Brown Bess or Charleville which is the better musket?

[FlinterNick]

This is a long standing rivalry discussion I have with reinactots the Brown Bess seems to always win somehow.

I prefer the charleville mostly because it’s a little more comfortable to shoot and I tend to regard it as a sturdier musket. The bands make it much easier to disassemble too.

I’m thinking about making a 1770 patten charelville from parts.

Thoughts ?

http://www.ladybemused.com/jaeger/NRA/The Redcoat's Brown Bess.htm

http://www.ladybemused.com/jaeger/NRA/The Revolutionary Charleville.htm

 

[tenngun]

What do you like? That is all that matters. Napoleon almost conquered Europe with Charlies,and we defeated John Bull twice with Charlies and Charlie knock offs.
I think the ‘second model’ Bess is the most beautiful military gun ever made. So I would choose Bess over Charlie, but only based on looks.

 

[FlinterNick]

What do you like? That is all that matters. Napoleon almost conquered Europe with Charlies,and we defeated John Bull twice with Charlies and Charlie knock offs.
I think the ‘second model’ Bess is the most beautiful military gun ever made. So I would choose Bess over Charlie, but only based on looks.

Brown Besses are an attractive gun; I have a short land 1776 Leige. It’s the same as the Pedersoli with a few modifications to the lock and second rammer pipe.

I prefer the charleville; it’s smaller gauge tends to be slightly more accurate and it’s a much more serviceable musket.

Nick

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
The French muskets were superior designs compared to the Brown Bess. They were lighter, stronger where it was important, and easier to maintain in the field largely because of the barrel bands. They were made completely at government arsenals rather than by a collection of cottage craftsmen organized by an ordnance department as were the British muskets. Therefore, the interchangeability of parts was much higher. British light infantry during the F&I war always preferred captured French model 1728 muskets to their own heavier Brown Besses or carbines. American soldiers during our Rev War much preferred the French muskets offered them. However, the early pattern Besses with a fair amount of drop in the butt stock are the best shooters for most of us. French muskets and later Besses have very straight stocks that are difficult for most to shoulder and aim properly. Finally, Besses are in many respects more elegant than their french counterparts although the French model 1728 musket is pretty nice.

dave

 

[Stumpkiller]

Of the variations on the Long Land Pattern ("Besses") I like the 1758 Light Infantry version. 0.662" bore, 42" barrel.

Regarding the original Charleville vs. Tower - when it came time for the fledgling USA to start our own armory program we "borrowed" very heavily from the Charleville 1763/66 design for the 1795 Springfield. I have confidence that was because at the time it was the favored design having used lots of both recently. And the "smaller" caliber was reported to have a range advantage for aimed fire.

I do like the lines of the Bess better, but either was a world beater and they faced each other equally.

 

[FlinterNick]

Regarding the Caliber of the Charleville Muskets.

The 1763 initial production was calibered around .72 as were the 1766, 1768 and 1770 patterns.

The .69 bore was an adoption of the later 1777 patterns.

 

[FlinterNick]

Of the variations on the Long Land Pattern ("Besses") I like the 1758 Light Infantry version. 0.662" bore, 42" barrel.

Regarding the original Charleville vs. Tower - when it came time for the fledgling USA to start our own armory program we "borrowed" very heavily from the Charleville 1763/66 design for the 1795 Springfield. I have confidence that was because at the time it was the favored design having used lots of both recently. And the "smaller" caliber was reported to have a range advantage for aimed fire.

I do like the lines of the Bess better, but either was a world beater and they faced each other equally.

I enjoy shooting my Brown Bess, however if I were a soldier in the field and wanted an easy to maintain and reliable weapon, the Charleville is my choice.

The Charleville can be fixed relatively easily, for hard cleaning it can be broken down quickly and it can be both a volley gun as well as a type of aimed smoothbore, sometimes it almost sometimes feels like you're shooting a fowling gun when compared to the Brown Bess.

