American Military Shoulder Arms, Volume I: Colonial and Revolutionary War Arms 0826349951, 9780826349958

Citation preview

AMERICAN MILITARY SHOULDER ARMS VOLUME I

This page intentionally left blank

AMERICAN MILITARY SHOULDER ARMS VOLUME I

Colonial and Revolutionary War Arms

George D. MoIIer

UNIVERSITY OF NE W MEXICO

PRESS

A L B U Q U E RQU E

© 2011 by George D. Moller. All rights reserved. Published 201L Printed in the United States of America. 16 15 14 13 12 11

1 2 3 4 5 6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Moller, George D. American military shoulder arms / George D. Moller. p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index. Reprint. Originally published: 1993. ISBN 978-0-8263-4995-8 (pbk.: alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-8263-4996-5 (electronic) 1. United States—Armed Forces—Firearms—History. I. Title. UF523.M652011 623.4'40973—dc22

2011009440

CONTENTS xi xiii xvii

Preface Acknowledgments Introduction

PART I 012. .2 .5 .8

AMERICAN COLONIAL ARMS HISTORY Pre-Colonial Period, 1492-1607 First Colonial Period, 1607-1691 Second Colonial Period, 1691-1775

015. .2 .5 .8

IGNITION SYSTEMS OF COLONIAL ARMS Matchlock Wheel-Lock Flintlock Variations

13 13 15 16

017. .A .C .E .G .1 J .K .L .N .P .P5 .P7 .R .Rl .R5 .R7 .R9 .S .T .V .V2

COLONIAL SHOULDER A R M S The Harquebus Matchlock Muskets Wheel-Lock Muskets British Snaphance Muskets English Lock Muskets Swedish Snaplock Musket Doglock Muskets British 17th-Century and Pre-Land Pattern Flintlock Muskets 18th-Century Colonial Militia Muskets Colonial Fowler-Muskets Early 18th-Century Fowler-Musket Late 18th-Century Fowler-Muskets Fowling Guns 17 th-Century Fowlers Hudson Valley Fowlers New England Fowlers Other Fowling Guns French Hunting and Trade Guns French Buccaneer Guns 17th-Century Carbines Wheel-Lock Carbine

26 27 29 38 42 42 44 45 49 57 62 63 64 69 70 72 77 81 85 89 90 91

3 3 4 9

CONTENTS

VI

.V5 .V8 .Y

English Snaphance Carbine Flintlock Carbines 17ttvCentury Military Blunderbuss Arms

92 93 96

PART II 027. .2 .5 .8

DEFINITION OF ARMS BY TYPE, SOURCE, AND ORIGIN Type of Arm Source of Procurement Country of Origin

99 99 101 103

029.

PRIVATELY OWNED ARMS PROCURED DURING THE REVOLUTION

105

MUSKETS PROCURED BY AUTHORITY OF A COLONY OR STATE Committees of Safety Committee of Safety Muskets State Contract Muskets Notes on the Specifications and Procurement of Committee of Safety and State Contract Muskets

108

MUSKETS PROCURED BY AUTHORITY OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS Continental Contract Muskets Continental Use of State Procurement Agencies Sales of Continental Muskets to Individual States

131 131 134 135

037. .2 ,5 .8

CONTINENTAL ARSENALS AND LABORATORIES The First Continental Arsenals The Arsenal and Laboratory at Springfield The Philadelphia Supply Agencies

137 137 138 138

039. .2 .5 .8

CONTINENTAL MUSKET PARTS PROCUREMENT Imported Musket Parts Musket Parts Fabricated at Continental Facilities Continental Contract Small Arms Components

141 141 142 143

041. .2 .4 .42 .45 .48 .6 .8

REVOLUTIONARY WAR REPAIR OF ARMS Continental Armorers Continental Factories and Armories The Continental Gun Factory The Continental Armory and French Factory U.S. Armorers Continental Contract Repair of Arms Post-Revolutionary War Repair of Arms

146 147 148 149 150 151 151 153

03L 2 A .6 .8

035. .2 .5 .8

106 106 107 108

CONTENTS

VII

043.

"US" IDENTIFICATION OF CONTINENTAL. MUSKETS

045.

AMERICAN-ASSEMBLED MUSKETS OF BRITISH, FRENCH, AND GERMAN STATES' PATTERNS Muskets Containing British Components Muskets Containing American-Made British Pattern Components Muskets Containing French Components Muskets Containing Germanic Components

.2 .5 .8 .9

159

163 164 165 168 173

047.

THE AMERICAN LONG RIFLE

178

048.

AMERICAN-ASSEMBLED CARBINES

187

049.

AMERICAN-ASSEMBLED BLUNDERBUSS ARMS

190

PART III FOREIGN SHOULDER ARMS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

195

053.

ARMS CAPTURED DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

196

055.

FOREIGN DIPLOMACY AND ARMS PROCUREMENT DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

198

057.

FOREIGN ARMS PROCURED BY INDIVIDUAL COLONIES

206

065. .A .A2 .A4 .A6 .A62 .A66 .A9 .C .D .F .H .1 .] .K .L .M .O

BRITISH MILITARY SHOULDER ARMS Land Pattern Muskets Long Land Pattern (Type I) Musket Long Land Pattern (Type II) Musket Short Land Pattern Musket Short Land Pattern Musket (for Dragoons) Short Land New Pattern Musket Land Pattern Commercial Sales Muskets Sea Service Musket Marine or Militia Musket Officers' Fusil Flank Company Sergeants' Fusil Light Infantry Fusil Royal Artillery Carbine 1770 Dragoon Carbine 1756 Light Dragoon Carbine Elliot Carbine IStlvCentury Horseman's Carbines

211 212 215 219 223 224 226 231 235 241 243 246 247 251 256 257 258 260

050.

CONTENTS

VIII

.02 .07 .R .S .T .V .X ,X2 .X5 .X8 .X9 .Y 070.

.A .B .C .C2 .C4 .C6 .C8 .D .E .F .G .H .HI .H2 .H5 .1 .11 .12 J .K .L .M .N .O .01 .02 .P .Q .R ,S .T .U .V

Queen Anne Period Horseman's Carbine Horseman's Carbine (from 1757) Military Rifles of the Seven Years' War Military Rifles of the Revolutionary War Ferguson Breechloading Rifle Nock Volley Gun Blunderbuss and Musketoon Arms British Late 17th-Century Blunderbuss British Early 18th-Century Blunderbuss British Military Revolutionary War Period Blunderbuss British Quasi-Military 18th-Century Blunderbuss British Foreign Purchase Arms

261 264 265 265 268 273 276 278 280 283 285 286

FRENCH ARMS

291 292 292 292 293 294 295 297 297 298 302 303 306 306 309 311 312 312 315 316 319 319 320 323 326 326 330 333 336 340 343 346 348 351

Introduction Manufacturing Tolerances French Regulation Models and Armories The Configuration of French Arms Early Naval Muskets Alterations of French Regulation Arms French Matchlock Muskets 1696 Contract Naval Musket 1696 Contract Grenadier Musket 1716 Contract Naval Musket 1716 Contract Grenadier Musket Model 1717 Muskets Model 1717 Infantry Musket Model 1717 Rampart Musket Model 1717 Dragoon Musket Model 1728 Muskets Model 1728 Infantry Musket Model 1728 Rampart Musket 1729 Contract Naval Musket 1729 Contract Grenadier Musket Model 1734 Dragoon Musket Model 1734 Cavalry Musketoon Model 1746 Infantry Musket Model 1754 Muskets Model 1754 Infantry Musket Model 1754 Dragoon Musket Model 1763 Infantry Musket Model 1766 Infantry Musket Model 1763-1766 Dragoon Muskets Model 1763-1766 Cavalry Musketoons Model 1767 Hussar's Musketoons Model 1770-1771 Infantry Musket Model 1770 Artillery Musket

CONTENTS

.W Model 1773 Infantry Musket .X Model 1774 Infantry Musket .Y Model 1777 Muskets .Yl Model 1777 Infantry Musket .Y2 Model 1777 Naval Musket .Y3 Model 1777 Ship, Marine, and Colonial Muskets .Y5 Model 1777 Dragoon Musket .Y6 Model 1777 Artillery Musket .Y8 Model 1777 Cavalry and Ship Musketoons 075.

.2 .5 080.

.1 .3 .5 .52 .55 .58 .59 085.

.2 .7 .9 090.

LIEGE ARMS

American-Assembled/Repaired Arms with Liege Locks Liege Contract British Short Land New Pattern Muskets DUTCH ARMS

Colonial Period Revolutionary War Period Configurations of Dutch Muskets (Type I) Musket (Type II) Musket (Type III) Musket (Type IV) Musket SPANISH ARMS

Configurations of Spanish Military Arms Model 1757 Musket Military Escopeta GERMAN STATES' FORCES IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

IX

352 355 359 359 362 363 364 366 368

372 374 375 379 379 380 381 382 385 389 392 404 405 406 409

Hesse Cassel Brunswick and Hesse Hanau

413 414 416

092. .1 .2 .4 .42 .44 .46 .48 .6

GERMAN STATES' MUSKETS German States' Military Small Arms Manufactories Known German States' Procurement Information Prussian Regulation Muskets Model 1713 and Model 1723 Muskets Model 1723-1740 Musket Model 1740 Musket Model 1740-1773 Musket German States' Prussian-Style Muskets

418 418 422 425 426 428 429 433 433

095.

