|
Post by paranger on Dec 15, 2020 5:24:33 GMT -7
From de Witt Bailey's Small Arms of the British Forces in North America 1664-1815: "A board of General Officers met on 25 Feb. 1771 to consider patterns for light infantry clothing and accouterments; a subcommittee composed of Lord John Murray, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, Robert Monkton, Thomas Murray, Koppel, and Mackay was established to sort out the details." He further states that the committee largely adopted Gen William Howe's pattern accouterments including the direction that "the belt was to have two frogs, one for the bayonet and the other 'for the hatchet occasionally; which at other times will be tyed (sic.) upon the Knapsack.'" (149) That is a very interesting quote. Thank you. Of course that quote talks about two separate frogs and not what in modern times we call a "double frog." I would love to see an original or even a drawing of the frog they used for the hatchets, as I'm not sure if a hatchet handle would fit into the standard British Ordnance Pattern Frog for the bayonet? The reason I say that is because I have made copies directly from the measured drawings of original British Ordnance Pattern Frog's, excavated at Fort Loudoun and I don't think hatchet handles would fit, unless made oversize for the hafts. . BTW, in the same Book and only two pages before, on page 147, one of the FIW Rangers depicted is wearing a double frog with a bare blade. I do want to point out the term "double frog," to which we have been referring, may be a modern description. I'm not sure it was used in the period. It may have been, but I just don't know as I don't have documentation on that one way or another. Gus I believe your final statement to be correct: they are one in the same. I have seen no evidence of issue of two separate single frogs. The practice LIKELY evolved from the previous use of the frog for sword and bayonet that was standard issue in SYW, the sword, of course, no longer being general issue. You will recall than Wm. Howe commamded Light Infantry in F&I, so the circumstantial evidence suggests he merely codified a previous adaptation. Ergo, I see no logical reason to infer the issue of two separate frogs. BTW, I am not sure what a "standard" light infantry axe's haft diameter was, but mine fits quite readily in a Najecki made frog from, I believe, the same pattern - been carrying it that way for years. I would take the illustration - given Bailey's sterling reputation for research- as further edification.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 15, 2020 7:21:05 GMT -7
That is a very interesting quote. Thank you. Of course that quote talks about two separate frogs and not what in modern times we call a "double frog." I would love to see an original or even a drawing of the frog they used for the hatchets, as I'm not sure if a hatchet handle would fit into the standard British Ordnance Pattern Frog for the bayonet? The reason I say that is because I have made copies directly from the measured drawings of original British Ordnance Pattern Frog's, excavated at Fort Loudoun and I don't think hatchet handles would fit, unless made oversize for the hafts. . BTW, in the same Book and only two pages before, on page 147, one of the FIW Rangers depicted is wearing a double frog with a bare blade. I do want to point out the term "double frog," to which we have been referring, may be a modern description. I'm not sure it was used in the period. It may have been, but I just don't know as I don't have documentation on that one way or another. Gus I believe your final statement to be correct: they are one in the same. I have seen no evidence of issue of two separate single frogs. The practice LIKELY evolved from the previous use of the frog for sword and bayonet that was standard issue in SYW, the sword, of course, no longer being general issue. You will recall than Wm. Howe commamded Light Infantry in F&I, so the circumstantial evidence suggests he merely codified a previous adaptation. Ergo, I see no logical reason to infer the issue of two separate frogs. BTW, I am not sure what a "standard" light infantry axe's haft diameter was, but mine fits quite readily in a Najecki made frog from, I believe, the same pattern - been carrying it that way for years. I would take the illustration - given Bailey's sterling reputation for research- as further edification. I’m sorry, but I believe you mistook my intent when talking about the double frog. What I meant was I think they would simply have referred to it as “the frog” during the period. I absolutely believe they were talking about two separate frogs in Bailey’s quote, because it clearly stated the frog for the hatchet could occasionally be tied to the knapsack. That would leave the frog for the bayonet on the belt where it belonged, for proper access during combat. I very much doubt they would want the bayonet tied to the knapsack behind their backs, which it would have been, had it been a double frog. As to Najecki’s repro of a Bayonet Frog, I know they are well made, but I suspect he did the same thing I had to do once I found out the original supplied dimensions were too small to get a modern Pedersoli repro bayonet and scabbard in a frog I made exactly from period dimensions. IOW, I had to enlarge the original dimensions to get a repro bayonet and scabbard to fit inside. This even though I made my bayonet scabbard by the period correct method of wet forming it and thus having a smaller outside diameter than most repro scabbards. Another thing I did a bit differently than the original scabbards from Fort Loudoun was instead of making the interior “cone” near the tip out of sheet Iron, I used sheet brass, though I soldered the small brass tip to my cone just as they had done to their sheet iron cone. Sheet brass would have been far too expensive back in the period, but I didn’t want to have to deal with sheet iron or steel rusting inside the tip of the scabbard. Gus
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Dec 15, 2020 9:16:54 GMT -7
