Brown Bess -Why

[Aldarith]

It its not an exclusive front sight that happens to serve as a bayonet lug, which was his point being made.

We're typing the same thing at the same time

 

[FlinterNick]

We're typing the same thing at the same time

This is one of those prevailing arguments about the Brown Bess, stud vs. sight, sight vs. stud I love the Brown Bess just as much as anyone, at the end of the day its still a smoothbore.

 

[Artificer]

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.

Well then and with all due respect to Jess Melot, if he calls it a square front sight, he is flat out wrong as they all were rectangular shaped.

The British Sight was actually dovetailed onto the barrel for most of the 18th century. Brazing a brass sight to the Iron barrel can lead to all kinds of problems because of the heat required.

With respect, I completely disagree that a vertical post front sight and even when using cartridges in combat, is not a good thing to aim with. You can see such a vertical post sight far better than a pointed top brass sight in combat conditions. BTW, this is why we stuck to it with the M1903 all the way up to and including the M16 rifles.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

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.

Back on Page 4 of this thread in my post 72, I did post original documentation of British Soldiers being trained to aim in formation and that meant with the bayonets fixed.

On this page in Post 91, I documented even more from the original manual.

I don't know of a marksmanship manual, per se, in the 18th century that deals with Military Weapons.

I will re-iterate, that if they weren't aiming when firing volley fires, all the rounds would have went right over the heads of their enemies. This is far better documented in our UnCivil War, but it was just as true with flintlock muskets.

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

Well then and with all due respect to Jess Melot, if he calls it a square front sight, he is flat out wrong as they all were rectangular shaped.

The British Sight was actually dovetailed onto the barrel for most of the 18th century. Brazing a brass sight to the Iron barrel can lead to all kinds of problems because of the heat required.

With respect, I completely disagree that a vertical post front sight and even when using cartridges in combat, is not a good thing to aim with. You can see such a vertical post sight far better than a pointed top brass sight in combat conditions. BTW, this is why we stuck to it with the M1903 all the way up to and including the M16 rifles.

Gus

Gus, I think the Dutch and Germans / Prussians just brazed on a pile of brass some type of forming die, and shaped with a file, the sight wasn’t shapped and then soldered or tinned on like we would today. The french front sights were done this way, why they didn’t cast them with the band i’ll never understand. Can it create problems ? Absolutely, which was another reason the British avoided it.

Maybe at some point I was confusing, Jess Melot said it wasn’t intended to be an independent front sight, it served a dual purpose.

In Kit’s print I have, he mentions that the 1755 bess had its comb raised making the musket more difficult to aim? Why make it more complicated to aim ?

 

[Artificer]

In Kit’s print I have, he mentions that the 1755 bess had its comb raised making the musket more difficult to aim? Why make it more complicated to aim ?

Hi Nick,

Great question! The answer is, because it was cheaper to produce the Bess with a straighter stock. They got more stock blanks out of "walnut tree planks" that way. IOW, the bean counters had their way, even that far back!

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

Hi Nick,

Great question! The answer is, because it was cheaper to produce the Bess with a straighter stock. They got more stock blanks out of "walnut tree planks" that way. IOW, the bean counters had their way, even that far back!

Gus

FYI reference from the print.

 

[FlinterNick]

FYI reference from the print.

I probably should have known that, being that I’m an accountant.

 

[Artificer]

FYI reference from the print.

Neat. Thank you.

They were able to reduce the height of the forward part of the stock, due to going with the much smaller diameter Iron/Steel Rammer in the P 1756 vs the Wood Rammer in the P 1742. They COULD have slimmed down the "Mack Truck" size like butt of the P 1742 and kept the drop at the comb, heel and toe. Ah, but somebody came up with the idea if they straightened out the butt, they could get at least one more stock blank from the plank. Well, that was all she wrote...........

