While the French had established government arsenals to turn out weapons to an approved pattern, the British system relied entirely upon commercial manufacturing facilities. Having decided upon a new weapon, the Board of Ordnance would then have a specimen made by a gunmaker, and his specimen would then become the 'Sealed Pattern' by virtue of having attached to it a linen label which bore, in wax, the seal of the Board. This sealed pattern was then deposited with the Board and was available for contractors to examine, so that they could see what they were letting themselves in for. It also acted as the comparative check in that any weapon delivered to the Army could be taken and compared with the Sealed Pattern Arm. Any divergence from the pattern could result in the weapon being refused or, if it was a relatively minor divergence, the price being 'abated', that is reduced by a percentage reflecting the degree of non-compliance with the pattern. This system of 'Sealed Patterns' survives in British service to this day, and covers everything from cap-badges to cannon; for small arms there is still the 'Pattern Room' at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock, in which all the sealed patterns are deposited and stored. Having sealed the design, the Board of Ordnance would then negotiate contracts with various manufacturers for parts of the firearm - not for the whole weapon, for the gun trade in England did not work that way. Specialists in lock-making, stock-making, barrel-making and furniture-making all worked separately. Their products went to a 'stocker', who then assembled and finished the complete weapon. This was the system for the making of commercial firearms, and since these were the only facilities available, the same system had perforce to apply to the manufacture of military arms. Consequently the Board issued contracts for locks, barrels, furniture (the various fittings such as butt plates, trigger-guards, barrel bands, ramrods and so forth) and stock wood in sufficient amounts to make up the desired quantity of arms - a figure which generally reflected the amount of money the Board had available, and not necessarily the military or political considerations of the time. The contractors would then deliver their completed items to either a designated store depot or to the central depot, the Tower of London, where the incoming items were all examined, checked against the scaled pattern, and either accepted or rejected. From there batches of components sufficient to make up a specific number of weapons were sent out to contractors known as 'Stockers and setters-up' generally located in London close to the Tower, where the weapons were then delivered to the Tower of London armories, checked, proved, and placed in store against the time they were needed. One thing will be obvious from this description of the system is that there will be inevitable minor differences between weapons of nominally the same pattern. Even working from the Sealed Pattern and the drawings furnished by the Board of Ordnance, small differences in dimensions occurred from job to job, and each maker was bound so have his own idiosyncracies which reflected themselves in the constructional details of his work. So that while any one weapon was basically the same, minor differences between individual guns could and did occur, and these must be accepted as a result of the system and not adduced as differences in pattern. A further source of variation in weapons lies in the system of returning firearms to the Tower from time to time for inspection, refurbishing and repair, during which components which were worn could be replaced, sometimes with items of a newer or improved pattern, leading to some odd combinations of components in a seemingly standard weapon. This can lead to difficulty when a student is attempting to place a date on some weapon, basing his assumptions on some feature of the lock or furniture. Until 1764 locks were stamped with the date of acceptance, which is reasonably accurate, although subsequent change of lock can throw this system adrift; after 1764 it is practically impossible to be more accurate than the nearest ten years or so, and attempts to tie a weapon down to a particular year are misplaced, to say the least. The standard British Army firearm of the period was the Brown Bess or Long Land Service Musket. Introduced during the reign of Queen Anne (1702-14), its adoption has been attributed to the urgings of the Duke of Marlborough, but it seems to have taken some time to get into production after being officially approved for service, since the earliest dated specimens known are marked I 1720. The origin of the nickname is shrouded in mystery; indeed, there is doubt as to when the expression was first used. It has been suggested that 'Brown' is due to the walnut stock, earlier service weapons having had the stock painted black. A more likely explanation is that it comes from the brown color of the steelwork, due to a chemical treatment given as a rust preventive measure. As to 'Bess', some historians have tried to extrapolate this back to tie it with Good Queen Bess herself, which is stretching things a little far; the good lady had been dead for over a hundred years before the weapon was adopted. More likely the name allied itself to 'Brown' by