Brown Bess -Why

[FlinterNick]

Since there are so many knowledgeable people on this thread regarding the Brown Bess, is it true that many of the muskets used by the Mexican army to take the Alamo were Besses? If so, were they sold/given to the Mexicans by England to poke us in the eye?

the mexican government had purchased mostly third model brown besss …. Some second models could have been sent over. However by the time of the mexican american war those brown bess’s were old and ugly. The americans out armed and out gunned the mexican army with model 1816s 1835s and 1840s springfields.

 

[Artificer]

Since there are so many knowledgeable people on this thread regarding the Brown Bess, is it true that many of the muskets used by the Mexican army to take the Alamo were Besses?

Yes, indeed.

If so, were they sold/given to the Mexicans by England to poke us in the eye?

Well they may have enjoyed the fact the muskets were used against their old colonies, but they sold them to Mexico well before the conflict.

" The pressing need to raise funds for the new Mexican country led the government to seek loans from the bankers of the world at the time, the English. The major London merchant banks of the time, such as B.A. Goldschmidt’s, Baring’s, Berkley’s and Barclay, Herring, Richardson & Company (just to name a few) were the way in which a country could receive financial assistance, both in the loan of hard currency and in the acquisition of the necessary credit to obtain the arms and equipment to supply an army. Of course, the implicit agreement was that the bulk of the arms purchased would be acquired from English arms makers and merchants, thus the London funding houses were in fact fueling the manufacturing and trade economies of London, Birmingham and Manchester. It was this relationship between the source of Mexico’s London based funding and the fact that the world’s leading arms merchants were located in the same city as the banks that triggered the shift from the Mexican colonial era use of mostly Spanish-made small arms to the use of English-made arms."

" While part of the proceeds from these two loans were received as hard currency, part was delivered in the form of credit which the Mexican government used to acquire a huge number of small arms from the English with which to arm the Mexican Army. Although figures vary depending upon the sources referenced, the small arms purchased with the funds from this loan included between 90,000 and 110,000 muskets, between 14,000 and 15,000 carbines, some 2,000 rifles, between 5,000 and 8,000 pairs of pistols and some 20,000 sabers and swords. Some debate continues among scholars as to whether the arms purchased by the Mexicans were newly made commercial guns, British military surplus or more likely a mixture of both. What is not in dispute is that these muskets were India Pattern Brown Besses. It is almost certain that these guns were a mixture of both newly made arms and part of the significant store of used guns that were available after the conclusion of the war with France with the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in June of 1815. The end of the Napoleonic Wars resulted in a massive draw down of English military forces and put huge amounts of arms and equipage into storage. As the British military was looking to improve and modernize their stocks of small arms during the latter part of the 1820s and into the 1830s and 40s, the opportunity to sell off surplus arms to the new Mexican Republic was a stroke of good fortune. Based upon the archeological records, the Indian Pattern Brown Bess remained the standard Mexican military long arm through the Texas Revolution of 1835 to 1836 and at least some of these guns were still in use two decades after their original purchase during the Mexican American War of 1846-1848. "

More here:

Extremely Rare Mexican Military "Brown Bess" from the Mexican American War (collegehillarsenal.com)

Gus

 

[Celt5494]

I am not a reenactor, I am a pathetic hunter and a lousy shot.

You Sir are also probably one of the most honest men on this thread!

 

[Rifleman1776]

You have got to get in the weeds to see the differences, then when you see originals they seem a little less regular then say a WTBS rifle or any gun post that.

Yep, that is how I feel. By coincidence the NRA was having their annual convention not far from where we lived at the time. We attended and I found among the many exhibitors was a Brown Bess collectors club. I had just received my Navy Arms kit and was interested in how closely it resembled the originals As many have mentioned here, the differences in various models and the Pedersoli version are small. A serious collector or historian would notice them but, I'll betcha, about 99% of ml advocates would not.

 

[Jay Templin]

Disagree with this, the purpose of the square lug on a Brown Bess is for the Bayonet not a front sight. The British didn’t have an aim command in their ranking systems, to add to this concept, the lug is a square, while it can be used a rudimentary front sight because its a square it will have little benefit to aiming. Many brown Bess’s repro’s have a small groove filed down the center of the front sight for aiming, I’ve never seen this on an original.

