Brown Bess -Why

[French Colonial]

Yes the Brown Bess is large, but not awkward unless you compare them to civilian fowlers, which is comparing apples to oranges. It weighed 10.5 pounds or less loaded w/o bayonet. For perspective, the M1 and M14 Rifles loaded w/o bayonet weighed the same.

Gus

Your making my point, they are apples and oranges, why squeeze an apple when you want orange juice. Why use a Bess or Charleville when you want to hunt upland game or break clay pigeons?

The M1 Garand and M14 were some of the best combat rifles ever invented, There are much better alternatives for deer hunting.

It all depends on what is best for the intended endeavor.

 

[Artificer]

Well, I think if you consider the actual battlefield casualties that occurred with the Brown Bess in use in the Seven Years War, American Revolutionary Wars and Napoleonic Wars, the casualty rates of wounded to actual dead were much higher (rather than actual dead from musket shots), so perhaps that fella has a logical point based on record battlefield casualties, and I overall casualty rates were just not that high in most 18th century battles, even in battles where the British had amassed 10-20,000 troops, casualties. For example Minden, long lands were of the 1742, 48 and 55 model were used, 37,000 troops vs. French .72 Charlevilles and Austrian Muskets, the rate of wounded and dead for the french was 15-17%,.

At Quebec in 1759 the Brown Bess a nearly 30 yards had its most devastating effect, taking out most of the French advance, however I don’t think the Brown Bess had anything to do with that nearly as Wolfe’s decision to hold fire, any musket presented at 30 yards would have dispatched the hasty french advance. Yet Still casually rates for the french were between 15 and 18% in the entire campaign.

The comparison of the Bess to an M1 and M14 Gus, in my opinion is just not equitable. Let’s line up a bunch of redcoats with an M1 and what’s your casualty rate with aimed shots vs. a Brown Bess with aimed shots at 75 yards.

As for hunting fowl and deer, they don’t shoot back, you can focus on our aiming position much better you’re not concerned about your own life being taken.

The battlefield strategies with an M1 or M14 were not the same with the Brown Bess, bayonets were rarely used in pitch combat circumstances and the casualty rates of wounded to dead closed in modern wars.

Killing wasn't more important on the 18th century European battlefield than wounding an enemy enough to get him out of action, still you actually had to hit them to wound them.

The problem with merely taking battlefield casualty counts is we often don't know how many dead and wounded came from what opposing weapons and then we don't often consider how tough the fighting was in different parts of the battlefield.

Further, skillful manipulation of troops on the battlefield at the right time, also could lead to more or less casualties.

The overall casualties I got from one site were:

Prussian/British Losses 2,762 killed, wounded or missing
French Losses 7,000 killed, wounded or missing

So the French losses were 2 1/2 times that of the Prussian/British Forces and that was pretty darn impressive!!

You wrote, "The comparison of the Bess to an M1 and M14 Gus, in my opinion is just not equitable."

I agree and made no such comparison. The only thing I compared was the WEIGHTS of the arms, nothing else.

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

Killing wasn't more important on the 18th century European battlefield than wounding an enemy enough to get him out of action, still you actually had to hit them to wound them.

The problem with merely taking battlefield casualty counts is we often don't know how many dead and wounded came from what opposing weapons and then we don't often consider how tough the fighting was in different parts of the battlefield.

Further, skillful manipulation of troops on the battlefield at the right time, also could lead to more or less casualties.

The overall casualties I got from one site were:

Prussian/British Losses 2,762 killed, wounded or missing
French Losses 7,000 killed, wounded or missing

So the French losses were 2 1/2 times that of the Prussian/British Forces and that was pretty darn impressive!!

You wrote, "The comparison of the Bess to an M1 and M14 Gus, in my opinion is just not equitable."

I agree and made no such comparison. The only thing I compared was the WEIGHTS of the arms, nothing else.

Gus

Gus I think the weight on a Brown Bess is heavier than 10.5 lbs. Especially on long and short lands. I never trusted the weights measured by Moller and Neumann, the muskets were all over the place in terms of wood density, sap wood used, if it was dried to short etc.