alliteration's artful aid; 'Brown Phyllis' or 'Brown Sophia' would have smacked of the ridiculous, but 'Brown Bess' has that ring of companionability which in later years produced 'Long Tom', 'Big Bertha' and the Grease Gun. The earliest standard carbine in British service, the Light Dragoon Carbine, was little more than a Short Land Service Musket under a different name. This was replaced in a few years by another weapon, also called the Light Dragoon Carbine, which had a 36-inch barrel and carried one feature which is generally accepted as identifying cavalry carbinesa 'sling bar' on the left side of the stock, opposite the lock. This sling bar was used, as its name implies, to anchor the sling in such a fashion that it tightened under the weapon's weight and thus was less likely to allow the carbine to swing about and get in the rider's way. It became a notable feature of most cavalry carbines for many years, certainly until the practice of carrying long arms in saddle-buckets took over. Another model is identified as the Artillery and Highlander's Carbine. Issued in 1757, this has a barrel Of full 42inch length and generally resembles a full sized musket, but it can be distinguished from the issue muskets of the time by its generally lower standard of manufacture. It has been suggested that as the artillery were rarely called upon to fire shoulder arms and the Highland regiments were prone to get to grips with the enemy using a broadsword, a lower quality weapon was perfectly satisfactory for them. A rare case of foot soldiers being issued with a carbine was in the case of the light infantry companies. From 1770 onwards they were issued with the Light Infantry Carbine - though just to confuse matters it was sometimes referred to as the Light Infantry Fusil-of .67 calibre. This, though, was as far as it went; the length of the barrel was still 42 inches. The stock was thinned down slightly and some minor changes made to the furniture, so that the weight came out at just over seven pounds, which was a worthwhile saving. Another version had a .65-inch bore and appears generally to be little changed from the Short Land Service Musket, though the weight had been reduced to eight pounds. A more drastic redesign was the 'Elliott' carbine, officially introduced in 1773 and produced in Ireland. This was of the usual carbine calibre, .65 inch, but was drastically shortened, the barrel being only 28 inches long and the weight just over six pounds. This was issued to some light cavalry units; one of these was the 17th Light Dragoons, and a number of Elliott carbines accompanied them to America. The first models, designed by General Elliott as a private venture for his 15th Light Dragoons in about 176o, were stocked to the muzzle and specimens often have 'GEN. ELLIOTT'S DRAGOONS' engraved on the barrel. After gaining official acceptance in 1773 a second version was produced, recognizable by having a peculiar fore-end cap and a ramrod with a gracefully shaped handle. The stock finished some distance short of the muzzle, and the ramrod clipped into the fore-end cap by a groove cut beneath the ramrod handle. Finally, in this review of the shorter long arms, it would be unfair to miss out a couple of the more outlandish developments. The first, which stemmed indirectly from the War of Independence, was due to General Burgoyne. After his defeat at Saratoga he returned to England to be quizzed by Parliament on the affair; having satisfied them as to his lack of blame he was appointed to command of the 23rd Light Dragoons. He forthwith designed, and persuaded the Board of Ordnance to approve, a 'musketoon for cavalry troops'. Due to its bell-mouthed barrel it soon got the name of 'Burgoyne's Blunderbuss,, though it was not intended as any sort of scatter-gun. It was, in fact, an extremely short carbine, with a barrel only 16 inches long, the bore being the standard .65 inch. One hundred of these weapons were made and issued to Burgoyne's regiment, but it is doubtful that any managed to cross the Atlantic before the war ended. While Burgoyne was gently ridiculed for this design at the time , he seems to have had the right idea. A weapon as short and handy as this would be a far better proposition for mounted troops than the usual pattern of carbine or musket. But the experiment seems not to have been given much attention by the Board of Ordnance, and the musketoons were eventually replaced by standard patterns of carbine and disposed of; few exist today. The other out-of-the-way weapon is rather better known; the Nock Volley Gun. Although the name of Nock is always associated with it, it was actually the invention of one James Wilson, and he offered his design of sevenbarrelled gun to the Board of Ordnance in 1779. Wilson probably had the American campaign in mind when he offered the weapon, but the Board felt there was little use for such a weapon in land service and passed it to the Board of Admiralty for their observations. The Navy were impressed, doubtless due to their contemporary tactical concept of getting as close to the enemy as possible and then letting fly with all the firepower available, a theory into which the volley gun fitted quite nicely. Henry Nock made his entry on the scene by virtue of being one of the premier gunmakers of the day. He was asked by