Brown Bess -Why

[Artificer]

Lol i knew youd love it !

I can't even begin to say how much I was glad that isn't a Marine Officer! LOL!!

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

I can't even begin to say how much I was glad that isn't a Marine Officer! LOL!!

Gus

What about putting the ball in his mouth ? To lubricate it ? I though at was interesting. Even back in the 18th century lead poisoning was known.

 

[tenngun]

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 .

Horses enjoy racing, and are herd animals and will fight for ‘their herds’
And can get very vicious when excited

 

[Coinneach]

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 .

I've had Australian Stock Horses for decades and agree, in general Horses "process" what they see, that said put them into a situation like the French Heavy Cavalry charging the Brit Squares at Quatre Bras or Waterloo and the noise, smoke and bloody carnage and it would be hell for Horses. Lets not forget that in the 18th &19th centuries European Cavalry Horses weren't actually conditioned to Cannon or Musket fire etc other than on the battlefield.

 

[Coinneach]

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

That surprises me, so why have you ignored it ?

 

[DuncNZ]

Good video on bayonet lug vs front sight.

He said Cavalry were never used again , they were used in just about every battle/war on land until 1939 when Polish cavalry bravely attacked German amour

 

[Coinneach]

He said Cavalry were never used again , they were used in just about every battle/war on land until 1939 when Polish cavalry bravely attacked German amour

Brits were still using Horse Mounted Cavalry in Syria as late as 1941, here in Australia the 10th Light Horse regiment were still Horse mounted troops and patrolled the west coast through until 1944.

 

[Jay Templin]

" the first being that it’s not a bayonet lug,..."
Then why was it designed in shape, thickness, width and depth to lock the standard issue Bayonet in place ?
The primary reason "the Lug" was on the Bess Barrel was to secure the Bayonet, naturally it was positioned as a reference point for sighting and used as such.

If it was designed as a bayonet lug, why did they start putting them on their muskets when they were still using plug bayonets because they didn’t have socket bayonets yet? Matchlocks in the 1500s had identical sights before ANY bayonets had been invented. It. Is. A. Sight. I’m sorry that the facts disagree with whatever Pappy told all you “bayonet lug” guys back in the Bicentennial, but there it is. And to save time, it’s a ****, not a Hammer, and a Battery, not a frizzen or frissom or whatever other “authentic” Hollywood gibberish you’ve heard.
Good evening, gentlemen.
Jay

 

[Coinneach]

If it was designed as a bayonet lug, why did they start putting them on their muskets when they were still using plug bayonets because they didn’t have socket bayonets yet? Matchlocks in the 1500s had identical sights before ANY bayonets had been invented. It. Is. A. Sight. I’m sorry that the facts disagree with whatever Pappy told all you “bayonet lug” guys back in the Bicentennial, but there it is. And to save time, it’s a ****, not a Hammer, and a Battery, not a frizzen or frissom or whatever other “authentic” Hollywood gibberish you’ve heard.
Good evening, gentlemen.
Jay

".....why did they start putting them on their muskets when they were still using plug bayonets because they didn’t have socket bayonets yet"

And your reference is ?

 

[Artificer]

What about putting the ball in his mouth ? To lubricate it ? I though at was interesting. Even back in the 18th century lead poisoning was known.

The idea was with a bore that was so fouled from firing many rounds, the spittle would help get the ball past any fouling that might otherwise restrict it from going down the bore. Now again, this was not standard loading practice, but something relied upon only when a bore was so heavily fouled. Basically an extreme or emergency measure.

In that case, I don't think they worried about lead poisoning in their mouth as much as lead poisoning from an enemy's ball in their bollocks.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

".....why did they start putting them on their muskets when they were still using plug bayonets because they didn’t have socket bayonets yet"

And your reference is ?

How about the British National Army Museum?

Though I could go further back with British Military Matchlock Muskets with front sights, I will concentrate on the period the British Army began using the plug bayonet.

Here is the common musket that was still in use when the British Army first began using plug bayonets. Notice the Sight?
Flintlock English lock musket, 1660 (c) | Online Collection | National Army Museum, London (nam.ac.uk)

Here is the common musket that was used from 1688-1702 when there is no doubt the plug bayonet was in general use in the British Army. Notice the Sight?