Disagree all you like, but the term that was used by the British military in the 18th century was “sight.” They never once called it a “bayonet lug.” Many surviving original muskets have a rear sight notch filed or chiseled into the breech, which was specifically recommended by Lord Cavan. They absolutely did aim their muskets- here’s a good article on the marksmanship of regular soldiers:
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/the-aim-of-british-soldiers/
Adjutant Harvey’s Manual of 1764 uses the common “present” as the command to take aim; the description of the act includes this:
“the right Cheek to be close to the Butt, and the left Eye shut, and look along the Barrel with the right Eye from the Breech Pin to the Muzzel.”
I have fired thousands of live rounds with my Besses following the ‘64, and to 50 or 60 yards their performance is at least the equal of a modern shotgun.
Jay

 

[Jay Templin]

But you know what we're talking about, right?

That’s not the point. I could call it “that little thing on the end of the barrel,” and you’d know what I was talking about. Which doesn’t change the fact that the post I was replying to said that the “bayonet lug” is inadequate when used as a sight. This is wrong for two reasons- the first being that it’s not a bayonet lug, and the second being that it is in no way inadequate.
Jay

 

[lexington1]

Oh whatever....You know I could pick up any number of books out of my library and they refer to it as a bayonet lug. Why would all of these authors call it a bayonet lug? You are correct in calling it a sight, but the point is that it is generally accepted practice to use the term bayonet lug so that people instantly understand what it is. It's common knowledge. That may not be 18th century terminology, but the point is that you do know what everyone is talking about. If you're going to be so anal, for lack of better term, to point out nick picky stuff, well then I hope you get a life.

 

[Artificer]

the french initially sent over french musket parts, locks, barrels, rammers and bayonets etc a lot of the parts shipped in were model 1728, 54, and early 63 patterns that were considered obsolete. Subsequent shipments in 76 and 77 contained the 1766-1774 patterns.

This is a HUGELY important point to getting our first National Armory Musket production, at Springfield, MA, going in 1795. Springfield had been a Government Arsenal (Arms and Military Supply Storage center) during the AWI, where many if not most of these parts had been stored. There must have been a pretty darn big quantity of these early parts left over and THAT'S why we began production with copies of 1763 Model French Muskets INSTEAD of the clearly superior 1777 Model Muskets some of our troops had used 17-18 years before.

The early Springfield Armory Model 1795 Musket Production was MOSTLY from using these left-over parts for the first 2 years or so. We didn't actually begin making all the parts for them until around 1798. Not only that, but this most likely was when the term "Charleville" became synonymous in our lexicon for French Muskets in general. It wasn't just that Springfield Armory personnel used the term "Charleville" as a common nickname for the M 1795 musket, they actually recorded it that way as the descriptive term for this model musket time and again in the Arsenal records. Of course, that nomenclature got out to the U.S. Army at large, as well.

We actually didn't get around to copying the French 1777 Model Muskets until they brought out the Model 1816 muskets, 39 YEARS after some of our troops first used the French 1777 Muskets in the AWI. Matter of fact and with only minor modifications, we continued to copy the French 1777 Model Muskets all the way to our last flintlock Musket Model 1840, 63 YEARS after some of our troops first used the French 1777 Muskets in the AWI !!

Gus

 

[Artificer]

That’s not the point. I could call it “that little thing on the end of the barrel,” and you’d know what I was talking about. Which doesn’t change the fact that the post I was replying to said that the “bayonet lug” is inadequate when used as a sight. This is wrong for two reasons- the first being that it’s not a bayonet lug, and the second being that it is in no way inadequate.
Jay

Jay, I'm right with you, except the Brown Bess is one of the few Muskets or Long Arms of the period where the sight did double duty as a bayonet lug. We also don't call the front Sight on the M 1855, 1861 or 1863 Springfield Rifle Muskets a "bayonet lug" either, even though it also does double duty as a bayonet lug.

It obviously is not merely/only a bayonet lug, because if this part is severely damaged or lost, you have nothing with which to sight or aim the Musket.

I fully agree it is a completely adequate sight, especially for combat in an era when large clouds of black smoke from previous volleys makes it difficult to quickly pick up the sight. I have also used it for target shooting from 15 yards where the goal was to cut a string in half with the ball, 25 yards where one shoots at a double bit axe blade to split the ball and hit a clay pigeon on each side of the axe blade, and out to 100 yards offhand and shooting at 1 gallon milk jugs.