JAGER RIFLES

448 451 454

.3 .7

.2 .4

Ansbach-Bayreuth Jager Rifle Hesse Cassel Jager Rifle

CONTENTS

x

,6 .9

Heller Jager Rifle Peterson Jager Rifle

457 459

APPENDICES 1

BRIEF MILITARY HISTORY OF COLONIAL AMERICA Pre-Colonial Period, 1492-1607 First Colonial Period, 1607-1691 Second Colonial Period, 1691-1775

463 463 464 469

2

17TH-CENTURY BRITISH ARMY ORGANIZATION AND LINEAR TACTICS IN EUROPE

474

DATES OF WARS AND MILITARY ACTIONS THAT INVOLVED COLONIAL NORTH AMERICAN ARMED FORCES AND THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES

476

4

REVOLUTIONARY WAR BACKGROUND INFORMATION Summary of Events Leading Up to the American Revolution Brief Chronological Military History of the Revolutionary War

478 478 479

5

SHOULDER ARMS KNOWN IMPORTED DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

484

PERSONNEL IN CHARGE OF SMALL ARMS PROCUREMENT TO 1815

486

CALIBER DESIGNATIONS OF AMERICAN MILITARY SHOULDER ARMS AND AMMUNITION

488

REVOLUTIONARY WAR NAVIES AND PRIVATEERS

490

3

6

7

8

Glossary Bibliography Index

495 499 505

PREFACE In 1956 I made the decision to concentrate my collecting interests in the field of U.S. military shoulder arms. Because of this, I became interested in the published works on the subject and purchased the available books of Claud E. Fuller, James E. Hicks, Arcadi Gluckman, and other authors, as well as magazine articles and original and reprinted ordnance publications, in an attempt to define the various models of arms and learn as much as possible about each. This would enable me to recognize them and to determine their originality should they be offered for sale. Some of the published information was contradictory and seemed incomplete. At times it was at variance with existing examples of the arms. By 1959 I had begun to collect information seriously, with the goal of eventually publishing a book to aid other collectors in the identification of these arms. However, it was not until 1975 that I was able to begin the almost full-time effort that this research required. A three-week trip to the National Archives in Washington, D.C., was undertaken, followed by another three weeks of empirical research at the Springfield Armory Museum in Massachusetts. Before the trip, I had naively hoped that I would find answers to a long list of questions in the National Archives that would provide enough material to write the book. That first three weeks in the National Archives was an eye-opener. During that short period, I located and microfilmed over six thousand pages of information, most of which had never been researched by previous authors in the field. There was such a wealth of interesting related information that it was difficult to focus on the specific areas of study. Information was encountered that raised more questions than were answered, and by the time I left the Archives I knew it was to be only the first of many trips; there was a great deal more to learn about the field before attempting to write about it. During the years that followed, I traveled to eastern states' archives, state and local historical societies, local and national museums, and revisited the National Archives numerous times. By about 19801 was aware that a number of fellow arms students had acquired a great deal of information, usually about specific areas within the field, but had never published it. Unfortunately, several of these people died, and their knowledge was irretrievably lost. Because of this, I decided to begin drafting the information that I had acquired and collated to that time. This early draft began where most students and collectors of U.S. military shoulder arms believe the story started, with the Revolutionary War. As I continued to work with the material, there was the growing realization that I was trying to tell a story from the middle; several important chapters of American history had preceded, which related to the shoulder arms used in the Revolution. Therefore, I began to research American colonial military history and the arms used by the colonists.

XII

PREFACE

In addition to further research in various American archives, I made several trips to European archives and museums to learn more about the shoulder arms sent to North America during the colonial and Revolutionary War period. This volume is the result.

Throughout the several volumes of this book, each major section and its subsections are identified with a number. The whole numbers, to the left of the decimal point, are progressive and represent major sections. The numbers, and sometimes letters, to the right of the decimal point represent varying degrees of subsections, in outline format. For example, section 065. describes British regulation military shoulder arms. Section 065 .A describes British land pattern muskets. Section 065.A2 describes Long Land Pattern muskets, and section 065.A22 describes specifically British Long Land Pattern (Type I) muskets, which were produced until the mid-1750s. Although they were devised originally for reasons of organization and crossreferencing, it is hoped that this system will also facilitate communications between arms students by providing them with a simple, yet specific, reference. GEORGE D. MOLLER LAKEWOOD, COLORADO

