Help support TMP


"Based On The Uniform, What Year Would You Say This Was?" Topic


22 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to The Old West Message Board

Back to the Victorian Colonial Board Message Board

Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

19th Century

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

The Sword and the Flame


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Profile Article

Report from Bayou Wars 2006

The Editor heads for Vicksburg...


Featured Book Review


1,459 hits since 7 Aug 2018
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Cacique Caribe07 Aug 2018 10:13 a.m. PST

Just curious …

1) When did the British use these uniforms in Australia?

YouTube link
YouTube link

2) Or perhaps his (American?) rifle might help narrow down the decade?

YouTube link

Thanks

Dan

Personal logo Artilleryman Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2018 10:50 a.m. PST

The uniforms look 1830s or 40s. The rifle looks a bit like a Spencer from the 1860s or 70s. If I understand the story correctly, then the rifle is right, but the uniforms are wrong.

It is not my period, but I think Mr Quigley would probably have met someone more like this:

link picture 147.

Woollygooseuk07 Aug 2018 10:58 a.m. PST

Not something I know a great deal about, and film makers don't always have a reputation for historical fastidiousness. That said, based on a similarity to Indian Mutiny and China uniforms, and Tom Seleck's post-ACW western vibe, I'd go with late 1860s.

Cacique Caribe07 Aug 2018 11:26 a.m. PST

"147 – Two Mounted Constables outside Stirling West Police Station S.A about 1885, leaving on patrol. Note: pistol carbine on right of saddle, sword on left. Cloaks carried, (rolled) in front of saddle.
Wearing 'Bedford Cords'. "

So what's a ‘Bedford Cord'?

Dan

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2018 11:28 a.m. PST

The rifle is a Sharps.

link

arthur181507 Aug 2018 11:32 a.m. PST

Bedford Cords are corduroy riding breeches, still in production today.

Stephen Miller07 Aug 2018 2:11 p.m. PST

I would place it in the late 1860's. Sharps came out in the late 1850's and using percussion revolvers which started being replaced with cartridge revolvers in 1873.

Lion in the Stars07 Aug 2018 2:27 p.m. PST

Quigley Down Under? Post 1874. Because that's the first year of metallic-cartridge Sharps Rifles. Everything before that was paper cartridges and tape primers.

Nick Stern Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2018 2:32 p.m. PST

The uniforms are total Hollywood (or its Australian equivalent) fantasy. British officers didn't wear epaulets like that after 1855. I agree with Artilleryman. His link shows how they should have been dressed and they would have worn blue tunics.

Woollygooseuk07 Aug 2018 2:35 p.m. PST

All true no doubt, but everyone knows that evil Redcoats wear… well, red coats.

Frederick Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2018 4:17 p.m. PST

Agree as to rifle – metallic cartridge Sharps, 1874 at the earliest

Cacique Caribe07 Aug 2018 6:49 p.m. PST

Woollygooseuk: "but everyone knows that evil Redcoats wear… well, red coats"

LOL. Of course!

Dan

DJCoaltrain07 Aug 2018 6:53 p.m. PST

Gotta go with Lion. The Sharps metallic center fire rifle is an 1874 rifle. The one Selleck uses is a .45-110 round. Even with the extra four inches of steel, it's still going to kick a bit. I'd really like to have one, but I don't hunt and I have lots of metal soldiers to acquire.

deflatermouse08 Aug 2018 3:37 a.m. PST

I would have thought they'd be mounted Police.
Given the way the British "managed" forces in the Colonies, police was always a cheaper option.
The mutiny uniforms are a bit jarring in the setting.
And that's a LOT of Aboriginals lining the hills.
In Sept & Oct '92, Miniature Wargames #112 #113 had a two part series on the Kalkadoon War in Qld. late 1870's. All local forces involved and no "British" (or Queens) units IIRC.

