Clamp the steel "iron" ramrod in the assembled Locks jaws, hold the lock close to edge of a campfire and watch carefully as the moisture in the lock parts sizzles (avoiding overheating and losing temper) then move it away from the fire and let cool. Apply Oil with a brush into the lock working the moving parts so the oil gets where it needs to be.

You're right. It's all just a simulation. ;p

They're oxen!

Yeah, folks' eyes were popping outta their heads. We definitely made a bunch of people's days a bit more surreal.

Isn't freaking out the normals just a fringe benefit of participation in the hobby though? They may not have known who you were or what you were doing, but you can bet you were a topic of conversation that night. I remember during a trip to Normandy seeing a very excited and slightly confused French boy standing in an upstairs window trying to explain to an adult, with the help of a book and lots of pointing, what was unusual about a platoon of WW2 British infantry walking past their house on a Friday afternoon. Some of the lads told me that during another trip to Belgium, they'd set up a Bren gun by a garden gate during a move into a town. Shortly afterwards an old came down the path, they expected she was going to ask the weirdos to please move on, but she just wanted to tell them that was the same spot the British soldiers had put their gun when they'd liberated the town in 1944. Those kinds of memories can't be bought.

@@jonprince3237 that's such a great story! And, yup, absolutely one of the perks of cross-time travel.

You can imagine it was probably pretty mind-blowing for the drivers on the road that day.

Very cool - what kit are you working on?

@@HMthRegtofFootndBattLI 23 Royal Welch Fusiliers. Horsfall's Company. All I have so far his the musket and coat. The rest is still on loan.

@@Nikolapoleon congrats! The RWF are a venerable historic regiment and the recreated unit nearly as much so. Hope to see you in the field some day!

It’s about a mile from Perrine Hill to the visitor center.

Yeah, it wasn't a very long march this time (others have done longer in the past), but was more just a cool immersive march into the site from a remoter camp over at Perrine Hill.

@@HMthRegtofFootndBattLI yeah. I was still reenacting at that point and you guys ran over the Greys camp that morning.

@@gaslightstudiosrebooted3432 Ah! Sorry for the rude awakening!

Yes, it was - it was part of the original requirements for light infantry, but it seems it was laid aside for some parts of the war... this is something we're currently looking into for our early war full dress impression.

There's no officer fusil in this video. No offense, but you really should watch and listen to the video - they clearly identify it as a serjeant's carbine.

SORRY for the late reply - we strongly recommend a great maker up in Vermond - Dave Person. Please message us if you'd like his direct contact info. He's phenomenal and very reasonably priced.

I should add, I've now found jags and worms and such that fit on to the screw end of my ramrod.

The blunt end of the ramrod actually works quite well as a jag

Yes, absolutely - they had their own specific commands on the field! We're hoping to make a video on this this coming field season. Stay tuned.

It's difficult to find decent shoes, at least at reasonably affordable prices. There are some SUPERB bespoke makers out there - Shaun Pekar, and some makers at Williamsburg are great options for a price that is commensurate with the large amount of work. Otherwise, Gossville Shoes are quite good. Second to that, you might look at Jarnagin as a little more affordable. Roy Najecki used to sell the only decent bottom-barrel affordable shoes, but that maker (Robert Land) is currently not making.

That's a great idea. We're not attending this year, but hope to next year!

Right? Thanks for being a part of that.

We're fairly widely distributed across the northeastern US - with centers in southern New England and the Philadelphia area. Find out more here: facebook.com/40thBloodhounds

@@HMthRegtofFootndBattLI he’s a Frenchie, he’s just trying to find your position for a counter attack!

amen!

It's a glorious gift from Mars himself!

Do it.

It depends on the event - for some we ram down the full charge with the catridge paper. Most sites, and some organizations, don't allow ramming for safety reasons, so then it's just the powder down the barrel with no wadding.

@@HMthRegtofFootndBattLI its the one thing we do is ram but some people prefer to ram without the paper.

Cool! Thanks! You mean "Nice 18thC accents," though, right? Since your so kind with your compliments, allow us to return the favor: According to most linguists, modern English accents might be even less appropriate than modern American ones. But, seriously, thanks for the hot tip, champ.

Go look up the high tider accent my dude, they're probably the nearest you'll get to an 18th century accent these days.

