42nd F&I War Weapons

[MacRob]

The brass pistol was my first choice but as near as I can tell no one sells them anymore.

I ordered a MTV RHR pistol but a local unit says they prefer people to carry the Murdoch so I changed my order. This was back in March. Now I am reading on here that MTV guns are dangerous to use and I'm considering canceling my order and eating the 20% cancellation fee. I'd like to at least take my flintlock pistol to a firing range a couple times. Can anyone provide a link to someone that sells a safe Murdoch or regimental issue pistol?

I cannot say, nor will I say, that all these pistols are dangerous. My comment concerned the one that I own and have been able to examine carefully over a period of time. All the "Murdoch" pistols on the market currently are made in India by several companies. Some may be better than others but I, personally, would not fire any of these guns with ball. They have not been proofed, the metallurgy is uncertain as are the construction methods. Some people have owned and shot these guns for years without issue, others have had problems. The decision is yours.

As far as the authenticity of the Murdoch...it really is not. The stock is clunky, the rams horns are too big. It has none of the graceful lines of the originals. The lock is not a Highland Lock. The trigger does not resemble any trigger I have seen on an original Scottish all metal pistol and I have seen a lot of them. The overall appearance of the pistol is just not authentic. I think you can say it sort of resembles a Scottish pistol but that is the best I can do, at least.

Good luck in your search. By the way, when the Scottish regiments got to America and found out they would be fighting in dense forests, they began to shed equipment and alter their uniforms. By the end of the war, the average soldier preferred a musket and bayonet over the pistol, sword and dirk, which was reported to HQ by their officers in the field. In 1776 they were told to turn in their swords and pistols and apparently most did so willingly. Officers retained these weapons, of course.

[Luke MacGillie]

I cannot say, nor will I say, that all these pistols are dangerous. My comment concerned the one that I own and have been able to examine carefully over a period of time. All the "Murdoch" pistols on the market currently are made in India by several companies. Some may be better than others but I, personally, would not fire any of these guns with ball. They have not been proofed, the metallurgy is uncertain as are the construction methods. Some people have owned and shot these guns for years without issue, others have had problems. The decision is yours.

As far as the authenticity of the Murdoch...it really is not. The stock is clunky, the rams horns are too big. It has none of the graceful lines of the originals. The lock is not a Highland Lock. The trigger does not resemble any trigger I have seen on an original Scottish all metal pistol and I have seen a lot of them. The overall appearance of the pistol is just not authentic. I think you can say it sort of resembles a Scottish pistol but that is the best I can do, at least.

Good luck in your search. By the way, when the Scottish regiments got to America and found out they would be fighting in dense forests, they began to shed equipment and alter their uniforms. By the end of the war, the average soldier preferred a musket and bayonet over the pistol, sword and dirk, which was reported to HQ by their officers in the field. In 1776 they were told to turn in their swords and pistols and apparently most did so willingly. Officers retained these weapons, of course.

My India made Murdoch has a ground down carriage bolt as a breech plug.......One of the guys in the unit makes new breech plugs for those that wish to drill the toucholes and shoot, but pretty much only blanks. The DOM tubing that is used for the barrels on these is not precision made tubing, there are wide variances on the ID, so accuracy is more like minute of planet, vs minute of angle.

As to the use of traditional weapons in the Highland Regiments here in North America, It was in many ways regiment and culture dependant.

The 77th, and later 42nd being made up of folks that did not grow up in the Highland martial tradition were quick to discard swords and pistols as they simply did not know how to employ them properly. These units also also were quick to adopt things like little kilts and leggings. The 78th on the other hand, was a much more traditional unit. They practiced sword fighting, banned the use of little kilts on duty, used leggings and mocs only when on snowshoes in the winter and pretty much were a throwback to the old Highland ways.

[IsaacW]

The 78th on the other hand, was a much more traditional unit. They practiced sword fighting, banned the use of little kilts on duty, used leggings and mocs only when on snowshoes in the winter and pretty much were a throwback to the old Highland ways.

And of course you need to remind me of this and make me more and more intrigued by the 78th!

[JMorganKuberry]

I am not planning in carrying all of the weapons all of the time. But I am looking for one example of each and generally striving for typicality. Ie, if God plucked a random member of a Highland regiment from North America on a random date in the war, what musket is he most statistically likely to be carrying?