I’ve held some original third models that were over 11 lbs and some that felt like their were under 10 lbs. I just never trust a surmised weight, the only thing I can logically say is french muskets were lighter than British and Prussian muskets.

 

[Artificer]

Gus I think the weight on a Brown Bess is heavier than 10.5 lbs. Especially on long and short lands. I never trusted the weights measured by Moller and Neumann, the muskets were all over the place in terms of wood density, sap wood used, if it was dried to short etc.

I’ve held some original third models that were over 11 lbs and some that felt like their were under 10 lbs. I just never trust a surmised weight, the only thing I can logically say is french muskets were lighter than British and Prussian muskets.

There naturally is going to be muskets (and the other arms I mentioned) that will vary in weight from the average weights normally given. Usually this comes from the differences in wood type and density.

Yep, historic documentation shows the French Muskets didn't weigh as much as the English muskets of the same periods.

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

All this talk about sights and musket aiming, no mentioning of Spanish miquulets and escopetas, these were probably some of the most well balanced and accurate arms of any 18th century army, not sure if they were signed, I know the 1752 was very much like the French 1754 musket with just a lug at the end of the barrel..

 

[Artificer]

All this talk about sights and musket aiming, no mentioning of Spanish miquulets and escopetas, these were probably some of the most well balanced and accurate arms of any 18th century army, not sure if they were signed, I know the 1752 was very much like the French 1754 musket with just a lug at the end of the barrel..

Yeah, though some of them were used here in the FIW and less in the AWI, they weren't the main muskets of the opponents.

JUST MY OPINION, though I can appreciate some things about the Spanish guns, they are just too ugly for me to want to own one.

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

Yeah, though some of them were used here in the FIW and less in the AWI, they weren't the main muskets of the opponents.

JUST MY OPINION, though I can appreciate some things about the Spanish guns, they are just too ugly for me to want to own one.

Gus

The 1752 musket is a nice one ! One of the best locks I’ve ever seen from the Rifle Shoppe, very beefy internals and a super strong mainspring. This musket used the miqulet mainspring and found it to be too strong. The Spanish for some reason went back to the miqulete I think it had something to do with the royal families having less French influence.

 

[2 shots]

why a bess?? why not???

 

[JCKelly]

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

Notice that the first two guns have stocks that were colored/painted black. When the "Broen Bess" as adopted it was the first British musket with no black applied to the stock. Hence, to the common soldier it was the "brown gun" In common English - not Shakespear, that was said as "brown bess". Brown meant just what you'd think - BROWN, not colored/painted black. And, although today's Englishman may not be aware, "bess" was from the old German word for "gun". Had nothing to do with any woman's name. With all respect to our British members here, in America we have kept some of these obsolete words in the language of Southern blacks. Their enslaved families learned 16th or 17th Century English as spoken by rural English, the Southern plantation owners. They did NOT speak as Shakespeare wrote. To them a gun was something like a "bess", and to shoot at someone was then, and still was when I was young, to "buss" them. I recall in the 1970's a Detroit newspaper quoting a black resident sying something like "...he buss at me, I buss back". At that time I spoke with a Caucasian man from Alabama who said "I know what that means"
So . . . just don't "buss" at your friends. And do not look for the term "Brown Bess" in any fine English literature of the 17th Century.

 

[Robby]

This just keeps getting interestinger and interestinger!
Robby

 

[Rifleman1776]

To them a gun was something like a "bess", and to shoot at someone was then, and still was when I was young, to "buss" them.

Interesting. Never hear that term before.

 

[tenngun]

No personal criticism, but every time someone mentions this, I just shake my head.

I often think to myself, "Have you ever hunted rabbits, or quail with a round barreled shotgun with only a single front sight on it?" Pheasants, ducks and geese are as fast, if not faster and we shoot them all day long at ranges of 30 to 40 yards or more with only a single front sight. Turkey are bigger and don't fly as fast and I got mine with Number 4 buck at 55 yards on the fly. (Yes, I have witnesses.) We couldn't hunt deer when I grew up in Iowa, but I've been able to do so here in Virginia and that is a HUGE critter compared to a pheasant or goose. I've taken deer at 45 yards in a flat out run with buckshot and only a single front sight. I confess I've never shot slugs at more than 75 yards, but had no problems doing it with a single front sight at that range on deer with a single front sight.