I believe your final statement to be correct: they are one in the same. I have seen no evidence of issue of two separate single frogs. The practice LIKELY evolved from the previous use of the frog for sword and bayonet that was standard issue in SYW, the sword, of course, no longer being general issue. You will recall than Wm. Howe commamded Light Infantry in F&I, so the circumstantial evidence suggests he merely codified a previous adaptation. Ergo, I see no logical reason to infer the issue of two separate frogs. BTW, I am not sure what a "standard" light infantry axe's haft diameter was, but mine fits quite readily in a Najecki made frog from, I believe, the same pattern - been carrying it that way for years. I would take the illustration - given Bailey's sterling reputation for research- as further edification. I’m sorry, but I believe you mistook my intent when talking about the double frog. What I meant was I think they would simply have referred to it as “the frog” during the period. I absolutely believe they were talking about two separate frogs in Bailey’s quote, because it clearly stated the frog for the hatchet could occasionally be tied to the knapsack. That would leave the frog for the bayonet on the belt where it belonged, for proper access during combat. I very much doubt they would want the bayonet tied to the knapsack behind their backs, which it would have been, had it been a double frog. As to Najecki’s repro of a Bayonet Frog, I know they are well made, but I suspect he did the same thing I had to do once I found out the original supplied dimensions were too small to get a modern Pedersoli repro bayonet and scabbard in a frog I made exactly from period dimensions. IOW, I had to enlarge the original dimensions to get a repro bayonet and scabbard to fit inside. This even though I made my bayonet scabbard by the period correct method of wet forming it and thus having a smaller outside diameter than most repro scabbards. Another thing I did a bit differently than the original scabbards from Fort Loudoun was instead of making the interior “cone” near the tip out of sheet Iron, I used sheet brass, though I soldered the small brass tip to my cone just as they had done to their sheet iron cone. Sheet brass would have been far too expensive back in the period, but I didn’t want to have to deal with sheet iron or steel rusting inside the tip of the scabbard. Gus The antecedent of the dependent clause beginning with "which" in the quotation above is "hatchet," not "frog." The HATCHET was tied to the pack when not in use. The frog remains on the belt. You are offering a tortuous reading of a relatively straightforward passage in support of a contention that flies in the face of all available circumstantial evidence. Unless you are holding some primary (or even secondary) source evidence to support such a creative interpretation, I think the horse, for me at least, is dead enough.
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Dec 15, 2020 10:46:57 GMT -7
I think the horse, for me at least, is dead enough. Eggs act Lee.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 15, 2020 11:59:13 GMT -7
I’m sorry, but I believe you mistook my intent when talking about the double frog. What I meant was I think they would simply have referred to it as “the frog” during the period. I absolutely believe they were talking about two separate frogs in Bailey’s quote, because it clearly stated the frog for the hatchet could occasionally be tied to the knapsack. That would leave the frog for the bayonet on the belt where it belonged, for proper access during combat. I very much doubt they would want the bayonet tied to the knapsack behind their backs, which it would have been, had it been a double frog. As to Najecki’s repro of a Bayonet Frog, I know they are well made, but I suspect he did the same thing I had to do once I found out the original supplied dimensions were too small to get a modern Pedersoli repro bayonet and scabbard in a frog I made exactly from period dimensions. IOW, I had to enlarge the original dimensions to get a repro bayonet and scabbard to fit inside. This even though I made my bayonet scabbard by the period correct method of wet forming it and thus having a smaller outside diameter than most repro scabbards. Another thing I did a bit differently than the original scabbards from Fort Loudoun was instead of making the interior “cone” near the tip out of sheet Iron, I used sheet brass, though I soldered the small brass tip to my cone just as they had done to their sheet iron cone. Sheet brass would have been far too expensive back in the period, but I didn’t want to have to deal with sheet iron or steel rusting inside the tip of the scabbard. Gus The antecedent of the dependent clause beginning with "which" in the quotation above is "hatchet," not "frog." The HATCHET was tied to the pack when not in use. The frog remains on the belt. You are offering a tortuous reading of a relatively straightforward passage in support of a contention that flies in the face of all available circumstantial evidence. Unless you are holding some primary (or even secondary) source evidence to support such a creative interpretation, I think the horse, for me at least, is dead enough. Ah, now I see what you meant. Sorry about my confusion. Gus
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Dec 15, 2020 12:07:43 GMT -7
While looking for the 1771 regulations, I found this. When the 7th Regiment had to replace their accoutrements in 1777, the following was ordered: "While the privates of the Grenadier and Battalion companies were issued waist belts, everyone in the Light Infantry Company was issued a cross belt with a plate. " 56 [light Infy buff] cross belts & plates ingraved, with Hatchett Cases, Bullet Bags & Bayonet Carriages complete" were purchased for the privates, along with "neat polished Hatchetts." The Light Company Sergeants were issued "[light Infy Sergt buff] cross belts & Tutge plates ingd" at the cost of 5s each. It is interesting to note that this is a departure from the 1771 Light Infantry regulations which stipulate that black leather waist belts with a frog for the bayonet and one for the hatchet is to be issued. " So it seems at least by then, if not earlier, they recognized the need for Hatchet Cases/Sheaths. 7thregimentoffoot.weebly.com/waistbelt-and-plate.htmlGus
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Dec 15, 2020 13:11:50 GMT -7
While looking for the 1771 regulations, I found this. When the 7th Regiment had to replace their accoutrements in 1777, the following was ordered: "While the privates of the Grenadier and Battalion companies were issued waist belts, everyone in the Light Infantry Company was issued a cross belt with a plate. " 56 [light Infy buff] cross belts & plates ingraved, with Hatchett Cases, Bullet Bags & Bayonet Carriages complete" were purchased for the privates, along with "neat polished Hatchetts." The Light Company Sergeants were issued "[light Infy Sergt buff] cross belts & Tutge plates ingd" at the cost of 5s each. It is interesting to note that this is a departure from the 1771 Light Infantry regulations which stipulate that black leather waist belts with a frog for the bayonet and one for the hatchet is to be issued. " So it seems at least by then, if not earlier, they recognized the need for Hatchet Cases/Sheaths. 7thregimentoffoot.weebly.com/waistbelt-and-plate.htmlGus because they cut themselves.
|
|