“The arms and accouterments belonging to the United States shall be stamped …”

Markings on Continental Army Muskets

Bob McDonald

Introduction

For many years, historical arms literature has interpreted American markings observed

on some 18th

-century muskets, particularly of French manufacture, as attesting to

purchase by the Continental Congress and, most importantly, as verifying wartime

issuance to and usage by the Continental Army. The variety of such stamped marking

most frequently seen on surviving muskets is a “US” monogram typically found on the

tail of the lockplate and/or atop the barrel breech, in an upright, sideways or even

inverted position.

The second, and notably earlier, category of markings, seen on far fewer surviving

weapons, includes the stamping or “branding” of “UNITED:STATES” or, more often,

“U.STATES” into the musket stock. Stamped into the wood by a heated marking iron,

the full two-word brand is typically positioned either in two lines on the face of the butt

stock or in one line behind the trigger guard, while the abbreviated mark is seen in rear or

in front of the trigger guard or, less often, on the face of the butt stock.

Recently published documentation has notably advanced the interpretation of these two

categories of markings and, in particular, has clarified our understanding of their validity

and reliability as evidence of Continental Army usage of a given musket and, thereby, a

longarm class and model.1

“The Deficiency Is Amazingly Great”

It might logically be expected that the first category of arms marked as Continental

public property would have included those owned by Congress and in use by the army

prior to the arrival of the massive French arms shipments of 1777. Although

exceptionally difficult to identify among surviving period longarms, the nature of those

firelocks in use by the Continentals during the war’s first two years can be inferred from

documentary sources. Some of these guns had been owned by the enlistees of 1775 and

1776, had been bought on behalf of Congress, and became public property at the time of

a man’s discharge. A second common source of arms was purchase, or even rental, from

civilian owners. Lastly, of course, an ongoing but painfully small supply of muskets was

being manufactured by individual gunsmiths and small shops working under contract of

Congress, a colony/state, or a regional “committee of safety.”2

Even with all of these efforts ongoing, Gen. George Washington had found it

necessary to virtually go begging to the Massachusetts General Court, and to imply a

request that the colony’s court system institute a program of public seizure of private

arms through forced sale:

Cambridge, February 10, 1776.

Gentn: Notwithstanding I have taken every method my Judgment could Suggest to procure a

sufficient number of Firelocks for the Soldiers of this Army, by applications to the Assemblies and

Conventions of these Governments, as well as by sending Officers out with Money to Purchase; I

am constrained by necessity to Inform you that the deficiency is amazingly great, and that there

are not nigh enough to Arm the Troops already here. … I must therefore beg leave to Sollicit your

kind attention … whether if your Honorable Court were to depute some of their Members to make

application to the different Towns, they might not procure a Considerable Quantity. I will most

chearfully furnish them with Money for the purpose or pay for them on their delivery here, as you

shall think most advisable. … P S I have heard that there are several King's Muskets in the

Country; for every good one with a Bayonet, that have not been abused, I will give 12 Dollars,--

and in proportion for other Guns fit for Service.3

Without a major supply expansion, little changed during the ensuing twelve months.

As a result of the army’s continuing need to acquire weapons from virtually any source,

the array of firearms in use at the beginning of 1777 was surely broad and diverse. In

addition to an assortment of British, French, Dutch and German military muskets, and a

rather limited number of contracted “committee of safety” pieces, the army’s weaponry

continued to include very substantial numbers of fowlers, commercial and trade muskets,

and essentially any variety of civilian longarm, many lacking the provision to mount a

bayonet.

In spite of accepting such a wide diversity of firearms, the army’s operational

effectiveness continued to be severely challenged by arms shortages primarily created by

high damage rates, insufficient production capacity, and by fewer civilian owners being

willing to sell their guns. Less than six weeks prior to the arrival of the first of the long-

awaited shipments from France, General Washington’s expectations for the approaching

campaign season were not particularly optimistic, as expressed to Connecticut Gov.

Jonathan Trumbull:

Head Quarters, Morris Town, February 6, 1777.