The point I'm making is a single front sight is more than good enough for man size targets out to what the British believed was effective range of 60 yards, but that due more to the cartridge ammo than the sights.

Gus

I think I wasn’t clear. As a sight the bess sight is poor, as were earlier and later sights.
Learning to shoot back then including the skill of using poorly designed sights.
we do see some sixteen century guns with much better sights then what we would put on rifles a century later.
It’s not that you can’t do some fine shooting with primitive sights it’s just they are primitive.
There were some good sight systems back to the first target guns, but until after the advent of smokeless powders and breach loading sights remained an acquired skill, an art
We can’t look at a bess sight and compare it to better sights of a later age.

 

[FlinterNick]

I think I wasn’t clear. As a sight the bess sight is poor, as were earlier and later sights.
Learning to shoot back then including the skill of using poorly designed sights.
we do see some sixteen century guns with much better sights then what we would put on rifles a century later.
It’s not that you can’t do some fine shooting with primitive sights it’s just they are primitive.
There were some good sight systems back to the first target guns, but until after the advent of smokeless powders and breach loading sights remained an acquired skill, an art
We can’t look at a bess sight and compare it to better sights of a later age.

Probably why they came up with the concept of buck n ball. Who needs a sight !

 

[FlinterNick]

I think I wasn’t clear. As a sight the bess sight is poor, as were earlier and later sights.
Learning to shoot back then including the skill of using poorly designed sights.
we do see some sixteen century guns with much better sights then what we would put on rifles a century later.
It’s not that you can’t do some fine shooting with primitive sights it’s just they are primitive.
There were some good sight systems back to the first target guns, but until after the advent of smokeless powders and breach loading sights remained an acquired skill, an art
We can’t look at a bess sight and compare it to better sights of a later age.

I think the 1815 new land pattern infantry musket had a rear sight and front sight and bayonet lug.

 

[tenngun]

I think the 1815 new land pattern infantry musket had a rear sight and front sight and bayonet lug.

I did not know they had a rear

 

[FlinterNick]

I did not know they had a rear

https://collections.royalarmouries....o/arms-and-armour/type/rac-narrative-270.html

 

[Artificer]

https://collections.royalarmouries....o/arms-and-armour/type/rac-narrative-270.html

I wonder if that (front) sight is the original height and not modified? If it is the original sight height, it says a lot about using that sight for more accurate shooting.

Gus

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Here is a link to the British Royal Armories and the explanation of the name "Brown Bess". It had nothing to do with its stock color, nothing to do with any German word for gun, and nothing to do with "good Queen Bess". It meant a drab woman of low repute, the soldiers best friend.
https://royalarmouries.org/stories/our-collection/brown-bess-musket-or-mistress/
During much of its career in active use it was not referred to as "brown Bess" but the "King's musket".

dave

 

[JCKelly]

Somewhere, one of you gentlemen may know where, I recall hearing that, I believe during our revolution, some British unit/units were doing target practice with their as-issued muskets.

 

[Hatman/2nd line]

Notice that the first two guns have stocks that were colored/painted black. When the "Broen Bess" as adopted it was the first British musket with no black applied to the stock. Hence, to the common soldier it was the "brown gun" In common English - not Shakespear, that was said as "brown bess". Brown meant just what you'd think - BROWN, not colored/painted black. And, although today's Englishman may not be aware, "bess" was from the old German word for "gun". Had nothing to do with any woman's name. With all respect to our British members here, in America we have kept some of these obsolete words in the language of Southern blacks. Their enslaved families learned 16th or 17th Century English as spoken by rural English, the Southern plantation owners. They did NOT speak as Shakespeare wrote. To them a gun was something like a "bess", and to shoot at someone was then, and still was when I was young, to "buss" them. I recall in the 1970's a Detroit newspaper quoting a black resident sying something like "...he buss at me, I buss back". At that time I spoke with a Caucasian man from Alabama who said "I know what that means"
So . . . just don't "buss" at your friends. And do not look for the term "Brown Bess" in any fine English literature of the 17th Century.

Thank you sir for the great lesson!