Gus

P.S. Don't even get me started on the all too common and totally incorrect use of the term "Hammer" for a Flintlock ****. I'm not even sure when this got started, but just because folks say something wrong and keep repeating it in speaking or in books, does not make it right.

 

[DuncNZ]

It obviously is not merely/only a bayonet lug, because if this part is severely damaged or lost, you have nothing with which to sight or aim the Musket.
Gus

The lug was firstly a bayonet lug , The British used the bayonet a lot , and the bayonet had to be attached to the musket to prevent its loss in battle , The bayonet ring obscured the "sight" The soldiers fought with bayonet fixed more often than not
The bayonet was used in the British squares against French cavalry , There were 480 men in the square ,120 to a side ,on each side the 30 front ranks kneel and brace their muskets butts on the ground bayonets up and out , The next rank of 30 men crouch with bayonets bristling out . Behind them stand 60 men muskets leveled bayonets fixed , they cover about 52 feet of ground per side . Only 14 or 15 horsemen can charge this wall of blades at one time , These men would be killed and their horses would shy and swerve at the wall of bayonets and be shot , the fallen horses and men formed a barrier which the next riders had to negotiate . This wall is only 4 men thick and the volley fire was at targets 20 paces away , How can a soldier sight his musket with a bayonet fixed and he cant see the "sight", he doesn't he aims straight ahead and fires on command . . New troops often fired high when shooting a horsemen .
Once the battle commenced these fights were up close and personal , mostly so close, sighting was probably more instinctive than aimed , volley fire is pointed not aimed .
How any one survived being shot and wounded by these big balls , or stuck with a bayonet , is beyond me , but many did survive .
What any one does with their Musket in modern competition has little or no bearing on how they were used in battle .

 

[Artificer]

The lug was firstly a bayonet lug , The British used the bayonet a lot , and the bayonet had to be attached to the musket to prevent its loss in battle , The bayonet ring obscured the "sight" The soldiers fought with bayonet fixed more often than not
The bayonet was used in the British squares against French cavalry , There were 480 men in the square ,120 to a side ,on each side the 30 front ranks kneel and brace their muskets butts on the ground bayonets up and out , The next rank of 30 men crouch with bayonets bristling out . Behind them stand 60 men muskets leveled bayonets fixed , they cover about 52 feet of ground per side . Only 14 or 15 horsemen can charge this wall of blades at one time , These men would be killed and their horses would shy and swerve at the wall of bayonets and be shot , the fallen horses and men formed a barrier which the next riders had to negotiate . This wall is only 4 men thick and the volley fire was at targets 20 paces away , How can a soldier sight his musket with a bayonet fixed and he cant see the "sight", he doesn't he aims straight ahead and fires on command . . New troops often fired high when shooting a horsemen .
Once the battle commenced these fights were up close and personal , mostly so close, sighting was probably more instinctive than aimed , volley fire is pointed not aimed .
How any one survived being shot and wounded by these big balls , or stuck with a bayonet , is beyond me , but many did survive .
What any one does with their Musket in modern competition has little or no bearing on how they were used in battle .

I'm sorry, though the reinforcing collar on the socket of the bayonet does obscure the bottom of the sight, it doesn't stop one from using the sight, because soldiers aligned their enemy with the top of the front sight in battle.

It's true that British Soldiers only fired a few rounds before a bayonet charge in most instances, though not always, they still had to aim their muskets when they were ordered to "present" their muskets. I've already documented the fact British Soldiers were taught to "fire at marks" or AIM well, at least as far back as the FIW/Seven Years War. Even when firing in volleys, they still were expected by standing orders in the manual when ordered to "present" that:

“..raise up the Butt so high upon the right Shoulder, that you may not be obliged to stoop too much with the Head, the right Cheek to be close to the Butt, and the left Eye shut, and look along the Barrel with the right Eye from the Breech Pin to the Muzzel….[6]

[6] The Manual Exercise, As Ordered by His Majesty, in 1764…. The copy used here was printed by Hugh Gaine, New York, 1775. Although this document was very widely reprinted, the text of the manual exercise portion does not vary with the exception of typographical changes. Popular military writer Thomas Simes advised, “Great attention must be had in the instructing of recruits how to take aim, and that they properly adjust their ball.” Simes, Thomas, A Military Guide for Young Officers (London, 1772) 196."