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The work of every historian owes a great deal to the efforts of fellow scholars past and present. As Cervantes observed: "Though seemingly the parent, I am in truth only the step-father." A deep debt of gratitude is owed by the author, and by all students of American military shoulder arms, to three authors in particular. First, to Claud E. Fuller, who wrote Springfield Muzzle-Loading Shoulder Arms (1931), BreechLoader in the Service (1933), and The Rifled Musket (1951). Second, to Captain James E. Hicks, who wrote a two-volume work, U.S. Ordnance (1940). Volume I of this work was republished as U.S. Military Firearms in 1956. Finally, to Colonel Arcadi Gluckman, author of United States Muskets, Rifles, and Carbines (1959). Although there were also other early authors who presented excellent information in the field, such as Townsend Whelen, Phillip B. Sharpe, Charles E. Chapel, and L. D. Satterlee, it was the previous three who first defined the field and published vast amounts of information based on archival research and the empirical study of arms. In the past twenty years, there has been an ever-increasing quantity of books published on various subjects within the field of American military shoulder arms. Many of these have also been outstanding and are included in this work's bibliography. The research for this book has been conducted over the past fifteen years in many archives and libraries and in public and private arms collections. The help, guidance, and cooperation of the personnel of the archives and libraries greatly facilitated research there and resulted in the great amount of new information presented in these pages. In particular, I would like to express my appreciation to: Mike Musik, Tim Nenninger, and Dale Floyd in the Navy and Old Army Branch of the U.S. Archives, Washington, D.C.; Mark Jones and Beverly Naylor at the Connecticut State Library; Herr Klingelhofer, Hessisches Staatsarchiv, Marburg, Germany; Bill Milhumme, Massachusetts Archives; Susan Copczynski, Morristown National Historic Park; John E. Shelly and Jonathan Stayer, Pennsylvania State Archives; Bruce Compton, The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Elisabeth Aperghis, Service Historique De L'Armee De Terre, Chateau Vincennes, France. A debt of gratitude is also owed to the following for the research material shared with me: Howard Blackmore, Surrey, England; Norm Flayderman, Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Bill Guthman, Westport, Connecticut; Jan Piet Puype, Leger-en Wapenmuseum, Delft, Netherlands; Frank Sellers, Alstead, New Hampshire; Arne Hoff, Copenhagen, Denmark; and Chuck Darling, New Haven, Connecticut.

xiv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks are also due to the following, who facilitated my empirical research in public collections of arms: Byron Johnson of the Albuquerque Museum, New Mexico; Oberst Dr. Nikolaus of the Armeemuseum, Dresden, Germany; Dr. Ernst Aichner of the Bayerisches Armeemuseum, Ingolstadt, Germany; Howard Blackmore, and more recently Graeme Rimer, of The Armouries, H.M. Tower of London, England; Wolfgang Glage and Dr. Christof Romer of the Braunschweigisches Landesmuseum, Brunswick, Germany; Jay Gaynor of The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Virginia; Ms. Katherine Keene of the Colorado Historical Society, Denver, Colorado; David F. Wood of the Concord Antiquarian Museum, Massachusetts; Mrs. Jane Lape of Fort Ticonderoga, New York; Ms. Ann Belkov of the Chicamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia; Donald Long of the Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, Greensboro, North Carolina; Dr. Erich Gabriel and Ernst Treibel of the Herresgeschichtliches Museum, Vienna, Austria; Dr. Deiter Schaal of the Historisches Museum, Dresden, Germany; Frau Dr. Alheidis von Rohr of the Historisches Museum am Hohen Ufer, Hanover, Germany; Dr. Bas Kist of the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, Holland; Dr. Lena Rangstrom of the Livrustkammeren, Stockholm, Sweden; Helmut Nickel of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; J. P. Reverseau and Colonel Neuville of the Musee de L'Armee, Paris; Claude Gaier of the Musee d'Arms, Liege, Belgium; Maurice Forrissier of the Musee d'Art and d'Industrie, and the Musee d'Manufactures, Saint Etienne, France; Dr. Heinrich Miiller, Dr. Quaas, and Mr. Kolling of the Museum fur Deutsche Geschichte, Berlin, Germany; K. Cory Keeble of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada; Dr. Schmidtburger of the Museum Schloss Friedrichstein, Bad Wildungen, Germany; Craddock Goins of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.; Tom Wallace, William E. Meuse, and Stuart Vogt of the Springfield Armory National Historic Site, Massachusetts; Dr. Arne Hoffe and Dr. Arne Orloff of the T0jusmuseet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Robert Fisch, Mike Moss, and Mike McAfee of the West Point Museum, New York; Elizabeth Browning of the Valley Forge National Historic Park, Pennsylvania; Wolfgang Kramer of the Waffenmuseum, Suhl, Germany; Herbert Houze of the Winchester Museum, Buffalo Bill Historical Center, Cody, Wyoming; Ms. Lisa Compton of the Old Colony Historical Society, Taunton, Massachusetts; John R. Grimes of the Peabody Museum, Salem, Massachusetts; and Eugene Kosche of The Bennington Museum, Bennington, Vermont. Special gratitude goes to the students and collectors of arms, many of whom not only made the arms in their collections available for research but also shared the hospitality of their homes with the author: Peter A. Albee, Jim Altemus, John Echlin, Donald A. Euing, Edward and Helen Flanagan, Jay Forman, Bill Guthman, James D. Lavin, Robert Nittolo, Joseph Puleo, Jr., Henk Visser, W. Keith Neal, Edwin Gewirz, William LaRue, Warren T. Lewis, William Scollard, Harmon Leonard, John Hamilton, Al Thompson, Bill Reisner, Lewis H. Gordon, John F. Bicknell, William C. English, Robert E. Brooker, Jr., Ralph Reid, and John C. McMurray Finally, a very special debt of gratitude is owed to Warren T. Lewis, Anthony D. Darling, Arthur Nehrbass, and Steve Marvin, who spent countless hours reading the manuscript, correcting it, and suggesting changes. Without their

