It its not an exclusive front sight that happens to serve as a bayonet lug, which was his point being made.
We're typing the same thing at the same time
It its not an exclusive front sight that happens to serve as a bayonet lug, which was his point being made.
We're typing the same thing at the same time
Love ya too Gus !! Lol its not a major issue for me, and to be fair I don’t call it a front sight exclusively my argument with the poor tempered fella above was that its not an exclusive front sight that happens to serve as a bayonet lug, which was his point being made.
Its primary purpose was a bayonet lug, secondary a sight. Its double standard is a unique benefit when the British gunmakers designed the bess, why add a brass front sight like the Dutch ? Dutch muskets used both a brass oblong sight and a lug, Well its expensive to do this, the Dutch and Germans were not known for making cheap muskets, you have to braze on a blob of brass and shape it, the cost of brass and the handle work would eventually add up to the cost of a, tranche of muskets. This according to Jess Melot is the reason why the Bess s has no ‘independent’ front sight and just a square lug, it made production cheaper and easier.
My arguments isn’t that it can’t be a front sight, its just not its primary focus and I think Bailey, Ravensheer, Neumann and Moller share this … which is why they call it a stud / sight.
If one were able to redesign the Bess, making a square pyramid top stud that secures the lug would have made this argument moot.
I do agree with you backing into the history of the lug from the 1730 long land to the 1756 pattern, the lugs evolved from being more a graceful rectangle to more stud like.
As far as being able to sight a Brown Bess with the lug, for a rank and file soldier using paper cartilages its just does little benefit
A ranger or light infantry man loading with premium cartridges, or patch and ball would be able to make the stud more beneficial at shorter rangers, this I absolutely agree on because the light infantry fusil and dragoon arms served this purpose.
some examples of officer’s fusils do exist with both a front sight and lug, I believe e some were even rifled.
I would say of the lug/sight debate that I would be inclined to agree with the primary sources on this one and not use Goldstein & Mowbray's (really very excellent) secondary / tertiary source as evidence.
That book is a collection of photographs of extant muskets, and the focus isn't on literature or how they were used other than the 5 page preface.
I don't beleive it even shows a full bayonet more than once.
If the army trained soldiers in marksmanship at all, I'd say they were aiming.
If the post that held the bayonet functioned as a sight as well as a lug, I'd say they were being efficient.
It's interesting to hear all the counterpoints, but I do not see why it has to be 'One thing primarily and the other secondarily" - give the ancestors some credit, it was good, practical design that ensured it did both.
I will say that it is interesting that the post does not often rise above the rim of the socket on many models I have seen (it *does* on later gonnes )
Without consulting a primary source, I would say that suggests a couple of things.
1. The presence of sheaths and frogs suggests that there was a time for individual marksmanship when bayonets were unfixed.
2. That once bayonets were fixed, it was time to dispense with it.
Would love for someone with access and familiarity to primary sources to comment on this supposition.
Well then and with all due respect to Jess Melot, if he calls it a square front sight, he is flat out wrong as they all were rectangular shaped.
The British Sight was actually dovetailed onto the barrel for most of the 18th century. Brazing a brass sight to the Iron barrel can lead to all kinds of problems because of the heat required.
With respect, I completely disagree that a vertical post front sight and even when using cartridges in combat, is not a good thing to aim with. You can see such a vertical post sight far better than a pointed top brass sight in combat conditions. BTW, this is why we stuck to it with the M1903 all the way up to and including the M16 rifles.
Gus
In Kit’s print I have, he mentions that the 1755 bess had its comb raised making the musket more difficult to aim? Why make it more complicated to aim ?
Hi Nick,
Great question! The answer is, because it was cheaper to produce the Bess with a straighter stock. They got more stock blanks out of "walnut tree planks" that way. IOW, the bean counters had their way, even that far back!
Gus
FYI reference from the print.
FYI reference from the print.
I probably should have known that, being that I’m an accountant.
LOL!! Well, we love you anyway!
Gus
LOL!! Well, we love you anyway!
Gus
M1 and M14 had pistol grip stocks right ?
Well… to be literal I’m an IRS agent, not loved by most. But I’m more of on the pensions actuary side of things. I could dry paint with a conversation of pension benefits. Lol
Artificer said:
LOL!! Well, we love you anyway!
Gus
Well, we can see your heart is in the right place.
Gus
Now that we’re on the topic of accounting, I can say that the most intriguing thing about the ordinance system is its record keeping process ! However we only see it on the surface, I would have loved to see the lock making process, how much engravers were paid, how much lock assemblers were paid etc.
Disagree with this, the purpose of the square lug on a Brown Bess is for the Bayonet not a front sight. The British didn’t have an aim command in their ranking systems, to add to this concept, the lug is a square, while it can be used a rudimentary front sight because its a square it will have little benefit to aiming. Many brown Bess’s repro’s have a small groove filed down the center of the front sight for aiming, I’ve never seen this on an original.
Gus, I wrote this recently:I will re-iterate, that if they weren't aiming when firing volley fires, all the rounds would have went right over the heads of their enemies. This is far better documented in our UnCivil War, but it was just as true with flintlock muskets.
Gus
Enter your email address to join: