Brown Bess -Why

[Artificer]

Further, I and others have actually documented this by using repro Bess's with bayonets fixed and live firing."

I've owned and fired the Pedersoli Brown Bess reproduction, and there's little comparison between the Bayonet Lug / "sight" with originals.

Dr. Dewitt Bailey wrote the dimension of the Sight as manufactured was 1/4 long by 1/8 wide.

I just measured the width of my Pedersoli Sight and is .200" wide which is .075" wider than the original specs. Not sure how much difference that makes when sighting, but there is a difference.

Do you have documentation of the original height specifications for the Brown Bess sight? Bailey doesn't mention it.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

"British troops in line were not trained to aim their muskets. (my italics) Speed was emphasized over accuracy by military strategists in the 18th century. Mass volley fire into massed targets and rapid reloading up to four times per minute were emphasized. For many commanders, the volley was a mere formality that was followed by a bayonet charge."
(Volleying Muskets in the American Revolution. Revolutionary War Journal.)

Obviously by the original documentation I posted, British troops were trained to aim their muskets.

Sorry this opinion reference let you down.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

If aimed firing was expected during Volley fire why is it that all emphasis was placed on Drill, Formation and the Manual of Arms etc ?

With 37 years in the Army, I'm sure you already know the answer to that question. That training instills discipline, confidence and esprit de corps. It was extremely important to move troops around a battlefield when they knew those commands by heart to the subconscious level. Further, when the shyte hits the fan in combat, many times one survives off their training and experience of their leaders and their own.

"Training consisted on learning parade formation, the manual of arms .....Once or twice a year , the soldier might be allowed to fire his musket with ball."
(Red Coat and Brown Bess. A.D. Dowling. Historical Arms Series No 12. p9.)
Hardly what whats acceptable for the training of aimed Volley firing.

This was true in garrison in peace time then and still today. I'm SURE in your 37 years you can relate we never get enough ammo or equipment until the purse is opened shortly before we go operational or more likely AFTER we go operational.

The original documentation on much more extensive "firing at marks" or target practice, pretty much ALL came from periods when the British Army was deployed during War Time. That was when the purse strings were loosened, to ensure success on the battlefield.

Gus

 

[Coinneach]

With 37 years in the Army, I'm sure you already know the answer to that question. That training instills discipline, confidence and esprit de corps. It was extremely important to move troops around a battlefield when they knew those commands by heart to the subconscious level. Further, when the shyte hits the fan in combat, many times one survives off their training and experience of their leaders and their own.
; White Phos


This was true in garrison in peace time then and still today. I'm SURE in your 37 years you can relate we never get enough ammo or equipment until the purse is opened shortly before we go operational or more likely AFTER we go operational.

The original documentation on much more extensive "firing at marks" or target practice, pretty much ALL came from periods when the British Army was deployed during War Time. That was when the purse strings were loosened, to ensure success on the battlefield.

Gus

Strangely enough in the Aussie Army we had beaucoup Ammo, M26, Smoke and WP Grenades; Para Flares and LAW's in those days; it was the WW2 equipment that really p....d us off; your American gear was much sought after by our Troops on the ground believe me.

The GI issue gear that a bag of Aussie Kangaroo Feathers could buy was unbelievable !

 

[Coinneach]

Obviously by the original documentation I posted, British troops were trained to aim their muskets.

Sorry this opinion reference let you down.

Gus

Its concluded let it go.

 

[Coinneach]

Further, I and others have actually documented this by using repro Bess's with bayonets fixed and live firing."



Dr. Dewitt Bailey wrote the dimension of the Sight as manufactured was 1/4 long by 1/8 wide.

I just measured the width of my Pedersoli Sight and is .200" wide which is .075" wider than the original specs. Not sure how much difference that makes when sighting, but there is a difference.

Do you have documentation of the original height specifications for the Brown Bess sight? Bailey doesn't mention it.

Gus

No I dont have the original specs, I do believe the photos of the originals I provided were more than adequate.
Seriously if you're as deeply interested in the Brown Bess Musket as I am, I highly recommend the book "The Brown Bess. An Identification Guide and Illustrated Study of Britains Most Famous Muskets. by Goldstein & Mowbray. 2010. Its chock full of superb close up photos of original Besses and their individual components.

