mixed up. But I have learned from you over the year - for example, I'm now starting a blue ticken waist coat and britches inspired by guess who?

If you have early evidence for the lock, then I say the weapon is back in the running, even if it looks like a 'morphadite' of two existing firearms. The one thing is that curled around trigger - that's pretty distinctive, and common to both period examples discussed here.