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xv

help and continued consultations and support, this work could never have been published. There undoubtedly still are numerous errors and omissions in these pages. They are solely the fault of the author, not of the many people who contributed so much time and energy to help get this work ready for publication. G.D.M.

This page intentionally left blank

INTRODUCTION The field of American military shoulder arms includes the muskets, rifles, carbines, musketoons, and blunderbusses used in the field by American armed forces. This volume also briefly describes some of the arms primarily designed for hunting that were used for military purposes, because during the early colonial period, and especially during the Revolutionary War, virtually any firearm that worked was used. It is impossible to understand the military shoulder arms of the 17th and 18th centuries without some knowledge of the military, political, and social background of the period. The circumstances of the arms' production and use are particularly significant. The vast majority of the arms used in North America until the end of the Revolutionary War were imported from Europe or were rebuilt in America from components of European manufacture. Very few arms were wholly of American manufacture. There were no regulation models of shoulder arms in the major European countries until the early 18th century. Prior to this, many governments specified caliber and barrel length, and sometimes a few other details. The basic configurations of the muskets and carbines used by the armed forces were largely determined by custom as interpreted by the makers of those arms. They defy categorization in 20th-century terms. Even many of the regulation arms of the 18th century are difficult to categorize. Sometimes the dates attributed to arms in this text are those of the first recorded reference to the arms. The arms may well have preexisted these dates. Prior to 1689-1691 the American colonists' military use of arms was primarily against Indians and, less often, against foreign colonies. Thereafter, until the Revolutionary War, over one hundred thousand British North American colonists, and many additional thousands of French colonists, saw service in wars between European rulers. Many served outside their colonies, elsewhere in the New World. They were often armed and equipped by the military forces with whom they served. These colonial arms, combined with the British, French, and Spanish arms used during the American Revolution, make the inclusion of the regulation and nonregulation military arms of these European nations an integral part of this work.

REGULATION MODELS AND TYPE DESIGNATIONS Prior to the 18th century, only the caliber and sometimes the barrel length, lock, or other features for military arms were specified in a government's contract with gunmakers. Most countries allowed the regimental commanders to procure

xvin

INTRODUCTION the arms for their own regiments. The configuration of the arms produced was generally in conformity with the accepted contemporary style in that country, as interpreted by the individual arms maker, and could be modified by the regimental commander's whim. Early in the 18th century there was a growing recognition in several European countries that greater uniformity was required in the shoulder arms used by their military and naval forces. To achieve this, a pattern arm was approved by central authority, often by the country's ruler, and all arms procured were to be fabricated after this pattern. In France royal manufactories were established to provide the production control necessary to manufacture large quantities of regulation shoulder arms. The operations of these manufactories were under the control of a governmentappointed inspector. Similar systems were used in several of the German states. In England the Ordnance established ever-increasing control over the private component manufacturers and arms assemblers through a system of proof and inspection during various stages of manufacture. Early British arms were designated in terms of the service in which they were used. As time passed, terms such as "muskets for land service," "muskets for sea service," or "carbines for horse" gave way to "land pattern muskets," "sea service muskets," and "horsemans carbines." In France a year-model designation was added during the 18th century, which gave rise to designations such as "Model 1717 Infantry musket" or "Model 1728 Rampart musket." The year-model usually referred to the year in which the pattern was approved as a regulation model. It should be understood that the use of the term "model" in designating a particular arm presupposes not only the existence of regulation models of arms but also indicates that the particular arm was fabricated in conformity with an officially approved or adopted pattern. Arms that are not the regulation models of a given country are not designated in this text with the word "model." They are usually identified with only the year in which their purchase or contract was authorized. Examples of these are the French 1696 contract naval musket and the 1729 contract grenadier musket. During the course of production of a particular model of arm, changes and modifications were frequently incorporated. Some of these resulted from improving technologies; others resulted from improvements learned from experience with the arms in the field. These changes and modifications within a model were frequently not considered important enough to require the formal adoption of a new model of arm, although they may have resulted in one or more distinguishable variations within the model. In order to identify the specific variations within a particular model of arm, arms students have divided them into "types." This enables arms students to distinguish between the various configurations that may be encountered in a model for the purposes of study and communication. These arms types sometimes refer to various periods of manufacture. However, they usually refer to specific modifications or improvements incorporated into an arm. In this text these modern types are enclosed in parentheses to differentiate them from the arms' official designations, which were contem1

The British used the term "pattern."