The last British Unit (the 18th) in Australia left in 1870, so if the weapons are later than that……

This might be of interest.

link

DJCoaltrain08 Aug 2018 9:33 a.m. PST

Deflatermouse Great page reference. Gives me some ideas for imaginations wars. Thanks.

Lion in the Stars08 Aug 2018 12:52 p.m. PST

@DJCoaltrain: Pedersoli makes a very nice replica of Quigley's Sharps. Not too bad as a specialty rifle, only ~$1700, you can buy one from Cabela's. Yes, that's a LOT of metal troops. But the Pedersoli rifles are very nice. You can get nicer, but the price about doubles.

And I'd honestly not hunt with a Sharps. Target shooting or Cowboy Action Shooting, however…

deflatermouse08 Aug 2018 6:15 p.m. PST

If you're wanting to copy the uniform in the film, you could start with Dixons 15mm Indian Mutiny.

link

picture

WillieB09 Aug 2018 3:49 p.m. PST

Gotta go with Lion. The Sharps metallic center fire rifle is an 1874 rifle. The one Selleck uses is a .45-110 round. Even with the extra four inches of steel, it's still going to kick a bit. I'd really like to have one, but I don't hunt and I have lots of metal soldiers to acquire.

Actually the recoil from my (replica) Sharps 45-110 is quite do-able. If anything I feel the recoil from my (again replica) 45-90 Sharps is somewhat 'nastier' but very accurate. I have also fired a Pedersoly 45-120 (not mine) and that one kicked a bit too much for comfort on long sessions.

capncarp30 Sep 2018 1:17 p.m. PST

Sharps. Definitely Sharps. Definitely.

Lee49401 Oct 2018 2:33 p.m. PST

So you're expecting realism and accuracy from Hollywood? PLEASE send me some of what you're smokin! Cheers!

Lion in the Stars01 Oct 2018 5:31 p.m. PST

@Lee: Obviously a couple pounds of Humbolt County's finest green.

Henry Martini01 Oct 2018 7:23 p.m. PST

I covered this film and its depiction of frontier conflict in colonial Australia in a number of discussions on TMP some years ago, but as it's come up again…

According to the film's promotional material 'Quigley Down Under' is set in 1860, so his rifle is clearly anachronistic.

The movie is set in Western Australia, but was actually filmed in the Northern Territory (notably at Ross River Homestead) and Victoria (Flagstaff Hill Historic Village).

The 'cavalry' unit depicted is entirely fictitious. No British cavalry units served in Australia. During the course of the 19th century two different mounted forces were raised from within the ranks of infantry regiments stationed here – but in the eastern colonies, not Western Australia. The first was Australia's first mounted police force, the Military Mounted Police who, although equipped as cavalry, were effectively mounted infantry. The force was primarily tasked with pursuing bushrangers, but was also assigned to the protection of settlers from hostile Aborigines.

When first formed in 1825 officers and troopers wore their undress infantry uniforms, but by the 1830s they were clad in a purpose-designed light cavalry-style uniform in dark blue (later changed to dark green). When in the field members of the force replaced their caps with broad-brimmed hats.

The second force created was the military gold escort of the 1850s, which served as cavalry at Eureka Stockade.

Colour plates of both forces can be found in 'Remote Garrison', by Peter Stanley.

The only mounted police in Western Australia in 1860 were members of the civil force of that colony, who wore a dark blue uniform in the standard style of the Australian colonies of the period, consisting of kepi, short hip-length, beltless tunic, tight-fitting cream-coloured breeches, and hussar-style half-boots. They were equipped with carbine and sword. Such uniforms differed between colonies only in detail (except for Queensland, which in 1864 replaced the tunic with a waist-length 'jumper').

Skirmishes involving large numbers (even hundreds) of Aboriginal warriors weren't that unusual, Deflatermouse. What's odd about the warriors in the film is their behaviour and equipment. They'd be more likely to immediately try to envelop/surround settlers/police and bring their missile weapons into range – and they should be carrying shields.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.