If you wish to look at a copy of the original manual, the information in the first quoted paragraph above is on page 11.
The manual exercise, as ordered by His Majesty, in the year 1764 : together with plans and explanations of the method generally practised at reviews and field-days ; with copper-plates : Great Britain. Adjutant-General's Office : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

IF all the Soldiers did was "point" with their muskets, then during volley fires when they ****** the triggers, ALL the musket balls would have flown right over the tops of their enemies. This further shows they did indeed AIM their muskets when firing volleys.

Gus

Edited to add the correct page 11 on the original manual for the explanation of "present," which includes how they wrote to aim the firelock in the manual.

 

[Artificer]

BTW, I can say " though the reinforcing collar on the socket of the bayonet does obscure the bottom of the sight, it doesn't stop one from using the sight, because soldiers aligned their enemy with the top of the front sight in battle" because I have actually tried it with three original 18th century Bess's and their original bayonets. No, I did not fire them as one belonged to a museum and the two others were in private collections.

Though I have not fired original Bess's in Volley Firing w/live cartridges, I have done it with repro Bess's with bayonets fixed. When volley firing with or even without fixed bayonets, if all one does is "point" the musket, the balls fly right over a man sized target as close as 30-40 yards.

Gus

 

[Juice Jaws]

Just like the looks of the Bess plus it's so much lighter

 

[FlinterNick]

I'm sorry, though the reinforcing collar on the socket of the bayonet does obscure the bottom of the sight, it doesn't stop one from using the sight, because soldiers aligned their enemy with the top of the front sight in battle.

It's true that British Soldiers only fired a few rounds before a bayonet charge in most instances, though not always, they still had to aim their muskets when they were ordered to "present" their muskets. I've already documented the fact British Soldiers were taught to "fire at marks" or AIM well, at least as far back as the FIW/Seven Years War. Even when firing in volleys, they still were expected by standing orders in the manual when ordered to "present" that:

“..raise up the Butt so high upon the right Shoulder, that you may not be obliged to stoop too much with the Head, the right Cheek to be close to the Butt, and the left Eye shut, and look along the Barrel with the right Eye from the Breech Pin to the Muzzel….[6]

[6] The Manual Exercise, As Ordered by His Majesty, in 1764…. The copy used here was printed by Hugh Gaine, New York, 1775. Although this document was very widely reprinted, the text of the manual exercise portion does not vary with the exception of typographical changes. Popular military writer Thomas Simes advised, “Great attention must be had in the instructing of recruits how to take aim, and that they properly adjust their ball.” Simes, Thomas, A Military Guide for Young Officers (London, 1772) 196."

If you wish to look at a copy of the original manual, the information in the first quoted paragraph above is on page 11.
The manual exercise, as ordered by His Majesty, in the year 1764 : together with plans and explanations of the method generally practised at reviews and field-days ; with copper-plates : Great Britain. Adjutant-General's Office : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

IF all the Soldiers did was "point" with their muskets, then during volley fires when they ****** the triggers, ALL the musket balls would have flown right over the tops of their enemies. This further shows they did indeed AIM their muskets when firing volleys.

Gus

Edited to add the correct page 11 on the original manual for the explanation of "present," which includes how they wrote to aim the firelock in the manual.

Agree Gus, the Charleville front sight is mounted on top of the front barrel brand which raises it about the threshold of the bayonet socket and clasp on the 1777, the clasp is also turned to the side which takes it completely out of the line of sight.

 

[Artificer]

Agree Gus, the Charleville front sight is mounted on top of the front barrel brand which raises it about the threshold of the bayonet socket and clasp on the 1777, the clasp is also turned to the side which takes it completely out of the line of sight.

Great point about the M 1777 Musket Bayonet. That clasp made it vastly superior to the Brown Bess bayonet without one!

French Model 1777 bayonet – Works – The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (history.org)


Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

That’s not the point. I could call it “that little thing on the end of the barrel,” and you’d know what I was talking about. Which doesn’t change the fact that the post I was replying to said that the “bayonet lug” is inadequate when used as a sight. This is wrong for two reasons- the first being that it’s not a bayonet lug, and the second being that it is in no way inadequate.
Jay

Agree, Its a stud / lug that is designed to secure the bayonet to the muzzle on a bess, this is its primary intention. As for it being a front sight, this is a secondary purpose.