As the Arrival of a Sufficient quantity of Small Arms from Europe in time to arm the Continental

Troops is a matter of great uncertainty, proper Steps should be immediately taken in your State to

Collect all that can be purchased from private People. The Custom of hiring them for the

Campaign is attended with many bad Consequences; the owners take little care of them and carry

them away or sell or change them when they please.4

It was in response to the chronic shortfall in arming the Continentals that the musket

marking program was initiated. With the goal of reducing an ongoing loss of public

property to theft by deserters, the Continental Congress, on February 24, 1777, resolved

that:

The arms and accouterments belonging to the United States shall be stamped with the words

“United States”; all arms already made to be stamped on such parts as will receive the

impressions, and those hereinafter to be manufactured to be stamped with the said words on

every part comprising the stand.5

This resolution was announced to the main army, then located at and near Morristown,

New Jersey, through General Washington’s orders of April 18. The stock branding

operation was begun almost immediately, as verified by Sergeant Jeremiah Greenman of

the 2nd

Rhode Island Regiment recording among his diary entries for the following week:

“…we were ordered to town to have our guns stamped US.”6

Garrisons and detachments at a distance from the main army were also quickly

involved in the process, as demonstrated by an April 12 letter from the Highlands

Department commander Maj. Gen. Alexander McDougall to General Washington that

stressed the branding of all arms and accouterments.

The loss of Public Arms thro’ the neglect of Officers and the wickedness of the Men, and the

plunder of Citizens, call for some expedient to designate them, in Order that they may be

discovered and taken. The want of this enabled many of the Men to carry off some of our best

Arms, under pretence of being their Own. To prevent these evils, there should be a Brand with

some device on it, expressive of the Public property, with which the Arms of the Continent should

be branded, and to this may be added, a Stamp capable of making an impression on a Stroke on

the barrel, and a number of these should be at every Post, to brand and Stamp all the Continental

Arms, a number might soon be made at Boston or Philadelphia. This being done, it would not be

easy for Villains to rob the Public. We could then seize the Arms wherever we find them. As I

understand we have had an arrival lately of many new Arms, some means should be devis’d to

secure them for the Continent against plunderers… 7

From available documentation, it appears that each command detached from the main

army was responsible for acquiring the marking irons needed to stamp the musket stocks.

It is not known what proportions of the irons were made by army blacksmiths and

armorers versus local civilian tradesmen, but one would expect at least the main army to

have been self-sufficient in this regard.

The Arrival of the French Arms

In addition to it seeing the commencement of the American marking program, 1777

was also the year of the greatest volume of arriving French arms. During the prior two

years, only about 10,000 muskets had been delivered for Continental use. Beginning in

mid-March, the eight shipments arriving in 1777 totaled more than 60,000 arms, with

Portsmouth, New Hampshire being the most popular port of entry. Most importantly,

more than 90% of these firelocks (with bayonets) would be delivered by mid-June, the

tremendous boost in quality and bore size uniformity being perfectly timed to enable

greatly enhanced firepower for both the Saratoga and Philadelphia campaigns. Thereafter,

during the next six years, about 50,000 more French weapons would be delivered, that

total being greatly skewed by two August 1781 shipments to Boston that alone yielded

more than 26,000 muskets.8

Although at times including both older and newer patterns, the very large majority of

these shipments (based on surviving stock-branded examples), contained muskets of the

model 1763 “series,” that is, the three highly similar patterns of 1763, 1766 and 1768.

Within that series, the notably sleeker-stocked and lighter 1768 modification appears to

have been the single most common pattern. Although these muskets are generically

referred to today by the name of the royal arsenal at Charleville, production of the two

other royal arsenals at Maubeuge and Ste. Etienne were well distributed among these

shipments, and it may be that the three sources were about equally represented among the

wartime shipments to America.9

It is uncertain precisely when arms from the mid-March shipment began to be

delivered to the main army at Morristown, but Sergeant Greenman’s aforementioned

diary report of in-progress arms marking five weeks later is of importance to an

understanding of the literal rearmament of the Continental Army. Given the broad and

diverse array of longarms that the army had previously been compelled by necessity to

accept, it is singularly striking that only military muskets are thought to have been

branded. Most significantly, the overwhelmingly large majority of surviving stock-

branded examples, perhaps 95%, are French muskets. Although it is certain that very

significant numbers of fowlers and other civilian arms were in use by the army during the

first quarter of 1777, no such weapon, to the writer’s knowledge, has ever been found to

bear either Continental stock branding or lock and/or barrel stamping; not one.10

That

major omission cannot be coincidence. It is strongly believed that General Washington

quickly learned of the March 17 delivery of nearly 12,000 muskets at Portsmouth and

therefore delayed the commencement of the marking project ordered by Congress in late

February until the arrival of the main army’s allotment of the new French firelocks.