INTRODUCTION porary with their use. Examples are the British Long Land Pattern (Type I) musket and the Long Land Pattern (Type II) musket.

NOTES REGARDING MEASUREMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS In order to eliminate unnecessary words, the words "long" and "wide" have been deleted from the text unless absolutely necessary for comprehension. In accord with generally accepted practice, arms are described as having the muzzle at the highest, or forward, end; the butt is in the lowest, or rearward, end. Therefore, the upper barrel band is the band nearest the muzzle, and the rear face of the frizzen is the face that is struck by the flint. In order to promote consistency, the specifications presented usually represent measurements made by the author and only occasionally are those reported by others. In rare instances, it was impossible to locate an example of the arm to be described, and specifications were obtained from published sources. The specifications of even regulation models of military shoulder arms made into the second quarter of the 19th century vary from one example to another. Whenever possible, several examples of a particular model or type of arm have been measured, and the specifications given show the usual parameters encountered for most components. Occasionally, these specifications represent a composite of the measurements of a specific component in several different arms. Although there were variations commonly exceeding an inch in many arms made prior to the late 18th century, all measurements have been taken to the nearest one-sixteenth of an inch. It is the fractional definition that can be most commonly used until the end of the 19th century. It is also the smallest fraction that can be measured feasibly by many collectors and students of arms with the usual instruments at their disposal. SPECIFICATIONS Caliber: This is the nominal caliber of the arm and may or may not be closely related to the bore diameter. Although the caliber of an arm is usually denominated in terms of its bore diameter, sometimes the caliber was denominated in terms of the diameter of the ball used, which was usually somewhat smaller. Overall Length: The length of entire arm without bayonet, as read from a measuring tape extending from the muzzle to the butt. This varies slightly from the European system of measuring overall length, which is to stand an arm on its butt next to a wall and measure the arm's height up the wall. Barrel Length: The distance from the muzzle to the flat breech of the barrel. This measurement does not include the barrel tang. Bore Diameter: Whenever possible, bores were measured with an inside micrometer approximately 4" behind the muzzle. Muzzle Extension: The distance the muzzle projects beyond the stock's forend.

xix

xx

INTRODUCTION

Lockplate: The overall length of the plate and its width measured at the widest point, not including an integral pan's fence. The width measurement was usually made immediately behind the pan. Cock: Measured from the bottom of the body to the top of the tang. It does not include the jaw screw, which usually projects above the tang. Pan: The term "faceted" is used to describe pans whose lower and side external surfaces are composed of a series of flats. These pans have sometimes been described as "V-bottomed," or "flattened V-bottomed." Frizzen: The dimensions given are for the rear face (the face facing the butt). Butt Plate: The width measurement is at the widest point. Unless otherwise noted, butt plates are usually retained by a wood screw through the tang and another through the lower part of the rear. Barrel Band Spacing: The specifications given are for the distance from the breech to the rear of the lower band and from the rear-tx>rear of succeeding bands, as measured along the top of the barrel. Barrel Band Retainers: The length given is of the portion of the springs not concealed by the barrel band. Sling Swivels: If a measurement is given, it refers to the horizontal inside diameter of the swivel. Swivel Ring: The diameter is measured from the center of the metal forming the ring, not its outside or inside diameters. Ramrod: It should be noted that the majority of ramrods in arms made before the beginning of the 19th century are not original to the arms containing them, although some may be of the correct style and period. Where a ramrod is known to be a replacement, this is noted in the description. Stock Length: The distance between the butt and the foretip, including the butt plate and forend cap, if the arm is so equipped. Stock Comb: The distance from the butt, including the butt plate, to the nose. The comb height is the vertical measurement from a line projected rearwards along the top of the wrist's profile to the top of the comb's nose. PHOTOGRAPHS One of my frustrations as a beginning collector was that there were no photographs of many arms described by some of the early authors in the field. Some authors, like Major James E. Hicks, used the superb drawings of Andre Jadot to illustrate his work. Those drawings are works of art, and through them Hicks was able to illustrate many components and component relationships that are impossible to photograph. Unfortunately, some more recent authors have also illustrated their books with drawings that, although artistic, sometimes distort the proportions of the arms. Even worse, artistic license was used to create missing components or to replace components not original to the arm with components believed to be correct by the artist. An extreme example of this is one instance where a Waters "flat lock" percussion pistol was drawn as a flintlock, even though this pistol was never made in this ignition system. Even photographs can distort the proportions of arms, depending upon the lens used. In order to minimize this, the majority of illustrations in this work are

INTRODUCTION photos taken by the author using a 35-mm camera equipped with a 50-mm or 55'inm lens. Unfortunately, many photographs had to be taken in less-than-ideal circumstances, with inadequate or poorly located lighting. Many photographs were taken in basements and attics of museums and private homes; others were taken in cramped, dark store rooms or workshops. It is because of these conditions than the quality of too many of the illustrations is lower than I would have liked to present. They do, however, represent the best obtainable under the circumstances. Some of the arms illustrated in this volume are equipped with slings, which are incorrect.

xxi

This page intentionally left blank

AMERICAN MILITARY SHOULDER ARMS VOLUME I

This page intentionally left blank

PART I COLONIAL ARMS

This page intentionally left blank

AMERICAN COLONIAL. ARMS HISTORY

012.