 

[Coinneach]

"On page 6 in post 103, I talked about how the vertical post sight, as seen from the rear on the Bess, is the same sight picture as the M1903 through M16 rifles, so yes it was decades ahead of its time"



Dr. Dewitt Bailey wrote the dimension of the Sight as manufactured was 1/4 long by 1/8 wide. Certainly not the lumpy square sight you keep posting, which no doubt was filed and worn that way in long service after it was manufactured.

As seen from the rear on the M16A2 below with the exception of the flared part at the very bottom of the front sight which no one actually uses even if they have good enough eyes to see it, you have a vertical post.

View attachment 122192

I cannot quickly find a picture of a M1903 Sight picture, but here is a pic of the side of the front sight, which also shows a vertical post when shown from the rear.



View attachment 122193

IOW, the sight picture of the Bess front sight being a vertical post was decades ahead of these rifles.

Gus

Theyre both Post Sights designed for their purpose, and not at all comparable to the Brown Bess Bayonet Lug / "sight."

Thats it my part in the discussion is over.

 

[Coinneach]

"On page 5 in Post 92, I talked about actually sighting the front sight with the bayonet fixed on three original Bess's in my own hands and not trying to extrapolate something from a book."



And how many original Bess's with their original bayonets have you ever shouldered and sighted? This is the difference between you extrapolating from a book and real world experience.

Gus

As mentioned in an earlier post I've actually fired an India Pattern original Bess (at Sea of all things) and handled some originals in the Australian Army Infantry Centre Arms Museum at Singleton NSW; when I was on Staff as a Small Arms instructor there.

 

[FlinterNick]

"On page 6 in post 103, I talked about how the vertical post sight, as seen from the rear on the Bess, is the same sight picture as the M1903 through M16 rifles, so yes it was decades ahead of its time"



Dr. Dewitt Bailey wrote the dimension of the Sight as manufactured was 1/4 long by 1/8 wide. Certainly not the lumpy square sight you keep posting, which no doubt was filed and worn that way in long service after it was manufactured.

As seen from the rear on the M16A2 below with the exception of the flared part at the very bottom of the front sight which no one actually uses even if they have good enough eyes to see it, you have a vertical post.

View attachment 122192

I cannot quickly find a picture of a M1903 Sight picture, but here is a pic of the side of the front sight, which also shows a vertical post when shown from the rear.



View attachment 122193

IOW, the sight picture of the Bess front sight being a vertical post was decades ahead of these rifles.

Gus

Hi Gus,

The had a talk with the wife about English walnut, she said ok just as long as we get English walnut cabinets. So thats a no go.

Gus is comparing the sight on a modern military rifle equivalent to a Brown Bess ?

The Brown Bess had no rear sight, if it did it was something very crude and not ordinance issued.

The average Brown Bess barrel length from 1710-1820 was 42 1/2 inches, with a conservative weight of 10-12 lbs ‘not’ including the bayonet.

The crude square stud at the end of a long barrel, combined with the imbalanced weight of a Brown Bess with a bayonet, not considering battlefield circumstances and variables such as smoke and black powder residue.

I can’t see how it can be used in this argument of sight vs. lug or lug vs. sight.

An M14 rifle or an M16 rifle with a weight of 6.5 - 8.5 lbs, with a much shorter barrel and perfectly aligned rear and front sight make it far more deadlier and accurate weapon then a Brown Bess or even a fowler for that matter. And considering 18th century warfare vs. 19th century, in the civil war aiming was very relevant even in volley fire with a rifled musket rear and front sighted, the next generation of win the battlefield quickly turned over to the next generations of high casualty modern warfare.

At the range with by 20 and 12 gauges (both smooth), I never used the sight to aim, its point and shoot at the disc or down range with a slug.

I could imagine in the 18th century battlefield, aiming takes seconds in a string of commands, aimed shots with a smoothbore gives the opposing ranks with no aiming command an advantage at rate of fire, which is why the Brown Bess volley often out scored the Charleville and Springfields in the Seven Years War, Revolutionary Wars, and Napoleonic Wars (including 1812 War). That single command Present and fire vs. Present Aim and Fire made an incredible difference on the battlefield. In the revolutionary war British commanders would avoid direct assaults on American trenched positions after Bunker Hill, Howe was quoted as such, he would never do it again, as it gave the americans time to take down his officers with aimed shots as ordered by Warren, how many aimed shots did the British make, firing uphill ? Not many. Firing downhill with aimed smoothbore muskets at kings mountain,, same consequences.