 

[FlinterNick]

Hi,
The French muskets were superior designs compared to the Brown Bess. They were lighter, stronger where it was important, and easier to maintain in the field largely because of the barrel bands. They were made completely at government arsenals rather than by a collection of cottage craftsmen organized by an ordnance department as were the British muskets. Therefore, the interchangeability of parts was much higher. British light infantry during the F&I war always preferred captured French model 1728 muskets to their own heavier Brown Besses or carbines. American soldiers during our Rev War much preferred the French muskets offered them. However, the early pattern Besses with a fair amount of drop in the butt stock are the best shooters for most of us. French muskets and later Besses have very straight stocks that are difficult for most to shoulder and aim properly. Finally, Besses are in many respects more elegant than their french counterparts although the French model 1728 musket is pretty nice.

dave

Great points Dave.

At Yorktown this summer I did some side by side examining of Brown Bess Muskets and Charleville's.

The first thing you notice about an original bess is that its forestock is in poor shape, from pinning and un-pinning. The rod pipes are cracked, and some snap out of the stock leaving cracks and gashes. The locks seem to maintain rather well, however I've seen some with forged and replaced cocks and repair around the mortise. I've also seen several with wrist repairs, likely due to the wrist plate area being weaker.

Charleville's almost all look pretty completed with some stock wear. Some were missing band springs, (easy to replace). Lots of rust on iron parts.

I had a chance to look at some of the bores on the Charleville, the barrels are noticeably thicker than the Brown Bess's, of which many were redressed or taken down at the muzzle.

I've shot both Pedersoli, Miruko and a Track of the Wolf Brown Bess, the Track of the Wolf 1746 Brown Bess is very comfortable to shoot when compared to the Pedersoli. The Miruko are not bad, I think because the barrels were made a little lighter.

Nick

 

[dave_person]

Hi Nick,
I've built, reworked, and restored Brown Besses and French muskets. For most of its life, the Bess had a round faced lock whereas French muskets had flat locks. By default, the lock mortice of a round-faced lock is very shallow around the edges making the edges around the lock plate weak. I am sure that is why so many are worn and broken there. You won't see this with the production repro Besses because the lock mortice inletting is almost always too deep for the lock unlike any of the originals. The flat locks on French guns are inlet deeper and the mortice edges are stronger. The TOW Bess kit is a pattern 1742 with a lock marked later. TOWs lock is marked "Willets". The earliest I can find any example of locks marked Willets is 1762. This is John Willets of Wednesbury, which is close to Birmingham. It appears he was a very minor contractor with ordnance. It is possible that there are more "Willets" marked early Besses running around today than there ever were originally. Of the Besses, the earliest pattern (1730) with wooden rammer is the best shooter because it is lighter and has more drop at heel than the later patterns.

dave

 

[Tommy Bruce]

Both were the workhorses of their respective countries for years. The United States basically copied the Charleville model with the 1795 musket. I've owned several Brown Bess's over the years (mostly due to the persona I was portraying) and have no complaints. I'd love to get a Charleville!

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Napoleon almost conquered Europe with Charlies,and we defeated John Bull twice with Charlies and Charlie knock offs

ALMOST is right, and gee let me see, of actual battlefield engagements during the AWI, the Bess was victorious in the vast majority of battles. Napoleon was defeated at places like Salamanca, and later at Waterloo by fellows using The Bess! The French lost Canada to the British using The Bess, and they lost India to the British, who were using The Bess. The rest of the Indian subcontinent was mostly subdued and conquered with The Bess.

The French muskets were superior designs compared to the Brown Bess. They were lighter, stronger where it was important, and easier to maintain in the field largely because of the barrel bands. They were made completely at government arsenals rather than by a collection of cottage craftsmen organized by an ordnance department as were the British muskets. Therefore, the interchangeability of parts was much higher. British light infantry during the F&I war always preferred captured French model 1728 muskets to their own heavier Brown Besses or carbines. American soldiers during our Rev War much preferred the French muskets offered them.