If the British intended for this square lug to be a sight, its the worst sight ever invented, because the parallel of a square for a smoothbore musket will get you no sighted accuracy with a paper cartridge down range at 100 yards.

Furthermore various types of British officers and light infantry arms were actually with fitted with both a front sight and bayonet lug.

 

[FlinterNick]

This is a HUGELY important point to getting our first National Armory Musket production, at Springfield, MA, going in 1795. Springfield had been a Government Arsenal (Arms and Military Supply Storage center) during the AWI, where many if not most of these parts had been stored. There must have been a pretty darn big quantity of these early parts left over and THAT'S why we began production with copies of 1763 Model French Muskets INSTEAD of the clearly superior 1777 Model Muskets some of our troops had used 17-18 years before.

The early Springfield Armory Model 1795 Musket Production was MOSTLY from using these left-over parts for the first 2 years or so. We didn't actually begin making all the parts for them until around 1798. Not only that, but this most likely was when the term "Charleville" became synonymous in our lexicon for French Muskets in general. It wasn't just that Springfield Armory personnel used the term "Charleville" as a common nickname for the M 1795 musket, they actually recorded it that way as the descriptive term for this model musket time and again in the Arsenal records. Of course, that nomenclature got out to the U.S. Army at large, as well.

The barrel band system was a major benefit, and American armoires appreciated this when cleaning and repairing muskets. A badly damaged charleville could be repaired or restocked rather easily when compared to a Brown Bess.

We actually didn't get around to copying the French 1777 Model Muskets until they brought out the Model 1816 muskets, 39 YEARS after some of our troops first used the French 1777 Muskets in the AWI. Matter of fact and with only minor modifications, we continued to copy the French 1777 Model Muskets all the way to our last flintlock Musket Model 1840, 63 YEARS after some of our troops first used the French 1777 Muskets in the AWI !!

Gus

From my research, the decision to go with the 1763 and 66 patterns rather than the 1777 (which we did eventually adopted as the 1816 musket copied with a different stock pattern) was because of its quality.

The patterns 1763 - 1774 Charleville muskets were exceptionally designed, the heaviest patterns 1763 and 1770 charlevilles weighed in around 9.5 - 10.5 lbs, so the handling of the musket was much easier than a 11 - 13 lb Brown Bess, even a third model bess weights in at nearly 11 lbs (with bayonets).

The 1763 Charleville was robustly designed, very sturdy … made too heavy according to the french troops that were used of the 1717 series muskets that were really fragile fusil like. The 1808 contract musket is very much like the 1763, both hard very large locks, larger stocks and heavier barrels. The 1766 pattern which was the initial concept of the 1795 was top quality, when tested 100 trials, the 1766 lock had 2 or three miss fires, this was because of well drawn springs, and high integrity internals. With the reinforced **** and thicker frizzen and deeper pan, the design of this lock was excellent, the 1777 lock is more or less a simplification of this design, rounded plates are easier to cast, round bottom brass pans are easier to cast and maintain then a faceted pan. The french 1763 lock was really a game changer for a more reliable lock.

Where the Americans made things different was with the stock and barrel. Most Americans muskets were not in 72 caliber like french guns, Americans went with a .69 for a more accurate shot. Ironically this barrel weight was around 4.8 - 5 lbs. Stocks were initially copied from the Charlevilleville style but modified eventually with a lower comb, no rail and some american muskets experimented with cheek recesses.

The irony here is that the american Springfield went through the same evolutionary process as the french muskets almost identical. By 1835 the Springfield and 1822 Charleville’s were nearly identical in all aspects other than a cheek recess.

 

[Artificer]

Agree, Its a stud / lug that is designed to secure the bayonet to the muzzle on a bess, this is its primary intention. As for it being a front sight, this is a secondary purpose.

If the British intended for this square lug to be a sight, its the worst sight ever invented, because the parallel of a square for a smoothbore musket will get you no sighted accuracy with a paper cartridge down range at 100 yards.

Furthermore various types of British officers and light infantry arms were actually with fitted with both a front sight and bayonet lug.