Aside from all of that, the argument of sight vs. stud, I suppose call it what you will, its relevance to the securing the bayonet is far greater than its relevance for aiming. Especially when considering the British field strategies.

I shoot my Bess’s often, all of mine are in .77 with the exception of one pedersoli. My cartridges are perfectly prepared with a .725 ball in the .77 and a .69 in the pedersoli, I sighted my besses with a notch at the breech and lined it up with the stud which has a slight concave shape to it I did with a needle file, my groupings are on average pretty good to great at 50 and 100 yards, but only with the first 5-6 shots using 1F powder 5-10 using 2F.

The Pedersoli Bess is far more accurate then my .77 long lands. The musket while straighter than the 1742 is much lighter and the taper of the barrel is not nearly as broad, i often wonder if it will be even more accurate with a Dunlap stock.

Never fired it with the bayonet, illegal to do that in NJ at a live fire range.

 

[FlinterNick]

Forgot the navy arms charleville, this is the most military accurate smoothbore I’ve fired with a sight. I can fire this musket all day (hyperbole 20 rounds avg). with a .65 ball and get dead center shots.

 

[DuncNZ]

"These men would be killed and their horses would shy and swerve at the wall of bayonets and be shot"

Brit infantry we're specifically ordered to "aim for the Horses"; at close range it was devastating. Understandably Horses won't approach other dead Horses (or anything else dead usually) so once the first wave was down screaming in agony, it would have been almost impossible for the French Curassiers to press home the attack.

Shooting a horse in the chest where all the big muscles are, and probably a thick leather breast plate , when it is coming straight at you would be hard work , The momentum of a horse coming towards you would cause it to slide or fall forward into the square and open it up , this happened earlier in the Napoleonic wars . The ideal would be shooting the horse through the ribs, when it is turning side on. It presents an easier target , and makes the horse fall on its side trapping the rider .. The reason that horses avoid both horse or human bodies or anything else dead is that the bodies make the going soft and uncertain as well as frightening .

 

[Coinneach]

Shooting a horse in the chest where all the big muscles are, and probably a thick leather breast plate , when it is coming straight at you would be hard work , The momentum of a horse coming towards you would cause it to slide or fall forward into the square and open it up , this happened earlier in the Napoleonic wars . The ideal would be shooting the horse through the ribs, when it is turning side on. It presents an easier target , and makes the horse fall on its side trapping the rider .. The fact that horses avoid both horse or human bodies or anything else dead is that the bodies make the going soft and uncertain as well as frightening .

So what do you think Horses do when theyre confronted with a violent scenario ?
They certainly dont stand front on and waste time studying the situation.

 

[DuncNZ]

So what do you think Horses do when theyre confronted with a violent scenario ?
They certainly dont stand front on and waste time studying the situation.

They react and turn away from danger of a hedge of bayonets , even tho these horses are highly trained and will charge into other Cavalry and soldiers and often seemed to enjoyed charging into battle , often kicking and biting the enemy . I believe horses do study the situation , I have hunted pigs with a lance , and the horse is watching the proceedings and reacting to them continuously . As do Polo ponies .

 

[Artificer]

No I dont have the original specs, I do believe the photos of the originals I provided were more than adequate.
Seriously if you're as deeply interested in the Brown Bess Musket as I am, I highly recommend the book "The Brown Bess. An Identification Guide and Illustrated Study of Britains Most Famous Muskets. by Goldstein & Mowbray. 2010. Its chock full of superb close up photos of original Besses and their individual components.

I've had that book for 10 years. I've personally met and spoken to Erik Goldstein about it and Brown Besses on a number of occasions.

I've had Dr. De Whit Bailey's books since they began coming out in the 1970's.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Hi Gus,

The had a talk with the wife about English walnut, she said ok just as long as we get English walnut cabinets. So thats a no go.

Gus is comparing the sight on a modern military rifle equivalent to a Brown Bess ?

The Brown Bess had no rear sight, if it did it was something very crude and not ordinance issued.

The average Brown Bess barrel length from 1710-1820 was 42 1/2 inches, with a conservative weight of 10-12 lbs ‘not’ including the bayonet.

The crude square stud at the end of a long barrel, combined with the imbalanced weight of a Brown Bess with a bayonet, not considering battlefield circumstances and variables such as smoke and black powder residue.

I can’t see how it can be used in this argument of sight vs. lug or lug vs. sight.

