- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 17,433
- Reaction score
- 16,436
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
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
Horses enjoy racing, and are herd animals and will fight for ‘their herds’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 .
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 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
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
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." 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
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.
".....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
And all of it Pre Brown Bess "The Kings Musket" was introduced when ?
That surprises me, so why have you ignored it ?
Probably shortly after the Queen's (Anne) Musket pattern was upgraded.And all of it Pre Brown Bess "The Kings Musket" was introduced when ?
Soviets made extensive use of Cavalry right up to the battle of Berlin.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
Exactly why I love mine so much.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.
Probably shortly after the Queen's (Anne) Musket pattern was upgraded.
Soviets made extensive use of Cavalry right up to the battle of Berlin.
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.
Let me speak from personal experience using paper wrapped cartridges during woods walks where we are firing multiple rounds at a station.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
Enter your email address to join: