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

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 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 government-appointed 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 model¹ 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 contem 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.

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-to-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 photos taken by the author using a 35-mm camera equipped with a 50-mm or 55-mm 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.

¹ The British used the term pattern.

PART I

COLONIAL ARMS

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, 1492–1607 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 widely used projectile weapon during the early explorations, but most expeditions also had a few matchlock harquebuses.

Cortés'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, 1607–1691 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 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 5½' long

Bandoleer for ammunition

20 lbs of gunpowder and 60 lbs 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,⁵ 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:

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.

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:

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:

The matchlock musket of the early 17th-century English military was a heavy, clumsy weapon with a barrel commonly 4′ to 4½′ 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 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 priming wire, a worm, and scourer, fit for the bore of his musket.

During the first half of the 17th century, both matchlock and mechanical ignition systems (firelocks) were used. In the early years of this period, colonists relied primarily on the matchlock, which had several inherent weaknesses:

1. The slow match, a loosely twisted flaxen rope that had been soaked in potassium nitrate and dried, had to be kept glowing—a difficult task in inclement weather.

2. The glowing match was visible at night, which clearly indicated to the Indians the number and location of guards on watch in a settlement.

3. The match was normally carried apart from the musket. Before firing, it was placed in its holder on the lock, called a serpentine, and secured by a thumbscrew. The pan cover could be slid open as the weapon was brought up for sighting. These operations required some precious seconds, which a victim of a surprise attack or ambush might not have.

As the superiority of the wheel-lock and various flintlock systems became apparent, their use spread rapidly. The wheel-lock and snaphance were the earliest of the mechanical lock systems to be used. They were replaced in the English colonies by the English lock, which was probably the most widely used system during the last half of the 17th century. Archeological research has turned up a number of these locks in excavations in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, central New York State, as well as in Yorktown and Jamestown, Virginia.

As early as 1646, the Plymouth colony required that all public arms be equipped with firelocks, although matchlocks could be privately owned. In 1649 the New Haven colony followed suit, and only firelocks were allowed as public arms. In addition, a program for the alteration of matchlock arms to mechanical ignition was undertaken in that colony. Not all colonial militias were armed with firelocks at this time. For example, the wording of the 1664 New York Militia Law clearly indicates that both matchlocks and firelocks were acceptable for militia service.

The true flintlock, described later in this text, was introduced in North America during the second half of the 17th century, and it ultimately replaced all other ignition systems. The terms snaphance and firelock continued to be used in contemporary documents to describe arms with any variations of the flintlock.

There is archeological evidence that the Swedes used matchlock arms and a few arms with a Swedish variation of the flintlock, known as the snaplock, in their settlements along the lower Delaware between 1638 and 1655. Like the flintlock, some snaplocks have a frizzen that is integral with the pan cover, although others are separate. The snaplock usually has an external mainspring.

When the Dutch established their colonies, they were primarily armed with matchlock weapons. There is only a little archeological evidence of wheel-lock arms. During this relatively short colonization period, the snaphance system was introduced in North America. A few of these locks have been found by archaeologists at sites of Dutch settlements. In 1656, the year after the Dutch capture of the lower Delaware from the Swedish, the following military stores were among the supplies sent from Holland to the South River of New Netherlands:

The Dutch had standardized the bore diameters of their shoulder arms in the early 17th century. Matchlock muskets had 12 gauge (or about .75″ diameter) bores, and wheel-lock and flintlock variation muskets had 16 gauge bores. These 16 gauge bores were .662″ diameter, and used a .650″ (17 gauge) ball.

The Spanish relied heavily on the miquelet ignition system, and it was widely used in their settlements and forts in Florida and the Southwest. Very few miquelets were apparently used by the colonists from northern Europe; only a few have been located in excavations of non-Spanish settlements. From about 1718 to 1719, the Spanish used true flintlocks in their regulation muskets, although miquelet locks continued in use in the quasi-military escopetas used in the northern provinces of New Spain (now Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California). The miquelet lock was reintroduced into the production of Spanish regulation shoulder arms in 1784.

Little is known of the shoulder arms supplied before 1664 by the French commercial monopoly companies to defend the colonies in New France. Privately procured matchlock muskets probably were used throughout this period.

When the French Royal Infantry arrived in Quebec City during the summer of 1665, they were also largely armed with matchlock muskets. The Carignan-Salieres Regiment, which served in Canada from 1665 to 1668, was the first infantry regiment entirely armed with flintlock muskets. It has also been reported that one-fifth of the French Royal Infantry who served in Canada between 1665 and 1671 were ultimately armed with flintlock muskets equipped with plug bayonets. Because these muskets were equipped with bayonets, no pikemen were sent to New France with the musketeers in 1665, although France, like other European powers, used them in armies on the continent.

The earliest known use of flintlock muskets in the French regular army was their issue to soldiers assigned to guard artillery at some date prior to 1650. The flintlock was preferred to the matchlock because the lit match posed a hazard in the vicinity of exposed cannon powder. In 1667 grenadiers armed with flintlock muskets were introduced into the French Army at the rate of four or five per infantry company. In 1670 entire companies of grenadiers armed with flintlock muskets were created. The use of flintlock muskets by the remainder of the French infantry was specifically prohibited until 1676, when France began to replace the matchlock muskets in the hands of the infantry. Although officially abolished in the French Army in 1699, matchlock muskets would remain in the hands of some units until well into the 18th century.

The existence of carbines in English North American colonies has been noted in earlier documents, but it is not known whether they were privately owned or were brought over as public arms. In 1656 the Council of Maryland ordered the purchase of the following items in England and their distribution to the various counties in the colony:

In 1673, due to the threat of an Indian uprising, the General Court of Massachusetts authorized a Mr. Hezekiah Usher to purchase 500 new snaphances or firelock muskets in England. When the Indian uprising, called King Phillip's War, erupted in 1675, the Massachusetts Council of War ordered that all pikemen arm themselves with firearms and all cavalry arm themselves with carbines.

Blunderbuss arms were introduced in England early in the 17th century, but the first known mention of them in North America was in a 1678 inventory of the military stores of the Maryland colony, which included 613 muskets, 177 carbines, and one blunderbuss.

SECOND COLONIAL PERIOD, 1691–1775 012.8

As noted under English Colonies in Appendix I, over 107,000 men from the British North American colonies served in the British armed forces between 1691 and 1763. They served in the colonial units raised by the Crown to augment the British regular army. The colonial units were usually under the command of English officers, who often considered the colonists unreliable in combat. It is true that the American troops lacked discipline by European standards and lacked training in European linear tactics. The American militia system, which had been patterned after its English counterpart, was used to improve the quality of the colonial troops. Both New Jersey and Virginia colonies developed well-disciplined and well-equipped militias. This discipline was important, as linear tactics placed great value on massed firepower, not accuracy. The infantry (or foot) regiments were drilled in mass movement and rapid reloading so that segments of an army could be brought into position and ideally deliver a sustained rate of fire of four shots per minute.

The enemy during the second colonial period was not just Indians, but other white men who massed in open fields or behind fortifications. This enemy was often from other European countries.

From available information it appears that in the 1690s some of the North American colonial troops supplied their own muskets. Some were also supplied from their colony's public stores or from the British Ordnance Department. From the beginning of the 18th century, British Ordnance supplied almost all of the arms used by the colonial troops raised for British service. When called upon to send arms to the North American colonies, the Board of Ordnance often sent obsolete weapons or arms purchased on the continent that it considered inferior. The newest English-made muskets were conserved for use by the British regular army.

As noted in the previous section, matchlock arms had been considered obsolete as military weapons in the British North American colonies since the mid-17th century, and none had been allowed as public arms. Many of the European countries were slower to change over to firelocks. European warfare did not stress the ambush and the surprise attack common in North America, so they were less motivated to change over to the instantly ready mechanical ignition systems. The last matchlock muskets in the hands of the British line regiments were not withdrawn until the reign of Queen Anne (1702-1714).

The bayonet was introduced into American military service in the late 17th century. The earliest known specific issue of bayonets to North America was the flintlock muskets with bayonets issued to some of the French Royal Infantry in Canada in 1666. The plug bayonet was the earliest form and had been used with military arms in Europe since the 1640s. Its round, tapered handle was inserted into the musket's muzzle. The angular socket bayonet, which had a sleeve that enclosed the muzzle and was secured by a stud on the muzzle, was introduced in North America around 1700.

In 1694 the Maryland Council of War ordered a quantity of arms from England. Included in this order were 100 grenadiers' fusils and Bayonets fit for the bore of these fusees. The earliest known reference to angular socket bayonets in North America was just seven years later. In 1701 the Massachusetts General Court ordered that the Boston regiment be furnished with a goose-necked bayonet, with a socket, instead of a sword or cutlass. Angular socket bayonets were universally used in the colonial militias by the early 1740s. Angular socket bayonets superseded plug bayonets in the various French North American colonies as follows: Placentia in 1708, Louisiana in 1716, and the remainder of French Canada in 1721.

The advent of the bayonet simplified the military maneuvers of the European armies' linear tactics by eliminating pikemen. Previously, one-third to one-half of the men in a given infantry unit had been pikemen.⁷ The elimination of the pikemen from military formations substantially increased the fire power of a given unit without increasing its total number of men.

The free companies, who served in North America as the sole French infantry from the 1680s to 1755, were armed with muskets procured by the Ministry de la Marine (navy). It is believed that many were armed with matchlock muskets when they first arrived in the early 1680s. The matchlocks were quickly replaced with flintlock muskets in all of the free companies, except those in Placentia. The free companies there did not receive flintlock muskets until just before 1700. By this time, the flintlock musket procured by La Marine was the 1697 navy musket. Descriptions of this and subsequent models of French regulation flintlock arms are in the Revolutionary War import arms sections of this text.

The British maintained a number of arsenals in the North American colonies from which to supply the colonial militia and the regular army troops who served in the colonies. A 1702 inventory of the military stores in Fort William Henry,⁸ included the following:

Armory:

Great Room:

New Store Room:

That same year the British sent the following arms from the Tower to arm 1,000 foot (infantry) and 400 horse (cavalry) troops in Virginia:

Throughout much of the 18th century, the British sent tens of thousands of regulation arms to the North American colonies to arm the colonial troops. Additional thousands of muskets were also sent to arm loyalist forces during the American Revolution. Furthermore, many royal governors purchased arms in England for their colonies' defense. An example of this is the items supplied to the governor of Maryland Colony between 1694 and 1699 by Isaac Miller, who was identified as an armorer for the colony, but who is believed to have been a merchant or agent in the procurement of these arms in England:⁹

Miller also supplied pistols, powder, accoutrements, and tools to the governor.

During the Seven Years' War (1754-1763), the British issued obsolete English-made regulation muskets and muskets purchased in Holland to the British North American colonial regiments. In 1754 the ordnance stores of Sir Edward Braddock included 1,000 Dutch muskets with wood ramrods and 1,000 Long Land Pattern muskets with single-bridle locks and wood ramrods to be issued to the 2,000 new recruits of the Fiftieth (Shirley's) and Fifty-first (Pepperell's) regiments raised in North America. Also in 1754,3,000 Dutch muskets were sent to the governor of North Carolina. In 1756, 500 Dutch muskets were sent to Georgia. (Additional information regarding these Dutch muskets is in Section 065.4.) In 1756,3,741 Long Land Pattern muskets, believed to have had single-bridle locks and wood ramrods, were sent to the Royal American Regiment. The Royal American Regiment was originally raised as the Sixty-second, but was later renumbered as the Sixtieth Regiment. The muskets were considered to be unfit for regular British line regiments. (Information on and description of the regulation British shoulder arms used in North America are in the British Military Shoulder Arms section of this work.)

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

² 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.

³ Quoted by Harold L. Peterson in Firearms of the Early American Colonists, The American Rifleman (January 1951). Language has been modernized to facilitate readability.

⁴ 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.

⁵ 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.

⁶ The language has been modernized to facilitate readability.

⁷ European linear tactics are described in Appendix 2.

⁸ This is not the fort with the same name built in 1755 at the south end of Lake George in upper New York. The inventory was made at a fort erected by the Dutch in 1615 at the present site of the U.S. Customs House at the foot of Broadway in New York City. The English succeeded to the fort when they took over the Dutch colony in 1664.

⁹ James B. Whisker, The Gunsmith's Trade, The Gun Report (March 1992), 50. Language has been modernized for readability.

IGNITION SYSTEMS OF COLONIAL ARMS 015.