An M14 rifle or an M16 rifle with a weight of 6.5 - 8.5 lbs, with a much shorter barrel and perfectly aligned rear and front sight make it far more deadlier and accurate weapon then a Brown Bess or even a fowler for that matter. And considering 18th century warfare vs. 19th century, in the civil war aiming was very relevant even in volley fire with a rifled musket rear and front sighted, the next generation of win the battlefield quickly turned over to the next generations of high casualty modern warfare.

At the range with by 20 and 12 gauges (both smooth), I never used the sight to aim, its point and shoot at the disc or down range with a slug.

I could imagine in the 18th century battlefield, aiming takes seconds in a string of commands, aimed shots with a smoothbore gives the opposing ranks with no aiming command an advantage at rate of fire, which is why the Brown Bess volley often out scored the Charleville and Springfields in the Seven Years War, Revolutionary Wars, and Napoleonic Wars (including 1812 War). That single command Present and fire vs. Present Aim and Fire made an incredible difference on the battlefield. In the revolutionary war British commanders would avoid direct assaults on American trenched positions after Bunker Hill, Howe was quoted as such, he would never do it again, as it gave the americans time to take down his officers with aimed shots as ordered by Warren, how many aimed shots did the British make, firing uphill ? Not many. Firing downhill with aimed smoothbore muskets at kings mountain,, same consequences.

Aside from all of that, the argument of sight vs. stud, I suppose call it what you will, its relevance to the securing the bayonet is far greater than its relevance for aiming.

I shoot my Bess’s often, all of mine are in .77 with the exception of one pedersoli. My cartridges are perfectly prepared with a .725 ball in the .77 and a .69 in the pedersoli, I sighted my besses with a notch at the breech and lined it up with the stud which has a slight concave shape to it I did with a needle file, my groupings are on average pretty good to great at 50 and 100 yards, but only with the first 5-6 shots using 1F powder 5-10 using 2F.

The Pedersoli Bess is far more accurate then my .77 long lands. The musket while straighter than the 1742 is much lighter and the taper of the barrel is not nearly as broad, i often wonder if it will be even more accurate with a Dunlap stock.

Never fired it with the bayonet, illegal to do that in NJ at a live fire range.

Gents, changing the discussion about the sight picture of the front sights to comparing front and a rear sight is comparing apples to oranges and thus is not germane to the discussion, nor anything I ever wrote.

Aiming does not take seconds on the battlefield with opposing standing battle lines unless one is shooting much, MUCH further than they shot the Brown Bess. One uses what we would call a "flash (front) sight picture" if one wishes to hit anything with a Bess in period battlefield conditions.

When troops have discipline and good training, one's training/experience takes over in combat conditions to the point one doesn't even always consciously realize it. I'm sure British Soldiers never thought about the reloading commands in the heat of combat when firing multiple volleys at full pace, they did it subconsciously from their training. I don't remember reloading a single 00 Buck Shot load in combat, even though they had to be loaded into the magazine tube by hand one round at a time, yet every time I pulled the trigger - the gun went off. I pulled that trigger a LOT of times when the enemy tried to overrun us with much greater numbers than we had and was surprised to find the slightly less than 4 boxes of ammo I carried in a pouch were almost all gone when we won the fight. I had grown up hunting with pump shotguns and it was that training and experience in reloading that saved my life. My MAIN thoughts in that fight were directing my Squad of 12 Marines, my shooting was secondary to that.

Gus

 

[shaman]

I am a recent purchaser of a Pedersoli Brown Bess. This is my first flintlock. I will endevor to explain why I made the choice.

First off, let me discuss the ineffables. I went to Williamsburg as a kid back in the mid-60's. I saw the collection of Brown Bess' in the Governor's mansion and fell in love with the firearm. I went back with my youngest song in 2006. Nothing had changed. I finally got to fire one in the mid-80's. I remember thinking that the recoil wasn't that bad for such a big honkin' ball. It's an itch that's been bugging me for 60 years, and I finally scratched it.

Next, let me describe my circumstances. I own a 200 acre farm in SW Bracken County, KY. I've got deer and turkey just out my back door. My goal is to try and take a deer, a turkey and a squirrel all in the same year with this Bess. Yeah, a fowler would have been a better choice, but the Bess has an 11 GA bore. The barrel is 42 " long and I've seen turkey-killing patterns produced out to 30 yards. A single .75 ball should take down deer at 75 yards.