The Continental Stock Brandings, 1777

As previously mentioned, two major categories of “marking irons” were locally crafted

for the army’s in-the-field branding program, one category yielding the

“UNITED:STATES” mark in one or two lines, while the other produced the more

common “U.STATES” mark. One proposed hypothesis is that only the

“UNITED:STATES” brand dates to 1777, while the abbreviated form was not in use until

the following year.11

That attribution, however, seems to be based on a single, and

perhaps ambiguous, documentary source.12

Most notably, the ratio of the two patterns as

seen on surviving muskets is quite strongly skewed to the “U.STATES” branding,

perhaps in the range of at least three or four to one. If only the “UNITED:STATES”

pattern was in use during the first eight months of the branding program, such a

differential among known examples would be not only odd but clearly counter-logical.

With 60,000 newly delivered French muskets available by June, it would be fully

expected that the bulk of the brandings needed for the force in the field could have been

completed long before year’s end13

. It certainly seems more logical that the two major

branding patterns were in concurrent use during 1777, and that the notably less common

“UNITED:STATES” marking, based on its rarity among extant examples, may have

simply been associated with a regional command other than the main army.

Although only two basic patterns of brands were used, there is a substantial amount of

minor variance notable between examples of the same pattern type, primarily as to letter

formation but also as to size. Such deviation, of course, would surely be expected in light

of the handcrafting of multiple marking irons at multiple locations. In fact, repeated side

by side comparisons of existent brandings of the same general pattern nearly create the

perception that no two surviving examples precisely match. While certainly an

exaggeration, the latter comment clearly illustrates that these very first United States

martial firearms markings in no way exhibit the consistency and production quality

control evident in US martial arms of the following century. Being crafted by Continental

armorers literally working “in the field”, or through contract by blacksmiths available in

areas of troop occupation, the marking irons, in some instances, were rather crude, as

evidenced by their brandings on surviving muskets. Beyond evident production variances

in the irons, some of those specimen musket stock brandings also testify to varying

success of in-the-field application. It is certainly not uncommon to see evidence of a lack

of uniform pressure in the strike, one end of the impress having successively lighter or

“weaker” letters. On occasion, an ending letter will actually disappear, as in a resultant

brand of “U:STATE.” In other cases, it is clear that an attempt was made to correct a

weak marking; although some such attempts improved the overall result, there are quite a

few examples of obvious “echoes” of double-stamping, one or both ends of the branding

being slightly misaligned at the second stroke.

The Model 1771 French musket from the Charleville Arsenal shown in Figure 1

displays an exceptional example of the one-line “UNITED:STATES” branding.

Positioned along the lower edge of the left butt stock, the impression benefitted from the

relative flatness of this area of the stock, thereby avoiding the challenge of a more curved

surface. Given the quite uniform lettering, it also is evident that the branding iron used

for this impress was of high quality; there is quite minimal variation between the repeated

characters, i.e., the “T”s, the “E”s and the “S”s.

Figure 1 – Continental Army one-line full-title branding applied to Model 1771 Charleville

musket, circa 1777

Several of the issues of variation can be noted in Figure 2. This circa 1777 two-line

full-title “UNITED STATES” branding of a Maubeuge Arsenal pattern of 1768 French

musket demonstrates the letter variations and slight crudeness of individually crafted

branding irons. Firstly, through its initial “U” and final “S”, this example demonstrates

the very common result of terminal letters being weakly or only partially struck due to

the challenge of a flat marking iron attempting to cope with an arched stock surface, as

presented by the top edge of the right butt stock, just in front of the butt plate. As to

lettering uniformity, the second “T” is slightly but noticeably different from the two

others, its crossbar apparently being slightly wider and having more pronounced serifs at

either end. The two “E”s visually differ on the basis of the top and center horizontals. As

to the top bars, the first “E” is notably shorter than that appearing below it in “STATES.”