MATCHLOCK 015.2

The matchlock system takes its name from the slow match used to ignite the priming powder. Because the hand cannon, which was ignited by a hot wire or glowing ember, required the shooter to remain in some proximity to a fire, the invention of the slow match provided the shooter with a degree of mobility not previously possible. This match is usually a length of loosely twisted flaxen rope that has been soaked in a potassium nitrate solution and dried. Once lit, the end of the match glows like a cigarette. The nitrate assures a hot, red ember. The slow match is placed in the lock's match holder, or serpentine, prior to firing, and the pivoting pan cover is opened, exposing the priming powder. Pulling the trigger causes the glowing end of the match to be rotated rearwards and downwards until it ignites the priming powder.

Early matchlocks, from about 1520 to the mid-17th century, usually had flat-surfaced, generally rectangular-shaped lockplates with squared corners. The pan was attached to the barrel and was not a component of the lock.

The lock has a long lever inside, which extends from the trigger at the rear to the serpentine at the front. This lever pivots on a screw through its middle and is connected by linkage to the serpentine. A simple flat spring bears on the lever to keep its front end upwards. Pulling the trigger pivots the front end downwards and rotates the serpentine's head rearwards and downwards.

The lockplates of matchlocks made from about 1660 often had convex surfaces. The plates also usually had rounded front profiles and rear profiles that ended in a projecting point. The pan of the late matchlock was screwed or welded to the lockplate. The internal mechanism remained basically the same as the early matchlock.

Plate 015.2-A Matchlock of Suhl-made musket, circa 1602. Note the simple, square-ended flat plate typical of early locks. The pan is attached to the barrel, not the lock.

Plate 105.2-B Interior of the Suhl musket's matchlock. The trigger exerts an upwards motion on the rear of the long lever, which pivots the front end downwards. The connecting link causes the serpentine's head to rotate rearwards and downwards.

Plate 015.2-C Lock of a French matchlock musket, circa 1680-1700. The front profile of the convex-surfaced plate is rounded, and its rear profile terminaes in an extended point. The pan assembly is integral with the plate. English military locks of this period were very similar in configuration.

Plate 015.2-D Interior of the French matchlock, With the exception of the snap matchlock introduced in England, there was little change in the matchlock's internal mechanism during the 17th century. The pan assembly's integral attachment stud is along the plate's upper edge.

From 1662 to 1664 the British Ordnance procured limited numbers of matchlock muskets with sliding pan covers connected by linkage to the internal lever. This linkage slid the cover forward as the trigger was pulled, eliminating the necessity of manually opening the pan cover.

Late in the matchlock period, a lock called the snap matchlock was introduced. This lock differed from previous locks in that it did not have linkage between the trigger and the serpentine. The serpentine of the snap matchlock was spring actuated. It was retained in its forward, cocked position against the tension of the spring by a sear that was disengaged by pulling the trigger. This was similar to contemporary wheel-lock or flintlock variation locks.

WHEEL-LOCK 015.5

The wheel-lock has been assigned both German and Italian origin. Its first known military use was reportedly in the siege of Parma in 1521. There is no information regarding its use in the German states until a number of years later. It was introduced into Holland and probably the other northwestern European countries around 1550.

Early documents referred to wheel-lock arms, and those with subsequent ignition systems utilizing a flint, as firelocks. Although it was introduced prior to the exploration and settlement of North America, the wheel-lock's military use was limited. This was due to a number of reasons: (1) because the cost of the wheel-lock was significantly higher than the matchlock's, its use in relatively low-cost military arms was limited by the military budgets of most European countries; (2) it is a complex mechanical system, which would be difficult to keep in repair in colonial settlements; and (3) the advent of the lower-priced, simpler, flintlock variation systems occurred shortly after the initial North American settlement period, and these systems were more suitable to the needs of the colonial militias. The wheel-lock's military usage was generally limited to the handguns and carbines used by cavalry, because firing a matchlock from horseback was almost impossible.

Plate 015.5-A French wheel-lock, with external wheel mechanism, attributed to manufacture in the early 17th century. The external wheel is held in position on the square lug through its center by the pan at the top and by a small oval bridle at the bottom. The cock's head, which holds the iron pyrites necessary for ignition, is under downwards pressure from the V spring at the front of the plate, against the upper surface of the sliding pan cover. When the trigger is pulled the pan cover slides forward, and the pyrites bear directly on the edge of the rotating wheel. (United States Military Academy Museum Collection.)