Mr. Person, is right, and as much as us Anglofiles HATE to admit it however, the overall design features of the Charleville, and the American versions are better for the average infantryman of the 18th century to maintain in proper condition, plus the smaller caliber of the .69 meant less weight for ammunition, and greater range when using volley fire if both sides used similar powder charges. So it was/is a better design.

However, I find that the Spanish 1752/57 musket, which used bands as did the French but of brass (much more easily mass produced in less time with less skill) as well as brass hardware, and the innovative grooved frizzen face and ringed jaw screw, to be an even better option save for the S shaped cock. Which..., had that S shaped cock been (imho) swapped out for the French style cock while retaining the Spanish jaw-screw, the Spanish musket would then be hands down the best musket of the six major powers of the flint-musket-era. (British, French, Spanish, Germanic, Dutch, Russian)

Now the Potsdam 1809 was basically the Charleville with brass bands, BUT..., doesn't have the grooved frizzen nor the brass trigger guard, and like the French the front sight post is on the forward barrel band, while the Spanish uses a top-mounted bayonet lug also as a front sight post.

So probably the best actually produced (as opposed to my wish-list features on a non-existing musket) military flintlock musket from 1728 to 1850 was the German Potsdam 1809. All of the good features of the Charleville, with easier mass production using brass in several places.

LD

 

[Juice Jaws]

Go with what you like, if a Charleville is your first choice then its a no brainer. Doesn't matter what musket won the most wars, I have learn when I have two choices and I pick the second, I always wish I had pick my first choice. Of course I would pick the Bess.

 

[Artificer]

To me, the elegance of the “banana” shaped lock and more stock drop of the P 1742 Musket is difficult to beat. Too bad no P 1748 Muskets with that lock and the Steel Rammer ever made it here during the FIW, or I would have one. Though not a full size Musket, the P1756 Sergeant’s/Highlander Carbine with the 37 inch .66 caliber barrel is also very nice, but has the straighter stock and lock plate of the P 1756.

I was REALLY looking forward to seeing the British Team shoot original Brown Bess Muskets on my first trip to Wedgnock, UK for the World Championships in 1996. I was sorely disappointed that no one, and not even the British Team, fired original Besses in that competition. It was the general opinion they were not as accurate as the .69 cal. French Muskets OR the American Springfield/Harpers Ferry copies. Three members of the British Team asked me if any U.S. Team Member had a good/original Springfield Musket for sale. This as one British Team member mentioned even though they could get a French Musket a bit cheaper, they preferred the ones made “in their former colonies.”

The French were kind enough to stock Fort Louisbourg with a large number of earlier to 1728 Muskets, just waiting for British American Forces to take the Fort and empty it of all Arms in 1745, during the War of the Austrian Succession. But the French generosity did not stop there. After that war was over and Fort Louisbourg given back to the French, they re-stocked Fort Louisbourg once again. This time it was possible, if not probable the Muskets included M 1728/41 Muskets w/Steel Rammers. Much to the delight of British and British American forces when they captured Fort Louisbourg again in 1758, there were 15,000 French Small Arms available when they emptied out the Fort a second time.

By 1758 when they took Fort Louisbourg a second time, the British Light Infantry and some Highlanders were already armed with 42 inch barrel length, .66 Caliber Light Infantry Carbines. The Highlanders liked them or at least didn’t object to them, but the Light Infantry did not find them robust enough. Some Light Infantry Units actually went back to using standard .76 cal. P 1742 Muskets, because of it. However, the Light Infantry preferred the captured French Muskets, as did some Ranger Units and of course much or even most of the British American Militia. So even then there was a preference for the French Muskets by some British and British American Units.

However, even though the French Musket was the better Military Musket, the Brown Bess was plenty “good enough” for the British to win all the wars they fought directly with France, up to and including under Napoleon.

We Americans had no “National Pride of Military Muskets” from manufacturing our own, up to and including during the AWI. Though early in the war, some to many Committee of Safety Muskets were patterned after the Brown Bess, we found the French designs to be the better Military Muskets and of course they were not British.

For quite some time, I wondered why we copied the older pattern French M 1763/66 when we began our own production at Springfield with the M 1795. This because we had been given updated French M 11774 Muskets with the stronger rounded Cocks and Lockplates, to use during the War. American had seen French forces use the further updated M 1777 with the Brazz/Bronze Pans during the AWI, even if not many Americans were armed with them, but we Americans didn’t begin copying that musket until the M 1816 Springfield/Harpers Ferry. It just didn’t make sense why we copied the earlier French designs, instead?

As it turned out, Springfield was already used as a storage place for military items left over from the AWI and they had a good number of French M 1763/66 Muskets in storage, but also a large number of spare parts for the same. So as a cost savings measure, they used up the spare parts in the initial production of M1795 Muskets.

Gus

 

[Stumpkiller]

I enjoy shooting my Brown Bess, however if I were a soldier in the field and wanted an easy to maintain and reliable weapon, the Charleville is my choice.

The Charleville can be fixed relatively easily, for hard cleaning it can be broken down quickly and it can be both a volley gun as well as a type of aimed smoothbore, sometimes it almost sometimes feels like you're shooting a fowling gun when compared to the Brown Bess.

??? Both only require two screws be removed for cleaning. And one top-jaw screw to change flints (Both also cross-drilled for a pin instead of a turnscrew). I owned a Bess for 15 years as a primary hunting weapon (rain and snow included) and only took the barrel off once (first year) and thereafter decided it was unnecessary.

In military service the sergeants were issued screwdrivers and (I have read) it was a whipping offense for a British soldier to disassemble his own musket.

I've never unpinned the barrel on either my flintlock rifle and fowler. Just no need to and only a risk of wood damage.

 

[FlinterNick]

??? Both only require two screws be removed for cleaning. And one top-jaw screw to change flints (Both also cross-drilled for a pin instead of a turnscrew). I owned a Bess for 15 years as a primary hunting weapon (rain and snow included) and only took the barrel off once (first year) and thereafter decided it was unnecessary.

In military service the sergeants were issued screwdrivers and (I have read) it was a whipping offense for a British soldier to disassemble his own musket.

I've never unpinned the barrel on either my flintlock rifle and fowler. Just no need to and only a risk of wood damage.

I unpinned mine for repairs; not for cleaning. I purchased a used 1976 miruko bess; forestock split in the channel.

 

[FlinterNick]

To me, the elegance of the “banana” shaped lock and more stock drop of the P 1742 Musket is difficult to beat. Too bad no P 1748 Muskets with that lock and the Steel Rammer ever made it here during the FIW, or I would have one. Though not a full size Musket, the P1756 Sergeant’s/Highlander Carbine with the 37 inch .66 caliber barrel is also very nice, but has the straighter stock and lock plate of the P 1756.

I was REALLY looking forward to seeing the British Team shoot original Brown Bess Muskets on my first trip to Wedgnock, UK for the World Championships in 1996. I was sorely disappointed that no one, and not even the British Team, fired original Besses in that competition. It was the general opinion they were not as accurate as the .69 cal. French Muskets OR the American Springfield/Harpers Ferry copies. Three members of the British Team asked me if any U.S. Team Member had a good/original Springfield Musket for sale. This as one British Team member mentioned even though they could get a French Musket a bit cheaper, they preferred the ones made “in their former colonies.”

The French were kind enough to stock Fort Louisbourg with a large number of earlier to 1728 Muskets, just waiting for British American Forces to take the Fort and empty it of all Arms in 1745, during the War of the Austrian Succession. But the French generosity did not stop there. After that war was over and Fort Louisbourg given back to the French, they re-stocked Fort Louisbourg once again. This time it was possible, if not probable the Muskets included M 1728/41 Muskets w/Steel Rammers. Much to the delight of British and British American forces when they captured Fort Louisbourg again in 1758, there were 15,000 French Small Arms available when they emptied out the Fort a second time.