@@marius3552 What's "an 18th century accent" though? There was only one accent for that whole century, across the whole world? This is a big challenge, given the complete lack of any recordings. Linguists do seem to suggest some modern extant accents share important similarities with 18thC English ones, as best as they can be reconstructed. Fortunately, we have little inclination to really even try - and to, inevitably, mess that up.

@@HMthRegtofFootndBattLI I was talking to the dude saying "nice english accents", and when I said 18th century accent, I meant it in that context. So an English accent of the time is what I was referring to, although there will have been many, same as today. The high tider accent has elements of an 18th century English accent, from what I've read and seen anyway. I agree it is a big challenge determining what an "18th century" accent would have sounded like. I also agree that there is no point at all in even bothering to try, unless you're a linguistics nerd perhaps.

​@@marius3552 I know this is from two years ago. But the 'High tide accent ' is very similar, to nearly identical, to the west country accent. So it's not like the accent has disappeared since the 18th century

Having shot good repros of both the baker and the '76, I totally agree. Obvously, they're both related arms - at least in terms of general development, but they're definitley different enough in a number of ways. Perhaps it's because the 1776 rifle is notably more related to, and has a similarly really nice feel of, a jaeger rifle?

We did!? YAY! Cake and medals for EVERYONE!

@@HMthRegtofFootndBattLI lol 😂

Entirely correct - but we're generally not inclined to lecture drunk folks on the streets of Philadelphia.

We use replicas (any originals should absolutely be in a museum and not being abused by reenactors!) - they're made from parts sold by The Rifle Shoppe and assembled by a few different competent smiths. It's hard to say for sure how they were employed on the battlefield as the evidence is very scarce - but one account from the orderly book of the 64th Regiment's light infantry company describes the riflemen from all the different light companies in the 2nd Battalion of Light Infantry as being composited together under the command of a lieutenant. But, how often that was done and for how long, or under what tactical conditions, we just don't really know.

@@HMthRegtofFootndBattLI Thanks! I hit the most comprehensive book I have on weapons of the American Revolution, George Neumann's from 1971 to be exact, and Neumann makes no mention of a 1776 Pattern British rifle. Possibly he had no knowledge of it being a scarce article. Neumann does mention (and shows photographs of) Jaegers, Fergusons, a British copy of an American long rifle, even a Dutch rifled carbine. These were museum pieces or examples from collections. It's probably not surprising there's little evidence of how the rifle was used. Throughout military history you can see that coming up with a new weapons system is one thing, figuring out the tactical doctrine for its use is something else. Thanks again! It's a wasted day if I don't learn something new!

@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Yep, we're very familiar with Neumann's book - he was an old friend of some of us who first formed the recreated 40th. We've personally inspected many of the muskets in his collection and some of us even own the very weapons that were featured in his books. His Illustrated Encyclopedia is a crucial, seminal first-buy to understanding the material culture of the war. However, his books are pretty old at this point and definitely biased solely by what he had access to and what interested him. It's odd that George would miss the 1776 rifle, since there were a thousand of them made for the war, and only ~100 of the Ferguson rifle... But, that may just show his interest and that the Ferguson being a much "sexier" gun, even if much more rarely used (likely just for the Philly campaign and then largely disappeared)! A much better source would be the Dr. De Witt Bailey books - especially Small Arms of the British Forces in America and, in this case, British Military Flintlock Rifles, 1740-1840. These books are a much more systematic review of the weapons used by the British during the war. Can't recommend these books enough. Even they are getting pretty long-in-the-tooth, but they remain some of the best and most comprehensive sources on the topic.

@@HMthRegtofFootndBattLI Thanks again! I'll keep an eye out for those books you mentioned. Oh, I've got Neumann's "Encyclopedia," a fun and informative book, and his "Swords and Blades" book as well, equally fun and informative. I never met George Neumann myself, but I worked for Navy Arms Company back in the 1980's and met plenty of people who did know him. They said when he was giving a lecture on the period he was quite theatrical! One last thing, a British friend of mine who was into muzzle-loading told me the Ferguson rifles are all at Edinburgh Castle. I don't know if he was right or not, I've never been there myself, but I hope he was! I have seen the Ferguson at Morristown (Years back one of the rangers told me they take it out of the case and play with it when no-ones looking!) and De Peyster's very elegant one in the Smithsonian. Thanks again!