Nick,

I love ya, but the square front sight you posted from (I think) Kit Ravenshear's book/pamphlet is completely NON-Typical of 18th century Bess Sights. Look at every single one of all Pattern Muskets from the P1730 onward, in The Brown Bess by Goldstein and Mowbray, they are all rectangular and much sharper than the squarish blob in the pic you posted.

I admit in the following pic, it is a bit difficult to see, but you can still see it is a rectangle.

"because the parallel of a square for a smoothbore musket will get you no sighted accuracy with a paper cartridge down range at 100 yards."

OK, I admit I don't follow your reasoning, BUT it is absolutely not true that a rectangular front sight that shows a vertical post from the shooter's view, is not a very good front sight. Actually, the British were DECADES ahead with the Brown Bess Sight in this regard.


Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

Nick,

I love ya, but the square front sight you posted from (I think) Kit Ravenshear's book/pamphlet is completely NON-Typical of 18th century Bess Sights. Look at every single one of all Pattern Muskets from the P1730 onward, in The Brown Bess by Goldstein and Mowbray, they are all rectangular and much sharper than the squarish blob in the pic you posted.

I admit in the following pic, it is a bit difficult to see, but you can still see it is a rectangle.

View attachment 121609


"because the parallel of a square for a smoothbore musket will get you no sighted accuracy with a paper cartridge down range at 100 yards."

OK, I admit I don't follow your reasoning, BUT it is absolutely not true that a rectangular front sight that shows a vertical post from the shooter's view, is not a very good front sight. Actually, the British were DECADES ahead with the Brown Bess Sight in this regard.


Gus

Love ya too Gus !! Lol its not a major issue for me, and to be fair I don’t call it a front sight exclusively my argument with the poor tempered fella above was that its not an exclusive front sight that happens to serve as a bayonet lug, which was his point being made.

Its primary purpose was a bayonet lug, secondary a sight. Its double standard is a unique benefit when the British gunmakers designed the bess, why add a brass front sight like the Dutch ? Dutch muskets used both a brass oblong sight and a lug, Well its expensive to do this, the Dutch and Germans were not known for making cheap muskets, you have to braze on a blob of brass and shape it, the cost of brass and the handle work would eventually add up to the cost of a, tranche of muskets. This according to Jess Melot is the reason why the Bess s has no ‘independent’ front sight and just a square lug, it made production cheaper and easier.

My arguments isn’t that it can’t be a front sight, its just not its primary focus and I think Bailey, Ravensheer, Neumann and Moller share this … which is why they call it a stud / sight.

If one were able to redesign the Bess, making a square pyramid top stud that secures the lug would have made this argument moot.

I do agree with you backing into the history of the lug from the 1730 long land to the 1756 pattern, the lugs evolved from being more a graceful rectangle to more stud like.

As far as being able to sight a Brown Bess with the lug, for a rank and file soldier using paper cartilages its just does little benefit
A ranger or light infantry man loading with premium cartridges, or patch and ball would be able to make the stud more beneficial at shorter rangers, this I absolutely agree on because the light infantry fusil and dragoon arms served this purpose.

some examples of officer’s fusils do exist with both a front sight and lug, I believe e some were even rifled.

 

[Aldarith]

I would say of the lug/sight debate that I would be inclined to agree with the primary sources on this one and not use Goldstein & Mowbray's (really very excellent) secondary / tertiary source as evidence.

That book is a collection of photographs of extant muskets, and the focus isn't on literature or how they were used other than the 5 page preface.
I don't beleive it even shows a full bayonet more than once.

If the army trained soldiers in marksmanship at all, I'd say they were aiming.
If the post that held the bayonet functioned as a sight as well as a lug, I'd say they were being efficient.

It's interesting to hear all the counterpoints, but I do not see why it has to be 'One thing primarily and the other secondarily" - give the ancestors some credit, it was good, practical design that ensured it did both.

I will say that it is interesting that the post does not often rise above the rim of the socket on many models I have seen (it *does* on later gonnes )

Without consulting a primary source, I would say that suggests a couple of things.
1. The presence of sheaths and frogs suggests that there was a time for individual marksmanship when bayonets were unfixed.
2. That once bayonets were fixed, it was time to dispense with it.

Would love for someone with access and familiarity to primary sources to comment on this supposition.