We also did it in the 20th century, BTW. The M1 was supposed to have the excellent Type C butt stock of the M1903A1. However, Springfield had tons of planks cut for two stocks, but you couldn't get the full Type C butt stock of them with two stocks for the M1. That's why both the M1 and M14 stocks are shaped the way they are in the butt stock. Knowing this beforehand, I laughed when I found the British had done a very similar thing in the mid 18th century.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

I probably should have known that, being that I’m an accountant.

LOL!! Well, we love you anyway!

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

LOL!! Well, we love you anyway!

Gus

M1 and M14 had pistol grip stocks right ?

 

[FlinterNick]

LOL!! Well, we love you anyway!

Gus

Well… to be literal I’m an IRS agent, not loved by most. But I’m more of on the pensions actuary side of things. I could dry paint with a conversation of pension benefits. Lol

 

[Artificer]

M1 and M14 had pistol grip stocks right ?

Chopped off semi-pistol grip stocks.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Artificer said:
LOL!! Well, we love you anyway!

Gus

Well… to be literal I’m an IRS agent, not loved by most. But I’m more of on the pensions actuary side of things. I could dry paint with a conversation of pension benefits. Lol

Well, we can see your heart is in the right place.

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

Artificer said:
LOL!! Well, we love you anyway!

Gus



Well, we can see your heart is in the right place.

Gus

Now that we’re on the topic of accounting, I can say that the most intriguing thing about the ordinance system is its record keeping process ! However we only see it on the surface, I would have loved to see the lock making process, how much engravers were paid, how much lock assemblers were paid etc.

 

[Artificer]

Now that we’re on the topic of accounting, I can say that the most intriguing thing about the ordinance system is its record keeping process ! However we only see it on the surface, I would have loved to see the lock making process, how much engravers were paid, how much lock assemblers were paid etc.

That is one of the points I've tried to learn more about, myself. I can't give you a complete breakdown, but "Lock Filers" were the highest paid of most in the firearms industry until machines took over. The lowest paid were those who sawed stock blanks out of planks.

Gus

 

[matchlock1607]

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.

But, in period manuals and writings, it was called the sight.

 

[Robby]

I will re-iterate, that if they weren't aiming when firing volley fires, all the rounds would have went right over the heads of their enemies. This is far better documented in our UnCivil War, but it was just as true with flintlock muskets.

Gus

Gus, I wrote this recently:
"From what I read years ago the Bess was not "aimed", but pointed, straight ahead as aligned by their superiors. By an edict from the king, any soldier caught aiming would receive the death penalty, the idea being that if soldiers were allowed to aim at any thing they chose then the fellow on the opposing line with the fancy coat or maybe the tallest guy would receive the brunt of the fusillade and the rest free to continue to return fire."
When I read about this, I was researching something entirely different and only remembered it because of the severity of punishment imposed by, kind of a nut job king, for something that could easily be a matter of interpretation by the sergeant of the line. I have no first hand knowledge obviously, but do believe what I read, I just wish I could find it again, but much water has passed under this bridge since then.
Logic and good sense may dictate otherwise but like i staid, I believe it.
Robby

 

[lexington1]

It wasn't called a Brown Bess in period manuals either, yet here we are all referring to it as a Brown Bess. I know I'm kind of being a smart ***, but this is what my life has devolved to.. Come on Spring!

 

[DuncNZ]

Adrenaline plays a big part in battle , The soldiers standing two deep would be looking at the advancing enemy , trying hold the ground and to keep their muskets level and pointed at the enemy who were advancing bayonets fixed , drums beating the pas de charge and the French shouting Vive l'Empereur , I am willing to bet a dollar to a nob of goat droppings that they weren't even aware of their "sight" , which may be why new troops usually shot high . It is the same as a shotgun bead , if you are looking at the bead you won't hit the target .
As there were a number of British Muskets , I prefer to call them by their nick name , Brown Bess , rather than by a specific model number and name , as I guarantee I would be called to task if I got is wrong