the Navy to make up some specimens of the Wilson design for trial, and he produced a number of rifled models. These passed their trials well, and contracts were placed forthwith with Nock for a supply of guns; early models were still rifled, though in later years smooth-bored versions were issued, since they were cheaper to make and just as effective. It will be appreciated that instead of the usual piecemeal system of contracting the Navy gave Nock the whole weapon to build - since these had to be fairly precisely constructed. Nock, of course, took care to engrave his name on every one of them, which is why they have gone down in history as Nock guns. The name of Wilson is almost forgotten. The volley gun consisted of one central barrel surrounded by another six. The normal flintlock mechanism was used to fire the central barrel, and from the chamber of this barrel radial vents passed to the chambers of the surrounding barrels. Thus, on pulling the trigger all seven barrels fired virtually at once, which must have been a chastening experience for the man holding the thing, since each barrel was -52 calibre. Two batches of guns appear to have been produced, the first dating from 1779 and consisting Of 500 guns, and the second, begun in 1787, of only 1 00. There are some minor differences in the lock mechanism and the appearance of the furniture between the two models, but in basic construction they remained the same, using 20-inch barrels. Brown Bess's traditional adversary throughout its career was, of course, the French service musket, the 'Fusil d'Infanterie', a weapon which came in a wide variety of modifications and sub-types. Between 1717, the year of its introduction, and 1777, there were ten different models of infantry musket, plus another 17 variations for use by officers, artillery or cavalry. It is generally called the 'Charleville' musket, from the arsenal at Charleville which produced large numbers, but in fact Charleville did not begin manufacture until the advent of the Model Of 1763, and many other arsenals, such as Maubeuge, St. Etienne and Versailles were also concerned with manufacturing the weapon. The French musket was slightly lighter than the British, due largely to using a .69 calibre barrel of rather thinner section, together with a lighter and more graceful stock. Originally the barrel was secured to the stock by pins, but the 1728 model introduced barrel bands instead of pins; this allowed the stock to be made even lighter until the arm weighed about 9 3/4 pounds; 59 3/4 inches long, with a 34 inch barrel , it fired a ball weighing about 450 444 grains. While the Brown Bess and the Charleville were the primary smoothbore muskets of the period, a few others found their way to America. One such was the enormous .80 calibre Prussian Musket, some of which appeared in the hands of the Hessians and from there found their way to the American side. Five feet in length, with a 43-inch barrel, it weighed slightly under eleven pounds. There were also a number of Dutch muskets, purchased by the British for use by Hessian and Brunswick units during a period of shortage of their own Brown Bess Weapons, and numbers of these have survived in America; they differ in details from standard military weapons of the day but most can be identified by British official stampings. Finally, of course, there were enormous quantities of 'Trade Pattern' muskets owned by settlers as their personal arms and purchased from all sorts of sources, and a tabulation of all the variations on this theme would be impossible. But once an American Army began to be raised in earnest, a standard pattern of musket was imperative. It mattered little to a New England farmer if his musket happened to have a bore of .63 or .72 or some other odd calibre, governed entirely by the boring bit which happened to be handy when the gunsmith made the weapon. The farmer made his own bullets in a mould provided by the same gunsmith, and his expenditure of ammunition was negligible compared to his ability to mould more during his non-hunting periods. The provision of ammunition for a military force however, with the expenditure to be expected in battle, was not something which could be left to the individual, and a standardized calibre and bullet was an economic necessity. In July 1775, therefore, Congress passed resolutions to set standards for the muskets to be provided by the various Committees of Safety, underlining their demands by a further resolution passed in November which said, in part, 'that it be recommended to the Colonies that they set and keep their gunsmiths at work to manufacture good firelocks with bayonets. Each firelock to be made with a good bridle lock, of three-quarter-inch bore and of good substance to the breech. The barrel to be three feet eight inches in length, the bayonet to be eighteen inches in the blade, with a steel ramrod . . . the price to be fixed by the Assembly or Convention or Committee of Safety of each Colony.' -- For Revolutionary War information on the Internet, your first choice should be AMERICANREVOLUTION.ORG

I am curious to know if there has been any research done revealing the proportion of Rev. War participants on the Patriot side who supplied their own weapons as opposed to having been issued one expressly for military service. Tom California