The reasoning behind the Murdochs that I have heard is, prior to the 'royal' designation, pistols were not issued at all, but some of the company officers are known to have bought lots of civilian pistols to issue to their own men in the earlier part of the war. Dunno if it's true but, that's it.

[Luke MacGillie]

I am not planning in carrying all of the weapons all of the time. But I am looking for one example of each and generally striving for typicality. Ie, if God plucked a random member of a Highland regiment from North America on a random date in the war, what musket is he most statistically likely to be carrying?

The reasoning behind the Murdochs that I have heard is, prior to the 'royal' designation, pistols were not issued at all, but some of the company officers are known to have bought lots of civilian pistols to issue to their own men in the earlier part of the war. Dunno if it's true but, that's it.

There are a few of the Bissel's that look to have been marked HR on the top of the barrel, and then in an obvious different hand had added an "R" to the marking.

As to pistols and swords its all time/place dependant. What was the practice in 1743, was no longer the practice in 1756.... Far to often "Facts" are taken way out of context to justify modern reenactor practices that simply make it easier.

I have a rather jaded view of reenacting, and reenactors, based on a lifetime in the hobby, so I feel I have the right to say that reenactors will almost invariably make the wrong choice if presented with a choice.

[JMorganKuberry]

Yeah they do. They also like to use very narrow source material. You will meet units that only want to use orders, others that only want to use letters and diaries, others that only want to use art, etc.

1743 is irrelevant to me since I'm doing French and Indian War. Or are you saying that the practice of officers buying civilian pistols for whole units was limited to that year?

One thing I am finding is, most reenactment units want to exclusively use modern kilts.

[Luke MacGillie]

I know that LTC's Fraser and Montgomerie were reimbursed by the Govt for the purchase of 100 pistols for each regiment in 1757. We don't know if that was for the 40 Sgt's and the Gren company of each regiment, or how exactly those pistols were distributed. But the cost of the pistols was not such that would lead one to believe they were "Officer Grade", and from Vol Sgt Thompson's memoirs, the pistols in the 78th were regimentally marked in the Gren Company. Later each unit received an issue from govt stores for pistols for each man.

As to the pistols of 42nd during the F&I war era, I have photos of surviving Battalion Quarter Master records and COL Murray's papers. The COL thought that the entire 2d Battalion was getting pistols, but each company only received on average 6 pistols.
It could be assumed that only the NCO's of 2/42 had pistols.

My choosing of 1743 was not just a random year. In that year when the regiment was reviewed by the Army prior to a deployment to the Continent they were short 480 swords, and it was noted that the contractor who was supposed to make them had defaulted on the order. This was the first time the govt had purchased swords for the men, before It had been bring from home.

[JMorganKuberry]

Oh I figured it was something specific. But I haven't dug into pre-(7Y)war history much yet.

I know what you mean about reenactors wanting to pick wrong. The trouble I am running into with FnI is this. I can pick a target date and stick to it for everything. But event organizers pick target dates and seems like no matter what I do, it's wrong to someone. Plus this was a period of transition. I want to just do it right but that's turning out to be far easier said than done. In the end I might need to get two of everything so I mix and match for different events.

What do you make of the claim that Lord Murray added a red overstripe to the tartan that lasted until the end of war? I find wargamers all agree on it and reenactors insist it wasn't so. I wonder if this is because wargamers can paint their figures any wya they want, while reenactors are economically motivated to endorse the much more readily available undifferenced blackwatch cloth.

For now I will plan on the Gedney backsword for my next acquisition and if no good deal on a used musket appears before fall, I'll order a new one.

[OC Richard]

I am...generally striving for typicality.

This is music to my ears.

I did various kinds of re-enacting back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and the bane of much of it was people doing the opposite, going for the outliers and oddities. Even if an outlier is fact-based, it violates the principle of typicality.

So on a local Civil War battlefield maybe a quarter of the Union troops were dressed the way that 99% of actual Civil War Union troops were dressed.

The strangest was, if I remember the cockamamie story correctly, a unit that captured a circus train and dressed in top hats, tailcoats, and all sorts of outlandish clothes.

[JMorganKuberry]

Yeah it can get pretty bad. With weapons usually you're safe but in this period they keep re-arming, the highland regiments each wind up with slightly different stuff, etc. The 42nd Highlanders are more fraught with these kinds of debates and problems than any other period I've done so far.