Plate 015.5-B Interior of a wheel-lock. A rearwards pressure by the trigger on the small round lever visible between the upper and lower leaves of the mainspring causes the sear to withdraw from the wheel, enabling it to rotate. The rotation of the internal tumbler pushes the pan cover's link (visible beneath the bridle) forward of the tumbler and slides the pan cover forward, exposing the wheel's upper edge and priming powder in the pan.

A hardened steel wheel with a grooved, serrated circumference is mounted on the lock plate. The use of a special wrench or spanner allows the wheel to be wound about three-fourths of a revolution against the tension of an internal V-shaped mainspring. A horizontal sear engages a notch or hole in the inside surface of the wheel when it is fully rotated, securing it. The upper edge of the wheel projects into the bottom of the pan.

The spark that causes the ignition of the priming powder is generated by this wheel rotating against a piece of iron pyrite, similar to the function of a cigarette lighter. Prior to firing, the pyrite holder is lowered to the top of the pan cover, where it is retained by the tension of an external spring. Pulling the trigger disengages the horizontal sear from the wheel, allowing it to rotate. Connecting linkage slides the pan cover forward, and the pyrite is brought to bear directly on the exposed upper edge of the rotating wheel. The scraping action of the rotating wheel's edge against the pyrite causes tiny, white-hot slivers, which are seen as sparks that ignite the priming powder.

Early wheel-locks usually had an externally mounted wheel. Later wheel-locks usually had internally mounted wheels. Archeological evidence indicates that both types were used in the North American colonies.

FLINTLOCK VARIATIONS 015.

In all of the flintlock variations the flint stone was held in the jaws of the cock, which pivoted forward under the tension of a spring to strike the steel frizzen. This action of flint striking or scraping steel caused tiny, white-hot slivers of steel, seen as sparks, to fly from the frizzen and ignite the priming powder in the pan.

When the wheel-lock ignition system was introduced, it was often described as a firelock, to distinguish it from the matchlock. When the later ignition systems, which use a flint stone, were introduced, they were all referred to in England as snaphance. In this text all mechanical ignition systems made subsequent to the wheel-lock that use a flint stone to generate the sparks required to ignite the powder are described as flintlock variations. Until about 1712 the British Ordnance continued to refer to any of these flintlock variation systems as snaphances. The term firelock continued to be used in the North American colonies when referring to any of the flintlock variations until after the American Revolution.

It is believed that one of the reasons that the flintlock variations rapidly gained popularity in Britain and western continental Europe was the ample supply of good quality flints, especially in England and France. However, the German states continued to use the wheel-lock system, because the best quality pyrites were available there.

The snaphance ignition system made its appearance shortly after the wheel-lock and spread throughout most of Europe. After its introduction into Holland, Britain, Spain, Sweden, and some other countries, it was improved upon. As time passed, the locks incorporating these improvements began exhibiting regional variations. Regional styling must be considered when seeking an exact definition of each of the flintlock variation ignition systems. The distinctions between the several flintlock variation locks are easily blurred if only the mechanical features are contrasted when defining each of them, because the improvements in the different regions often paralleled each other.

There are a number of arms students who feel that the term snaphance should continue to be used to describe all of the flintlock variation ignition systems that were used prior to the appearance of the true, or French, flintlock. However, this is an overgeneralization because it fails to discriminate between the localized improvements on the snaphance system. The continued use of snaphance would be more regressive than definitive.

This text will follow the recent lead of Arne Hoffe, who defined the snaphance as having a frizzen separate from the pan cover. It will also adhere to the most widely accepted definition of the true flintlock, which was established by Torsten Lenk and is presented later in this section.

The most commonly encountered variations of mechanical locks that used a flint to generate a spark to ignite the priming powder are: snaphance lock, miquelet lock, English lock, snaplock, doglock, and the true or French flintlock. All of these locks directly or indirectly evolved from the snaphance. As time passed, each evolved further as improvements were made in the sear mechanism or in the configurations of other lock components, always with the goal of achieving a more durable lock with more dependable ignition. Also described here are a number of variations in some of these locks that evolved in parts of Europe. It is important to note that the names applied to most of these flintlock variations are modern. These terms have been applied by students of arms in order to define the ignition system variations more precisely.