By 1758 when they took Fort Louisbourg a second time, the British Light Infantry and some Highlanders were already armed with 42 inch barrel length, .66 Caliber Light Infantry Carbines. The Highlanders liked them or at least didn’t object to them, but the Light Infantry did not find them robust enough. Some Light Infantry Units actually went back to using standard .76 cal. P 1742 Muskets, because of it. However, the Light Infantry preferred the captured French Muskets, as did some Ranger Units and of course much or even most of the British American Militia. So even then there was a preference for the French Muskets by some British and British American Units.

However, even though the French Musket was the better Military Musket, the Brown Bess was plenty “good enough” for the British to win all the wars they fought directly with France, up to and including under Napoleon.

We Americans had no “National Pride of Military Muskets” from manufacturing our own, up to and including during the AWI. Though early in the war, some to many Committee of Safety Muskets were patterned after the Brown Bess, we found the French designs to be the better Military Muskets and of course they were not British.

For quite some time, I wondered why we copied the older pattern French M 1763/66 when we began our own production at Springfield with the M 1795. This because we had been given updated French M 11774 Muskets with the stronger rounded Cocks and Lockplates, to use during the War. American had seen French forces use the further updated M 1777 with the Brazz/Bronze Pans during the AWI, even if not many Americans were armed with them, but we Americans didn’t begin copying that musket until the M 1816 Springfield/Harpers Ferry. It just didn’t make sense why we copied the earlier French designs, instead?

As it turned out, Springfield was already used as a storage place for military items left over from the AWI and they had a good number of French M 1763/66 Muskets in storage, but also a large number of spare parts for the same. So as a cost savings measure, they used up the spare parts in the initial production of M1795 Muskets.

Gus

Great points Gus however I’d argue the British won their wars with money and ships; the Brown Bess is No doubt a great musket and love shooting mine. the British knew they had to cut costs of its production drastically from the graceful longland to the short land to the India pattern muskets. Some would say the ‘new land patter’ was the highest quality but not many were produced.

 

[FlinterNick]

Hi,
The French muskets were superior designs compared to the Brown Bess. They were lighter, stronger where it was important, and easier to maintain in the field largely because of the barrel bands. They were made completely at government arsenals rather than by a collection of cottage craftsmen organized by an ordnance department as were the British muskets. Therefore, the interchangeability of parts was much higher. British light infantry during the F&I war always preferred captured French model 1728 muskets to their own heavier Brown Besses or carbines. American soldiers during our Rev War much preferred the French muskets offered them. However, the early pattern Besses with a fair amount of drop in the butt stock are the best shooters for most of us. French muskets and later Besses have very straight stocks that are difficult for most to shoulder and aim properly. Finally, Besses are in many respects more elegant than their french counterparts although the French model 1728 musket is pretty nice.

dave

Is the 1756 comfortable to shoot? ; hard to tell from an illustration and I’ve only seen them shot before.

 

[tenngun]

ALMOST is right, and gee let me see, of actual battlefield engagements during the AWI, the Bess was victorious in the vast majority of battles. Napoleon was defeated at places like Salamanca, and later at Waterloo by fellows using The Bess! The French lost Canada to the British using The Bess, and they lost India to the British, who were using The Bess. The rest of the Indian subcontinent was mostly subdued and conquered with The Bess.





Mr. Person, is right, and as much as us Anglofiles HATE to admit it however, the overall design features of the Charleville, and the American versions are better for the average infantryman of the 18th century to maintain in proper condition, plus the smaller caliber of the .69 meant less weight for ammunition, and greater range when using volley fire if both sides used similar powder charges. So it was/is a better design.