Flintlock musket, 1690 (c) | Online Collection | National Army Museum, London (nam.ac.uk)


The National Army Museum's online collection doesn't seem to have an example of an unmodified 1703 Musket (also with front sight, btw). This was the musket the British had and MODIFIED for their first socket bayonets they bought from the Dutch in 1715. (According to Erik Goldstein also, BTW)

However, here is an example of one that had been modified in or later than 1715. OH MY GOD, THEY KEPT THE FRONT SIGHT ON IT AFTER THEY MODIFIED IT FOR THE SOCKET BAYONET!

Flintlock dog-lock musket, 1704 | Online Collection | National Army Museum, London (nam.ac.uk)

Gus

 

[Coinneach]

How about the British National Army Museum?

Though I could go further back with British Military Matchlock Muskets with front sights, I will concentrate on the period the British Army began using the plug bayonet.

Here is the common musket that was still in use when the British Army first began using plug bayonets. Notice the Sight?
Flintlock English lock musket, 1660 (c) | Online Collection | National Army Museum, London (nam.ac.uk)

Here is the common musket that was used from 1688-1702 when there is no doubt the plug bayonet was in general use in the British Army. Notice the Sight?

Flintlock musket, 1690 (c) | Online Collection | National Army Museum, London (nam.ac.uk)


The National Army Museum's online collection doesn't seem to have an example of an unmodified 1703 Musket (also with front sight, btw). This was the musket the British had and MODIFIED for their first socket bayonets they bought from the Dutch in 1715. (According to Erik Goldstein also, BTW)

However, here is an example of one that had been modified in or later than 1715. OH MY GOD, THEY KEPT THE FRONT SIGHT ON IT AFTER THEY MODIFIED IT FOR THE SOCKET BAYONET!

Flintlock dog-lock musket, 1704 | Online Collection | National Army Museum, London (nam.ac.uk)

Gus

And all of it Pre Brown Bess "The Kings Musket" was introduced when ?

 

[Artificer]

And all of it Pre Brown Bess "The Kings Musket" was introduced when ?

YES, it was all Pre P1730 Muskets that became known as the Brown Bess.

You asked for documentation the (front) sight was used [It was actually standard then and much earlier] on British Military Muskets when Plug Bayonets were used and now you have indisputable proof of it.

As of 1715 they began using the sight in the secondary role of a bayonet lug when they began using socket bayonets.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Artificer said:
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

That surprises me, so why have you ignored it ?

I haven't ignored it. Did you miss my reference to it the first time on page 4 in my post #98 to demonstrate the sight was rectangular in shape as originally manufactured?

In post 181 on page 10 I referenced Dr. Bailey's research on the dimensions of the sight as originally manufactured of 1/4" long by 1/8" wide and asked if you knew the original sight height because you stated the Pedersoli sight was different from the originals.

Your reply was. " No I dont have the original specs, I do believe the photos of the originals I provided were more than adequate. "

The problem with going off pictures ALONE is that these muskets have seen between 200 to 250 plus years of original use and often damage in the period and that always included Artificers repairing or modifying them, THEN collectors messing them up over the years as well.

The CLOSEST thing there is to an original condition musket are the ones purchased from the English Manor Flixton Hall, yet even those show damage and wear/repair from decades upon decades of cleaning.

That's why I consider it is extremely important to use the original specs for what the sight dimensions were when manufactured for this kind of discussion, because we are talking about their use when they were new or at least originally in service in the British Army.


Gus

 

[Grenadier1758]

And all of it Pre Brown Bess "The Kings Musket" was introduced when ?

Probably shortly after the Queen's (Anne) Musket pattern was upgraded.

 

[fireman1]

He said Cavalry were never used again , they were used in just about every battle/war on land until 1939 when Polish cavalry bravely attacked German amour

Soviets made extensive use of Cavalry right up to the battle of Berlin.

 

[OldSmoky1967]

Brown Bess Muskets, in particular the long land patterns, have just as much a place in American History as the Charleville(s). I would even make an argument that the Spanish 1752 musket has a very important role in American History in the South, notably in Florida, Louisiana and Texas.