In like manner, the first “E”’s center bar appears notably less wide than that seen below,

becoming nearly stubby when compared with the “E” center bar in “STATES.” Also of

interest, it can be easily seen that the “I” exhibits the 18th

century handwriting and

mechanical printing device of a center cross bar, this characteristic being seen in a

significant proportion, but not all, of the full-title Continental stock brandings.14

Figure 2 – Continental Army two-line full-title branding applied to 1768 pattern Maubeuge

musket, circa 1777

An example of the more common “U.STATES” branding motif is shown in Figure 3.

Positioned in the area between the rear trigger guard extension and the base of the butt

plate, this mark appears on a pattern of 1768 Ste. Etienne Arsenal musket. Since the 1768

variant appears to be the pattern predominating within the American shipments, and since

this marking format and placement seem to be the most commonly seen result of the

army’s 1777 branding program, this combination of gun and mark might be considered as

the prototypical mid- to late-war Continental Army firelock. This branding example also

demonstrates a slightly imperfect strike in that while the left end “U.ST” segment is

particularly deep and distinct, the right end of the impression progressively weakens.

Perhaps due to the challenge of the butt stock’s lower edge angle of descent when the

barrel is horizontal, the marking’s loss of uniform depth is evident in the final “ES”, with

the latter nearly losing the upper and lower loops. Given that the branding program was

primarily executed in camp or garrison, perhaps without the full facilities of an armorer’s

workshop, it may be that an approach commonly used was for one man to wield the

marking iron and mallet, while a second held the gun in position on a workbench, table or

crate. The natural tendency of the musket to roll when poised on its barrel surface,

however, would have made it quite difficult to maintain complete immobility and full

control of the strike, unless provided by the use of a large padded vise.

Figure 3 – Continental Army abbreviated-title branding applied to 1768 pattern Ste. Etienne

musket, circa 1777

The New Hampshire Stampings

One other category of American marking of the imported French arms dates to 1777.

With four of the eight shipments for that year arriving in Portsmouth, the state took

advantage of that opportunity to expedite re-arming the New Hampshire line. By

arranging a “rental” or 18th

-Century “lend/lease” agreement with the Continental

Congress, the state was authorized to remove a quantity of muskets sufficient to supply

its three regiments in Continental service.15

Few steps could have been more timely since,

by mid-summer, the New Hampshire Brigade was greatly in need of new clothing,

equipment, and a supply of firelocks of uniform caliber, reliable in performance, and

bayonet-capable. Prior to their being issued the new French muskets allocated for the

three line “battalions” were marked with not only state and unit identifications but also

serial numbers, a control and accountability measure far ahead of its time.

For example, the Model 1763 Ste. Etienne Arsenal musket shown in Figure 4 is neatly

stamped on the barrel breech flat “NH 1 B N0.

280,” documenting its designation as the

280th

musket issued to the 1st New Hampshire Battalion. Generically referred to by

students and collectors as “New Hampshire Charlevilles,” these are the only Continental

Army firearms to routinely bear a regimental identification. Given that feature and the

serial numbering, these arms are also the single example of a weapon that, with the

corresponding archival record, can be associated with the specific Continental soldier to

whom it was issued. In reality, listings of serial numbers and associated men’s names

have been found for only a very small proportion of the three regiments, perhaps no more

than a company or two. Although such precise identification is typically not available,

any surviving “New Hampshire Charleville” has a very strong likelihood to have been

carried at Saratoga, Valley Forge, and on the plains of Monmouth. As would be expected,

and contrary to their popular reference, the known surviving examples of these New

Hampshire marked French muskets are about equally representative of Charleville,

Maubeuge and Ste. Etienne production.16

Figure 4 – State of New Hampshire stamping for First Battalion issuance applied to Model

1763 Ste. Etienne musket, circa 1777

Continental “US” Lock Plate and Barrel Stampings, 1780

Chronologically, the second of the two major categories of markings applied to

Continental Army firelocks includes “US” marks struck into the lock plate tail and barrel

breech. Unlike the stock-branding program conducted by the army itself, these metal

stampings are typically associated with the ongoing volume of musket repair and

reconditioning work required due to damage and general wear and tear generated through

use. The wartime management of these services was provided by several specialized

facilities established in Philadelphia, the operations of which began in the spring of 1780.