However, I find that the Spanish 1752/57 musket, which used bands as did the French but of brass (much more easily mass produced in less time with less skill) as well as brass hardware, and the innovative grooved frizzen face and ringed jaw screw, to be an even better option save for the S shaped cock. Which..., had that S shaped cock been (imho) swapped out for the French style cock while retaining the Spanish jaw-screw, the Spanish musket would then be hands down the best musket of the six major powers of the flint-musket-era. (British, French, Spanish, Germanic, Dutch, Russian)

Now the Potsdam 1809 was basically the Charleville with brass bands, BUT..., doesn't have the grooved frizzen nor the brass trigger guard, and like the French the front sight post is on the forward barrel band, while the Spanish uses a top-mounted bayonet lug also as a front sight post.

So probably the best actually produced (as opposed to my wish-list features on a non-existing musket) military flintlock musket from 1728 to 1850 was the German Potsdam 1809. All of the good features of the Charleville, with easier mass production using brass in several places.

LD

I was being tongue in cheek, about how one gun was better then the other. I don’t think there is a dimes difference between the gunsfor their intended use. If one was joining a military group the choice was made two centuries ago as to what gun to carry. As a civilian you might get your hands on x via different means that would make it a catch as catch can. Should you want a gun to shoot the only question is which one you like the most.
Battles are won by training ,discipline,tactics, sometimes blind luck, the side that made the least mistakes on the field, esprit de corps, logistics, when the end performance of the equipment is close the equipment really doesn’t matter.

 

[FlinterNick]

I was being tongue in cheek, about how one gun was better then the other. I don’t think there is a dimes difference between the gunsfor their intended use. If one was joining a military group the choice was made two centuries ago as to what gun to carry. As a civilian you might get your hands on x via different means that would make it a catch as catch can. Should you want a gun to shoot the only question is which one you like the most.
Battles are won by training ,discipline,tactics, sometimes blind luck, the side that made the least mistakes on the field, esprit de corps, logistics, when the end performance of the equipment is close the equipment really doesn’t matter.

The British didn’t win wars because of the Brown Bess As a superior firearm they win wars For a lot of reasons but having the better musket was not why ..... The British had the money they had the raw materials, Their colonial empire Was strategically located in almost every corner of the globe they had the ports they had the ships they had leader ship. Brown bess muskets Were contracted To other countries Who did not successfully defeat their adversaries.

The charleville muskets design in my opinion paved the way For many modern firearms; the use of barrel bands was eventually adopted by almost every military even the British who had begrudgingly held on to the Bess pattern until the age of rifled muskets proved that Brown Bess was obsolete .....f muskets like charlevilles Springfields and even some Prussian guns had old stores of .69 muskets rifled .... Brown Bess could not be anymore.

 

[Artificer]

As a U.S. Marine and amateur historian, you will get no argument from me as to the contributions of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines to the military victories of the UK, as well as even the survival of the realm, itself. Whilst touring the Tower of London in 1996, I found out a particularly squared away looking Beefeater was in fact a retired Marine Battalion Sergeant Major. I announced to a large crowd that, “Her Majesty’s Jewelry Box was completed secure, because there was at least one Royal Marine guarding it!” Per Mare Per Terram !

Mount Vernon, the pride of George Washington, was named that after Admiral Vernon, under who George Washington’s brother Lawrence served as a Marine Officer in 1740.

One of the best known British Marines in history, is not often recognized as having been a Marine, even on this continent, let alone by the UK. #1

Yet Wars are rarely won by Sea Power alone; nor is most territory defended, taken and held by Sea Power. Armies usually have to be beaten on land to do that. Napoleon had to be captured on land, twice. So one cannot dismiss the importance of the British Army using the Brown Bess so often to defeat those who used the French Muskets.

Gus


#1 Major General James Wolfe, the Conqueror of Quebec in the FIW, was first commissioned and learned his trade as a British Marine.