Some historians divide North American history, between Columbus's discovery of the New World and the outbreak of the American Revolution, into three time periods. The pre-colonial period extended from 1492, the year of Columbus's discovery, to 1607, the year the first successful English colony was established. The first colonial period extended from 1607 until about 1691, and the second colonial period extended from 1691 to the Revolutionary War. The pre-colonial period was characterized by numerous explorations by various European powers. These were frequently military in nature. Only Spain was successful in establishing a large colonial population in North America. The first colonial period was characterized by the initial establishment of settlements by other major European powers. These settlements were usually commercial or religious ventures and were administered by commercial companies, which were granted monopoly rights to the territory by means of royal charters. The period was also characterized by frequent battles and skirmishes between settlers and groups of Indians as the settlers encroached on Indian lands and took the available game. During much of this time the white population was outnumbered and was constantly on the defensive. The second colonial period was characterized by the expansion and multiplication of these settlements and their populations. During this period many of the colonies achieved provincial status or at least were administered as provinces. The colonists often fought different enemies under different conditions. In addition to the Indian threat, substantial numbers of colonial militia were raised to fight wars within, and outside of, their colonies. Their enemies were not just the Indians: they were the regular armies and colonial militias of other European powers. During this period, over 107,000 men from Britain's North American colonies alone served under the Union Jack. Additional tens of thousands of French and Spanish colonists also fought for their colonies' rulers.1

PRE-COLONIAL PERIOD, 1492— 16O7

012.2

Because the early Spanish explorations were military in nature, most of the explorers brought suits of plate armor, mail, and helmets. Almost all of these men had swords, although some had pikes or halberds. These polearms were unwieldy in the rough, forested, new world, and were almost useless against an enemy who fought as the American Indian did. The crossbow was the most

A brief military history of colonial America is presented in Appendix 1.

AMERICAN MILITARY SHOULDER ARMS, VOL. 1

4

widely used projectile weapon during the early explorations, but most expedi^ tions also had a few matchlock harquebuses, Cortes's 1519 conquest of Mexico included 508 soldiers. Thirty-two of these were crossbowmen, and only twelve were arquebusiers.2 Pizzaro had 177 men in his 1533 conquest of Peru. Twenty were armed with crossbows and only three with firearms. When compared to the light Indian bows, both the crossbow and matchlock were slow to reload and were difficult to use against an enemy who was always changing position. Like the polearms, these were weapons of European linear tactical warfare, where armies faced each other across open ground and charged, or received a charge, en masse. The Indians did not allow the colonists to use linear tactics. They preferred to do battle using the tactics of ambush and surprise attacks. As a result, the Spanish weapons were often inferior in combat to the Indians' bows and stone-tipped weapons. One of the men in De Soto's 1539 expedition in Florida complained: "They never stand still, but are always running and traversing from one place to another; by reason whereof neither crossbow or arcubuse [sic] can aim at them; and before one crossbowman can make one shot, an Indian will discharge three or four arrows; and he seldom misses what he shoots at."3 The crossbow had several advantages over the matchlock musket: it could be used in wet weather, was fairly silent, did not require the continual ignition of a glowing slow match, and was more accurate. Its main disadvantage was probably that it fired only a single projectile. The muskets were commonly loaded with as many as twelve shot. The crossbow was gradually phased out during the 16th century, and the matchlock harquebus became the primary projectile arm by around 1550. However, a few crossbowmen were still included in a return of personnel to the Spanish forts of Saint Augustine and Santa Elena (now in Florida) in the 1570s. The last known reference to the use of crossbows in North America was in a proposal for equipment to be used in the New Mexico expedition of 1596. There are no records of any crossbows actually being included in that expedition's equipment.

FIRST COLONIAL PERIOD, 16O7—1691

012.5

For their protection, the English colonies placed strong emphasis on the military, and almost every able-bodied man was subject to being called up for watch duty or to defend the settlement in case of attack. Although some weapons were held as "public stores" by the colonies, each man was generally required to

2

3

Spanish references to shoulder firearms in the early 16th-century expeditions to the New World often referred to the shoulder arms used as escopetas. They were, however, early forms of the harquebus described later in the text. Quoted by Harold L. Peterson in "Firearms of the Early American Colonists," The American Rifleman (January 1951). Language has been modernized to facilitate readability.