You have to remember that the Bess was the primary arm used by the American provincial forces in the French and Indian War and older Long Lands, militia muskets, contracts Bess’s and bess style fusils were used primarially by provisional militia and later on stores of these were used in the earlier part of the war by the fledgling continental army.

Many American made muskets were also patterned after the Brown Bess. The Charleville pattern was an officially adopted until after the War.

Exactly why I love mine so much.

 

[FlinterNick]

Probably shortly after the Queen's (Anne) Musket pattern was upgraded.

Gus back to my original argument with the angry fellas statement was that you MUST not call it a bayonet lug, this is just not logical.

Its not that the stud isn’t used as a front sight, or isn’t a front sight, at some point the ordnance department found the improvement of the socket bayonet to allow for a greater augmentation of the musket uses when piked, as our West Point fella said which is probably the only accurate thing he said too.

With the advent of the socket bayonet as early as the George the first and Queen Ann Muskets (Dutch Versions Outfitted with socket bayonets, not the dog locks). This allowed musket builders to take that stud and give it a dual purpose. It was a purse cost saving opportunity the British ordinance department took full advantage of for the next 200 years. No front sight and lug mounted beneath the muzzle, no extra brass or steel, no casting or forging cost, no brazing cost. This probably equates to the same cost of mounting, brazing or dovetailing a barrel tenon.

The stud at the end of the barrel serves a dual purpose with its primary as a bayonet lug.

And in that primary statement i make, let me be clear in the 1764 manual of arms, fitting the socket bayonet came before any presentation to fire, primary.

I’m not argument the stud isn’t also a front sight, I just don’t see how anyone can logically say it is one or the other which is why writers such as Bailey denote it as a sight / stud or lug / and sight.

Now I will question its effectiveness in combat as a front sight, we can debate the effectiveness all day about how its shape down range can be used to aim, what you can’t really debate is the talent of the shooter to make good use of that sight, especially with that bayonet on there when fitting.

In a situation where the present to fire command is given without bayonets fixed, I absolutely agree its a front sight in that circumstance.

The one or the other argument…. serves a dual purpose and can be called a bayonet lug or a sight or a stud.

 

[FlinterNick]

Soviets made extensive use of Cavalry right up to the battle of Berlin.

Most of the German army was actually horse drawn, we tend to think it was all tanks, motorbikes and trucks, but it wasn’t. Now the Germans no Calvary, I think the Polish actually did have Calvary.

 

[Grenadier1758]

What about putting the ball in his mouth ? To lubricate it ? I though at was interesting. Even back in the 18th century lead poisoning was known.

The idea was with a bore that was so fouled from firing many rounds, the spittle would help get the ball past any fouling that might otherwise restrict it from going down the bore. Now again, this was not standard loading practice, but something relied upon only when a bore was so heavily fouled. Basically an extreme or emergency measure.

In that case, I don't think they worried about lead poisoning in their mouth as much as lead poisoning from an enemy's ball in their bollocks.

Gus

Let me speak from personal experience using paper wrapped cartridges during woods walks where we are firing multiple rounds at a station.

Consistent with standard military practice we load our paper cartridges using pretty dirty powder (Reenactor grade) but we use a 0.715" diameter ball. To conserve time for making our cartridges, we do not lubricate the ball end. After two or three shots the fouling is building up quite a bit and loading becomes difficult to the point of balls sticking in the bore. One method to ease loading is to spit on the ball end of the cartridge or put the ball end in one's mouth to moisten the paper. I can easily load as the fouling builds up. Then after shooting is halted, I spit on my ball of tow on a thread to wipe the bore to remove most of the fouling. That can also be done during the firing, but that can mean one less ball down range when every shot counts. When time permits, I rinse the ball of tow to clean the fouling from the ball. The heat from firing multiple rounds dries the bore quickly as we go to the next station.

As to why the Bess? The large bore is easy to load resulting in more shots when multiple targets are encountered. The Bess is easy to reload. The big lock is reliable (even with our reproduction muskets). Typically, we get off more shots than the teams using the French replicas. More misses sometimes, but often more hits.