Based on citations of stamps within surviving facility inventories, it appears that such

weapons markings also first date from that year. Without evidence to the contrary, there

is no reason to doubt that stamping of the lock plate and/or barrel was a standard

procedure for those muskets repaired or reconditioned between 1780 and the close of the

war in late 1783.17

Although the large majority of arms stamped in this manner were French, it was during

this second phase of the overall marking program that the physical identification as

Continental property was likely expanded to all muskets in use and in storage. Whereas it

appears that the stock brandings were applied exclusively to the newly imported French

muskets, the stamping of “US” on the lock plate and/or barrel appears to have been a

standard protocol for any type military musket passing through the Philadelphia shops for

repair. While fowlers and other civilian longarms appear to have been very quickly culled

out of Continental service during 1777, reliably functioning King’s arms, other European

muskets, and American crafted “committee of safety” and “mixed model” firelocks were

all candidates for “US” stampings during any repairs made in 1780 and thereafter.

The basic challenge and primary frustration in understanding the appearance of the

“US” stamping on firearms in use by the Continental Army is not the earliest but, rather,

the latest possible date of the mark’s application. In essentially all mentions of such

stampings in 20th

- and 21st-Century arms literature, and even yet today, a properly styled

“US” appearing on the lock plate tail and/or the barrel breech of a period correct French

or other musket has been considered synonymous with Continental Army issuance and

usage. That such definitive interpretation is totally invalid is unquestionably documented

by the annual records of payment to Continental contract armorers working in

Philadelphia, wherein the stamping of the following numbers of “new French muskets”

and weapons in for repair is recorded:18

1782 2,793

1783 313

1784 16,144

1785 13,842

Within this total of more than 33,000 arms stamped, more than 90% of them were new

and unissued French muskets. Most strikingly, of course, more than 90% of the guns

were stamped “US” after 1783 and, therefore, after the conclusion of the war and the

dissolution of the army. In addition, huge numbers of muskets, both new and used, were

cleaned, repaired when necessary, stamped and maintained in storage during the decade

ending in 1795 at Philadelphia, West Point, Springfield and several other federal storage

arsenals. A complete inventory made in 1793 accounted for more than 45,000 serviceable

and damaged Revolution era arms held in storage.19

The core challenge, therefore, is to attempt to discriminate between a French musket

stamped during the quite brief wartime period of 1780-83 and one that acquired its “US”

mark(s) during the decade thereafter. Both to qualify a particular surviving example as

highly probable to have had Continental usage, and to understand the specific stamping

patterns in use during the war, a valid and reliable “dividing line” would be virtually

essential. Based on available data, however, such a precise attribution is unfortunately

impossible. Three general rules of thumb, though, have been thought by some students

and collectors to be provided by the size and nature of the stamped monogram itself.

The lock plate stamping shown in Figure 5 and barrel stamping of Figure 6, both from

the same Ste. Etienne Arsenal musket also stock-branded as shown in Figure 3, are of

patterns thought to be among those in use at the Philadelphia factory and armory facilities

during the 1780-83 period. In these stamp patterns, the characters exceed one-quarter

inch (0.25”) in height. “US” stampings of significantly lesser height are quite reliably

attributable to the post-1790 period. Two other criteria of a “US” stamping occasionally

considered relevant are whether or not the two letters touch, and the presence or absence

of serifs, the former in each case being thought to indicate an earlier stamp pattern. All of

these factors, though, are no more than possible indicators. As example, this writer

personally recovered a “US” stamped French bayonet meeting none of the three

purported qualifications from a Continental Army winter quarters site occupied only

during the period of 1780-82.

Figure 5 – Continental arsenal lock plate stamping applied to 1768

pattern Ste. Etienne musket, circa 1780

Figure 6 – Continental arsenal barrel breech stamping applied to 1768 pattern Ste. Etienne

musket, circa 1780

As logic would support, the central problems with the “US” stamping as a dating

source are that: 1. stamps in use during 1780-83 were apt to be continued in use for at

least some period thereafter; 2. relatively minor variations between stamp patterns may

be more reflective of multiple armory locations and varied contractors than of small time

increments; and 3. the high likelihood is that a newly made replacement stamp would

closely replicate one previously in use. As a result, the “US” stamping is fundamentally

ambiguous for that wartime-usage discrimination challenge. Such a mark certainly could

be found on a musket of late-war repair, issuance and use, but unless supported by other

markings, physical evidence or documentation, a given French musket bearing only a

“US” stamping of its lock plate and/or barrel is literally impossible to attribute with

certainty to Continental Army usage.