AMERICAN COLONIAL ARMS HISTORY

supply his own weapons and equipment. Because of this, prospective colonists to Virginia in the early 17th century were advised to bring with them: A suit of light armor Sword and belt A "piece" (shoulder arm) of near musket bore, 5' to 5Vz' long Bandoleer for ammunition 20 Ibs of gunpowder and 60 Ibs of shot or lead The colonists who established Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, primarily brought arms with matchlock ignition and a few arms with mechanical ignition, such as wheel-locks and snaphances.4 The use of some wheel-lock and snaphance arms in this settlement has been verified by archeological evidence. This archeological evidence indicates that the snaphance system was the most common ignition system used at Jamestown. A 1609 report of Captain John Smith included: "300 [matchlock] muskets, snaphances and firelocks, shot, powder and match sufficient." Because the English government had an inherent interest in the success of its colonies, it supplied a large portion of the military equipment used by the colonies. Following the massacre in Virginia in 1622, the following items were sent from the Royal Arsenal in the Tower: 400 300 700 300 1,000 40 400

Bows and 800 sheafs of arrows Arquebuses Calivers Short pistols with firelocks Brown bills Plate coats Shirts and coats of mail

The English long bow was more accurate and faster to reload than the matchlock musket, although it lacked the psychological impact of the smoke, fire, and noise. The Virginia colonists feared that the Indians would be able to improve their own relatively low-powered bows after observing the long bows, so they requested that the long bows from the Tower be unloaded in Bermuda. The colonists wore light armor when on various forms of military duty and when traveling. This armor often consisted of a helmet in conjunction with back and breast plates and thigh armor. Because heavy plate armor inhibited extended travel and fast movement, light armor was preferred. Often a combination of mail armor and a buff leather coat was worn, as it could deflect the stone-tipped weapons of the Indians. 4

5

Although "snaphance" now refers to a specific variation of the flintlock system, it was used in the 17th century to describe any of the flintlock ignition system variations. "Firelock" was a term used after the introduction of firearms with mechanical ignition, such as wheel-locks and the many variations of the flintlock, to distinguish these arms from matchlock arms.

S

AMERICAN MILITARY SHOULDER ARMS, VOL. 1

6

Following the 1622 massacre by the Indians in Virginia, an inventory was made in 1624 and 1625 of the arms, ammunition, and equipment owned by the 940 male and 269 female settlers. This inventory included the following: 20 47 981 55 6 342 260 20 429 1,120 9,657

"Pieces of ordnance" (cannon) Matchlock arms Shoulder arms with mechanical locks (wheel-locks and flintlock variations) Pistols Petronels Armor, complete Coats of mail and headpieces Quilted coats and buff coats Swords Pounds of gunpowder Pounds of shot

The public military stores for 100 men, which the Massachusetts Bay colonists intended to take with them when they sailed from England in 1626, included the following: 80 10 90 6 4 10 4 2 3 100 60 8

Bastard snaphance muskets, 4' barrels, without rests Full matchlock muskets, 4' barrels, with rests Bandoleers for the muskets, each with a bullet bag Long fowling pieces of musket bore, 6l/i' long Long fowling pieces of bastard musket bore, 5Vz' long Horn flasks for the fowling pieces, 1 Ib capacity Barrels of powder for the above arms Partizans for the captain and lieutenant Halberds for sergeants Swords and belts Corsletts, 60 pikes, and 20 half-pikes Assorted cannon, for the fort, also appropriate shot and 8 barrels of gunpowder for them

The matchlock musket of the early 17th-century English military was a heavy, clumsy weapon with a barrel commonly 4' to 4Vz' long. These arms were usually very heavy, and the musketeer used a forked rest as an aid in aiming. In the latter part of the 16th century, the matchlock "caliver" was introduced. This was a somewhat lighter weight shoulder arm, with a smaller diameter bore. At the time the British North American colonies were settled, it is possible that these calivers were referred to there as "bastard muskets." A more complete description of these arms is given later in this text, in the sections describing harquebuses and matchlock muskets. By the late 1630s or early 1640s, most of the English North American colonies had passed laws that specified that each able-bodied man must possess a musket, bandoleer, appropriate powder and bullets, and a sword. These items

AMERICAN COLONIAL ARMS HISTORY

were to be kept ready and were to be brought with the colonist should he be called to duty. In 1645 the Massachusetts General Court passed the following law, which further defined the shoulder arms to be furnished by the colonists subject to military duty:6 It being requisite upon all inhabitants within this jurisdiction should endeavor after such arms as may be most useful for their own and their country's defense, it is therefore ordered that no pieces shall be allowed for service, in trained bands, but such as are either full musket bore, or bastard musket bore at least, and that none should be under 3 feet 9 inches, nor above 4 feet 3 inches in [barrel] length, and that every man shall also have a pr