Now for the practicalities. I've been seriously considering what to get for a long time. I did my research and found few fowlers about for under $2500. Bess can be had for under $1500 street price. I got mine for under $950. I figured buying now was better than waiting until I retired and paying more. My sons are both agog at the thing. Dad scored serious cool points on this one.

I'm not big on reenacting. I don't do the dress-up thing. However, I do read quite a bit of history, and I know quite a bit on how my family figures into it. I know that the Shreve brothers left the Society of Friends in the 1770's and threw in with Washington and served with him during the dark times in New Jersey, at Ticonderoga and at Brandywine. I know they stuck with old George through the worst of it, and George repaid the debt after the war by giving them a job running a sawmill on the Youghiogheny after the Quakers wouldn't take the brothers back. If they held muskets, they would have been Brown Bess from their New Jersey Regiment. One brother was Israel. He let the sawmill go to hell and ended up getting thrown in debtors' prison. His brother William is my kin. I have a folding bookcase that made it over the Alleghenies in William's wagon. William's crew went on to be involved in that whole oil thing at Titusville. Israel's son might be a name you know: Henry Miller Shreve, the inventor of the practical Mississippi steamboat.

 

[OhioHawkeye]

The first guns made in North America were smooth bore fowlers , using British , French or Dutch made barrels and locks . I recommend you buy Tom Grinsdale's most excellent book "Flintlock Fowlers , the first guns made in America ISBN 1-880655-17-9
https://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/278/1/BOOK-FF-S
It is now available in soft cover for about half of what I paid for mine .

No doubt, but the first guns made on the NA continent predated flintlocks... and was my point
Doesn't matter. Bess were much later than the fowlers even.

 

[FlinterNick]

Good video on bayonet lug vs front sight.

 

[Artificer]

Paraphrasing, "They always threw the paper from the cartridge away??!! (Well, sometimes they did after the bore got clogged from firing enough shots, but not as standard loading procedure. Get's a bit embarrassing when you don't keep the muzzle level or elevated and the ball falls out.)

"The bore of the Bess ran .73 to .75 caliber??!!! (Nonsense, they ran .76 to .78 caliber.)

"Aiming was of no consequence whatsoever??!! (An older continuation of that myth, as historic documentation has shown.)

"what is in fact a bayonet lug. It couldn't be placed on the underside of the weapon, because that's where the ramrod has to go...." (More nonsense as some French, Dutch and even some U.S. Springfield Muskets had bayonet lugs on the bottom. Further, if it was a bayonet lug, why didn't they mount it on one side of the barrel?)

I will say the targets with four misses out of 5 shots definitely shows what happens when Soldiers didn't even try to aim the Bess, though. Thank you.

"Since the volleys that came crashing into his ranks killed or wounded many of those about him??!! (Funny, it just showed four of five shots completely MISSED the enemy soldiers in ranks, further IF the muskets were as inaccurate as claimed, this statement is pure BS.)

I do also want to thank you as I laughed so hard many times at this guy putting forth pure poppycock.

Can't quite make out this Officer's Rank, though I think it was either a Major or Lt. Col. I would have stopped this Officer from embarrassing himself so badly and changed it to accurate information in my role as Division Ordnance Chief.

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

Paraphrasing, "They always threw the paper from the cartridge away??!! (Well, sometimes they did after the bore got clogged from firing enough shots, but not as standard loading procedure. Get's a bit embarrassing when you don't keep the muzzle level or elevated and the ball falls out.)

"The bore of the Bess ran .73 to .75 caliber??!!! (Nonsense, they ran .76 to .78 caliber.)

"Aiming was of no consequence whatsoever??!! (An older continuation of that myth, as historic documentation has shown.)

"what is in fact a bayonet lug. It couldn't be placed on the underside of the weapon, because that's where the ramrod has to go...." (More nonsense as some French, Dutch and even some U.S. Springfield Muskets had bayonet lugs on the bottom. Further, if it was a bayonet lug, why didn't mount it on one side of the barrel?)

I will say the targets with four misses out of 5 shots definitely shows what happens when Soldiers didn't even try to aim the Bess, though. Thank you.

"Since the volleys that came crashing into his ranks killed or wounded many of those about him??!! (Funny, it just showed four of five shots completely MISSED the enemy soldiers in ranks, further IF the muskets were as inaccurate as claimed, this statement is pure BS.)

I do also want to thank you as I laughed so hard many times at this guy putting forth pure poppycock.

Gus

Lol i knew youd love it !