Plate 015.81-A Snaphance lock. This lock is part of a musket that has been reconstructed by personnel at the United States Military Academy to demonstrate the configuration of these arms, as no surviving original examples are known. The frizzen is separate from the sliding pan cover, which is similar to those described for wheel-locks. The front of the cock rests against a buffer held by two screws to the plate. A rectangular hole is visible behind the cock. The sear passes through this hole to engage the tail at the rear of the cock when the cock is brought to the full-cock position. (United States Military Academy Museum Collection.)

SNAPHANCE 015.81

Although snaphance was used in British Ordnance records to describe any of the flintlock variations, in this text it refers to a specific ignition system that uses a flint and whose salient feature is that the pan cover is separate from the frizzen. This narrow definition of the ignition system was first used in an 1829 article by Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick and has been used by a number of writers since.

The snaphance is a direct development from the wheel-lock. Like the wheel-lock, the snaphance lock has a horizontally acting sear and a horizontally sliding pan cover. After priming the pan, its cover is manually slid rearwards, closing it. The separate frizzen is then rotated rearwards. When the trigger is pulled, releasing the cock, internal linkage slides the pan cover forward, exposing the priming powder. As the cock pivots forward, the flint scrapes down the frizzen's face, causing sparks to fall into the exposed priming powder, igniting it. The internal linkage that slides the pan cover forward includes a push rod attached to a projection on the tumbler. Early snaphance locks have upward projections at the end of the upper leaf of the mainspring as guides for these rods. Later locks have projections downwards from the pan's inner surface, which guide the push rod.

Snaphance locks have a horizontal sear that passes through the lockplate and engages an extension on the rear of the cock to hold the cock in full-cock position. They were also equipped with an external buffer screwed to the lockplate, which prevented the cock from pivoting forward past a pre-set point.

The first references to snaphance locks are in Swedish and Italian records and date from 1547. Arne Hoff believes this system originated in the borderland between France and Germany (Alsace-Lorraine). Some others believe that it may have originated in France.

The earliest reference to the use of the snaphance in England was in 1580, and the snaphance remained in use there for the first half of the 17th century. It would continue to be used around the Mediterranean for a number of years thereafter, Snaphances are listed among the first weapons brought to Virginia in 1607. Based on the archeological record, it was the most commonly used firearms ignition system at Jamestown.

The earliest known British Ordnance procurement of muskets with snaphance locks was in 1601. However, surviving examples of British military snaphance muskets are virtually nonexistent. The reason for this was the introduction of the English lock circa 1650 and the subsquent alteration of British and American snaphance arms to this system.

The Dutch appear to have continued to use the snaphance, modifying it primarily in configuration. The Dutch version of the snaphance lock most closely resembles the locks most commonly found on 18th- and 19th-century Arabian muskets, or Kybil Jesails.

A secondary sear was probably introduced circa 1600 in snaphances fabricated in Italy. This horizontally acting secondary sear provided a safety, or half-cock, position.

MIQUELET LOCK 015.83

The term miquelet was not used to describe this system during its period of use. Miquelet came into common usage during the 19th century. Dating from the 17th century, this lock was referred to in Spain as the patilla and was often referred to as the Spanish lock in other parts of Europe. The miquelet's primary use in North America was in the Spanish colonies. Very few miquelet locks were used in the North American colonies of other major European powers.

The earliest forms of the miquelet appear to have evolved from the Italian form of the snaphance as early as 1580. It had fully evolved by circa 1610. Several variations of this lock evolved in Spain. The most common form had external main and frizzen springs and two horizontally acting sears, which engaged the cock by protruding through the lockplate. Most locks had a separate frizzen spring. Other locks used the mainspring's short upper leaf as the frizzen spring.

Plate 015.83-A Late miquelet lock. This lock, from a Spanish Model 1789 infantry musket, has the improvement of a flash shield added to the outer edge of the pan. The cock has an external semicircular sear lug at the front. This engages the circular half-cock sear, visible just below the mainspring's upper leaf, or the flat full-cock sear, whose end is visible above this leaf. Note that the external mainspring's leaf exerts an upwards pressure on the tail at the rear of the cock and that the frizzen spring is separate. The frizzens of some miquelet locks are held in the closed position by pressure of the upper leaf of the mainspring. (John C. McMurray Collection.)

Another variation was the lock made primarily in Madrid from about 1700 to 1800, which differed from other forms of the miquelet in that it was equipped with an internal mainspring and a separate, external frizzen spring. These locks, sometimes referred to as Madrid locks, also had the two horizontally acting sears for the full-cock and half-cock positions.

In all miquelet locks the frizzen is integral with the pan cover, and the sear functions horizontally. The combined frizzen and pan cover eliminated the separate operations of closing the pan and pivoting the frizzen rearwards. It also eliminated the linkage required to open the pan as the the arm was fired.

The earliest miquelet locks were equipped with only a full-cock sear, and some had a manual safety. From the mid-17th century miquelet locks usually were equipped with two horizontally acting sears for the half-cock and full-cock positions.

A variation of the miquelet lock now referred to as the roman lock evolved in Italy. The salient feature of this lock is that the mainspring's pressure bears upwards on the extended tail or heel of the tumbler rather than downwards on its nose.

SNAPLOCK 015.84

Some arms students believe that the snaplock is the earliest flintlock variation. It may have evolved directly from the snap-matchlock rather than the snaphance. Limited numbers of snaplock arms were used in North America by the Swedes between 1638 and 1655. The Swedes, like the colonists of other European nations during this period, relied most heavily on the matchlock system.

Early snaplocks have frizzens separate from pan covers and are properly defined as a snaphance variation. Later snaplocks have frizzens that are integral with the pan covers and have been reported with both horizontal and vertical sears. They differ from other systems, except the miquelet lock, in that the mainspring is usually externally mounted on the lockplate. Also, the strike of the cock on the frizzen is a more direct smashing action rather than a scraping one. These locks were used in Portugal, Sweden, and Russia. It is believed that the low quality of the flint in these countries led to this type of lock.

An early Swedish snaplock musket, dating from 1600, is illustrated and described in Section 017.J.

ENGLISH LOCK 015.86

As previously stated, the snaphance lock was introduced into England by 1580, and arms with this ignition system were first procured by British Ordnance in 1601. Recent research¹ now indicates that an English variation of this lock, having an integral frizzen and pan cover, appears to have been introduced circa 1650. This lock, referred to in this text as the English lock, differed from the snaphance in that it was equipped with a frizzen that was integral with the pan cover.

Plate 015.86-A The English lock is very similar to the snaphance, from which it evolved. It is distinctive because the frizzen is integral with the pan cover. The external buffer, which arrests the cock's forward motion, is screwed and pinned to the lockplate. An external pivoting safety catch secures the cock in the half-cock position. Note that the rectangular end of the horizontal sear is visible behind the cock.

Plate 015.86-B Like most English locks, this one has been converted from snaphance. The triangular projecting stud at the top of the tumbler, from which the original sliding pan cover's pusher rod extended, is still largely intact. The pusher rod and the sliding pan cover's pivot linkage have been removed and the pivot screw hole filled. The pan was replaced. The trigger's rearwards pressure on the sear pivots its front end horizontally away from the plate. This not only disengages its front end from the bottom of the tumbler but also withdraws the rectangular sear that passes through the plate, disengaging it from the projection at the rear of the cock, both of which allow the cock to pivot forward under pressure from the mainspring.

This new research indicates that the English lock was developed in England in response to the mid-17th-century appearance of the French flintlock in England. The English lock incorporated the more advantageous external lock components of the flintlock while retaining the internal components of the snaphance. All forms of the English lock are equipped with variations of the horizontally acting sear of the snaphance as well as the integral frizzen and pan cover of the flintlock. They are also equipped with an external buffer that arrests the forward motion of the cock. Most, but not all, English locks are equipped with back catches to secure the cock in the half-cock position.

The English lock was produced from circa 1650 to circa 1680, when it was superseded by the doglock and the true flintlock. When introduced, large numbers of existing snaphance arms were altered to the English lock system in England. The existence of these arms, which had previously been unrecognized as alterations, has led arms students to erroneously believe that the English lock had been introduced in England as early