With this post, I am officially seperating my flintlock research for historical weaponry from my attempts at cosplaying this album cover.
The guns built in the long distant past (the ones that might be pictured if originals) and the replicas of same (may also be what is pictured) both fall victim to one major flaw in cosplay and replica making: standardization vs custom hand crafted original works.
Replicas available during the photo shoot could have been from a replica manufacturer or could have been from a kit. Both sources fall on the sword at consistency, craftsmanship, available parts and personal choice. Anyone can choose half of one kit and half of another. Some kits even require the user to carve the stock which would mean no two would be the same.
But the ultimate downfall of flintlock replicas comes in at historical source images and physically available examples. The reason? Originals had the EXACT same problems in consistency. Variations run amok like children at a carnival.
Original source material (model, type, brand, maker, year, etc.) is based on:
1) The opinion of the historian
2) The guessing of a sales person
3) The absolute guessing of an auctioneer
4) The assumed year make
5) The assumed model
6) The skill of the original craftsmen
7) The availability of parts
8) Requested changes due to intended use
9) Requested model options
10) Military input for the new model
11) Military requests for the current model's modification
12) The use of nonconforming parts or substandard materials during creation of extraordinarily large fulfillment orders.
13) Multiple manufacturers building from general sketches for the same model.
14) The use of one model from one branch in a different military branch due to personal taste
15) Rem stock -The use of an 8.5 inch barrel on a ten inch gun because it is the last finished barrel that was at hand after cutting the previous 10 inch at 10.5, etcetera.
And now, for the mind blowing conclusion to this wonderful rabbit trail, the comparison pictures of the British Sea Service Short Version and the Light Dragoon pattern 1799 (with non standard but not actually rare two part brass ram rod kit).
Notable points:
1) Other versions of the Light Dragoon had a fully 3 dimensional cast flint holder, very curvacious and in no way flat. It did not contain a traced border line. This model has a flat stamped version. It also happens to be the EXACT same flint lock parts as the long running standard parts of the British Sea Service Short version. Especially noted in the two locations that the top connects to the bottom (the little circle section)
2) The butt plate, on a standard Sea Service, is one piece and is a, completely smooth and spherical, ball. The butt plate on a standard light Dragoon (like Adam's gun) is flattened on the bottom and covered by a large ring plate and screw, with the final appearance of an electric doorbell button. Many supposed Sea Service pistols, at auction, have this exact buttplate and are likely not Sea Service but may use non standard parts. Some are claimed to be "Officer's" pistols.
3) The Light Dragoon is historically noted to be a 10 inch barrel while the Sea Service is noted as 9. Keep this in mind when viewing the comparison pictures below as they do not meet those specs. It should have been one of the defining factors but is now unusable as a factor.
4) The British Sea Service Short version always has the two piece brass ramrod holder. The Light Dragoon usually has only one brass tube but has no brass at the point the rod goes into the wood of the stock. Many Light dragoons, when customized (either originally or in replica kits) used this two piece brass similar to the British Sea Service Short. Adam's shows a two piece.
5) The curvature of the grip of the British Sea Service Short is distinct in that it curves near the top but straightens in the hand section. The curve of the Light Dragoon does not flatten or straighten and is continuous throughout the grip. It is one of the true distinctions between these two guns.
6) Due to hand carving of every stock, the variations in shoulders, locations of ram rod parts, shape of wood near barrel end and the amount of barrel beyond the stock are all just variations in production. These variations do not cause the metal parts to misalign or gap so would not cause the unit to be rejected. They are expected in hand made items and cannot be used for gun type or model verification. Some of each type have no narrowing of the barrel end but others of both types show a narrowing shoulder within one inch of barrel end.
The guns below are the British Sea Service Short version (seemingly matching historical descriptions) and followed by the Light Dragoon with non standard two piece ramrod. To differentiate, you must look at grip curvature. You might say "Aha! The buttplates are different!" but many sea service, or claimed to be sea service, use the Light Dragoon butt plate.
The lighting and slight angle variations in the photos make them look to be at different zoom levels but the size of the central flintlock is nearly a match. Variation in girth or position of curves in the wood are not even similar among two guns of the same type, due to hand carving.
Below, I have morphed the two guns to show their similarity.
The only truly defining factor is the curve of the gun grip. Because Adam is holding the gun, this cannot be used to differentiate. This means that Adam could be holding:
1) An original, authentic British Sea Service Short version flintlock with custom Light Dragoon butt plate
2) An original, authentic Light Dragoon pattern 1799 flintlock with custom two piece brass ramrod holder or
3) A replica built with parts from either or both kits.
So, I am no longer vouching for any particular gun match with this pose.