Figure 7 – Though not the subject of this monograph, other equipment was also surcharged.

This staved wood canteen is one example.

(Museum of the American Revolution)

Endnotes

1. George D. Moller, American Military Shoulder Arms, Volume I: Colonial and

Revolutionary War Arms (Niwar, Co.: University Press of Colorado, 1993),

159-162. No other source on American martial long-arms of the flintlock era matches the

scholarship and thoroughness of Moller’s two-volume, heavily photo-illustrated work.

2. Unfortunately, the contemporary records of arms issued to the Continentals are only

fragmentary, providing no basis from which to even estimate the quantities acquired

through each of these three sources. In particular, the early-war shops and smiths

associated with production of the so-called “committee of safety” muskets have remained

a quite shadowy group, with not only their production data but also, for the majority, their

identity being uncertain. The number of skilled gun makers was so small that truly

extraordinary efforts were required to boost domestic production. Within the period

archives of Connecticut, for example, it is common to find purchase receipts for a half-

dozen or even fewer musket locks. In fact, it became likely that the manufacture of a

given new-made gun delivered to the army had employed the services of a lock and/or

barrel maker, a different brass furniture maker, and yet a separate stock maker/assembler.

3. Gen. George Washington to the Massachusetts Court, 10 February 1776, George

Washington Papers, Presidential Papers (Washington: Library of Congress), series 4 (General

Correspondence. 1697–1799). Both a manuscript copy and a transcript can be found on-line

at:

memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw040275))

4. Washington to Gov. Jonathan Trumbull, et al, 6 February 1777, ibid. Available on-line

at:

memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw070116))

5. Quoted in Moller, American Military Shoulder Arms, Volume I, 159.

6. Washington’s general orders, 18 April 1777, George Washington Papers. Available

on-line at:

memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw070416))

Robert C. Bray and Paul E. Bushnell, editors, Diary of a Common Soldier in the

American Revolution, 1775-1783: An Annotated Edition of the Military Journal of

Jeremiah Greenman (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1978), 73.

7. Maj. Gen. Alexander McDougall to Washington, 12 April 1777, George Washington

Papers. Available on-line at:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-

bin/ampage?collId=mgw4&fileName=gwpage041.db&recNum=156&tempFile=./temp/~

ammem_ZfYq&filecode=mgw&next_filecode=mgw&itemnum=1&ndocs=100

8. Moller, American Military Shoulder Arms, Volume I, Appendix 5, 484-485.

9. Personal observations and examinations of surviving stock-branded muskets.

10. Personal observations of period muskets and civilian longarms, and telephone

conversation with Don Troiani, July 24, 2003.

11. Moller, American Military Shoulder Arms, Volume I, 159.

12. Ibid. Moller’s proposal of a one-year lag in usage of the two branding patterns is

apparently based solely upon the inclusion of a “U.STATES” marking iron within a

March 21, 1778 military stores inventory. Such citation simply confirms that branding

pattern to have been available on that date, but provides no evidence of its date of origin.

As discussed, the ratio of the two patterns as seen in surviving examples more logically

suggests concurrent usage beginning in 1777.

13. The recording of large quantities of “new French muskets” being stamped as U.S.

property during the two or three years immediately following the war’s end appears to

demonstrate that only a minority of the muskets delivered in 1777 were marked during

that or any subsequent wartime year.

14. Specifically, this musket is an example of the Model 1763 with the features of both

the 1766 and 1768 sub-pattern improvements. A “true” M1763 is notably broader in the

stock and quite noticeably heavier. The 1766 modifications yielded a remarkably sleek

and light weapon. (The 1768 sub-pattern presents only very minor modification.) This

particular musket also bears “US” stampings on both the lockplate tail and atop the

barrel, suggesting possible wartime repair at the Philadelphia shops arsenal compound.

15. Moller, American Military Shoulder Arms, Volume I, 135.

16. Personal observations of and discussions with other students and collectors regarding

the known surviving New Hampshire battalion-stamped French muskets.

17. Moller, American Military Shoulder Arms, Volume I, 160-161.

18. Ibid. Moller’s tabulations of the recorded numbers of “new French muskets” stamped

during the period 1784-1786, of course, are the essential data that clearly disqualify a

solitary “US” stamping on the lock plate and/or barrel as being reliable proof of

Continental Army issuance.

19. Ibid., 153-158.