Brown Bess -Why

[Artificer]

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

Hi Robby,

I would love to know where that story came from and who related it, etc. Without the actual reference, I really shouldn't comment much on it.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

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

As to the nickname "Brown Bess," we do have sources in the period where it was called that. Recent research has now put it back to the 1750's.

History of the term 'Brown Bess' | Royal Armouries

Gus

 

[lexington1]

As to the nickname "Brown Bess," we do have sources in the period where it was called that. Recent research has now put it back to the 1750's.

History of the term 'Brown Bess' | Royal Armouries

Gus

That's a good article!

 

[Artificer]

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

The strength of the British Army in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as right up to the present day, is the fact they have a long history of instilling discipline and training that really paid off most of the time in success on the Battlefield.

Though I've been re-enacting the 18th century since the 1970's, it was not until about two decades ago I first learned of the 18th century British Army term of "Awkward Soldiers" and that term goes back to at least the FIW/Seven Years War in official reports and correspondence. Though these included those who were what we would call "New Recruits," back then it also referred to those Soldiers who had been in longer and were not seen as (I'm paraphrasing) "up to snuff" as to their discipline, drill, the way they comported themselves, they condition they kept their equipment, etc., etc. In between the numerous wars of the 18th century and especially after the FIW/Seven Years War and before the AWI, the British Army considered some as "Awkward Soldiers" for up to months and in some few cases, up to a year to two years. I also learned that during this period, it was common practice to keep new Regiments around the home islands up to two years to give them time to learn to act well as a unit, if possible.

The training and discipline of the British Army, even when not so well led by Superior Officers, was the reason they ran roughshod over us until after the winter encampment at Valley Forge. What we might call Veterans of the British Army, clearly understood this.

Gus

 

[lexington1]

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

Looking at the Besses in my collection, I don't think they were dovetailed as much as they had a small flat filed at the postion where the sight sat. The barrels are pretty thin at that spot and I don't see dovetail cuts on any of these. I would think it would be nearly impossible to dovetail into the barrel without cutting into the bore.

 

[Artificer]

Looking at the Besses in my collection, I don't think they were dovetailed as much as they had a small flat filed at the postion where the sight sat. The barrels are pretty thin at that spot and I don't see dovetail cuts on any of these. I would think it would be nearly impossible to dovetail into the barrel without cutting into the bore.

Yes, I understand. However, they "covered up" the fact that so many were dovetailed by filing long strokes on the barrels afterward, so it is often difficult to see it today. I also sort of shuddered about them dovetailing the sight on what we would consider a thin barrel, but that close to the muzzle with the pressures not nearly as large as at the breech, they got away with it for a very long time.

Gus

 

[DuncNZ]

As to the nickname "Brown Bess," we do have sources in the period where it was called that. Recent research has now put it back to the 1750's.

History of the term 'Brown Bess' | Royal Armouries

Gus

I knew most of that but didn't realise the name went so far back . The further we go back in the history of language the closer English and Dutch/German get . Blunder Buss is reputed to come from the Dutch Donder Busche meaning thunder gun

 

[Grenadier1758]

One is always correct to call the British musket the King's Musket. One can differentiate between Long Land Pattern a d Short Land Pattern Muskets but to the British these may have been an evolution of the pattern but it wasn't until collectors began cataloging the changes that model designations got names.

 

[Artificer]

Yes, I understand. However, they "covered up" the fact that so many were dovetailed by filing long strokes on the barrels afterward, so it is often difficult to see it today. I also sort of shuddered about them dovetailing the sight on what we would consider a thin barrel, but that close to the muzzle with the pressures not nearly as large as at the breech, they got away with it for a very long time.

Gus

BTW, they did begin to braze on the front sight near the end of the 18th century, but if you don't see a line of at least discoloured yellow at the bottom of the sight, you know it wasn't brazed on.

Gus

 

[lexington1]

Yes, I understand. However, they "covered up" the fact that so many were dovetailed by filing long strokes on the barrels afterward, so it is often difficult to see it today. I also sort of shuddered about them dovetailing the sight on what we would consider a thin barrel, but that close to the muzzle with the pressures not nearly as large as at the breech, they got away with it for a very long time.

Gus

You could well be right. They had to be getting paper thin. I bet that even if they did dovetail them they filled the area well. I have a 1776 Royal Artillery carbine that has had the muzzle dented and the sight was knocked off and you can definately see where it was filled in slightly around the sides of the sight, so either if it was dovetailed or just a flat, it wasn't a perfect fit (but pretty close!).

 

[Artificer]

You could well be right. They had to be getting paper thin. I bet that even if they did dovetail them they filled the area well. I have a 1776 Royal Artillery carbine that has had the muzzle dented and the sight was knocked off and you can definately see where it was filled in slightly around the sides of the sight, so either if it was dovetailed or just a flat, it wasn't a perfect fit (but pretty close!).View attachment 121801View attachment 121802

NEAT Carbine!!!

I wanted a repro of such an Artillery/Highlander/Serjeants Carbine in the mid 1970's because that was what I could/would have been armed with as a Continental Marine Serjeant (18th century spelling for Sergeant). However, none were available and the closest thing I could afford was the Pedersoli Brown Bess Carbine, which is not a copy of any British Pattern Carbine.

When I began doing an impression of a Private Soldier in the Major's Coy, 42nd Royal Highland Regt, the Black Watch in the late 1990's; I wanted an even earlier Carbine of this type, because that was what we were armed with during the FIW and AWI.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

The strength of the British Army in the 18th and 19th centuries, as well as right up to the present day, is the fact they have a long history of instilling discipline and training that really paid off most of the time in success on the Battlefield.

Though I've been re-enacting the 18th century since the 1970's, it was not until about two decades ago I first learned of the 18th century British Army term of "Awkward Soldiers" and that term goes back to at least the FIW/Seven Years War in official reports and correspondence. Though these included those who were what we would call "New Recruits," back then it also referred to those Soldiers who had been in longer and were not seen as (I'm paraphrasing) "up to snuff" as to their discipline, drill, the way they comported themselves, they condition they kept their equipment, etc., etc. In between the numerous wars of the 18th century and especially after the FIW/Seven Years War and before the AWI, the British Army considered some as "Awkward Soldiers" for up to months and in some few cases, up to a year to two years. I also learned that during this period, it was common practice to keep new Regiments around the home islands up to two years to give them time to learn to act well as a unit, if possible.

The training and discipline of the British Army, even when not so well led by Superior Officers, was the reason they ran roughshod over us until after the winter encampment at Valley Forge. What we might call Veterans of the British Army, clearly understood this.

Gus

Oops, forgot to mention we didn't do real well on our "lessons learned" from the AWI when in the War of 1812 against British Soldiers and Militia either, at least not early on. U.S. General Hull in his great campaign against Canada and with superior numbers, managed to Snatch DEFEAT from the Jaws of Victory and his campaign ended in surrendering Detroit without firing a shot.

Should I even mention how British Regulars marched on and burnt our Capital?

Can we blame these things on us using copies of French Muskets vs the Brown Bess in the hands of the British? NOPE. It was our lack of training and discipline that caused these failures.

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

I’m working on a 1740’s Light Infantry Fusil, its a cool looking kit, pretty much a miniature Pattern 1740 musket with a cast nosecap.

 

[TNBandit]

My 7th generation grandfather Seth Brooks and his buddy Samuel Farrar were both Minutemen and both present on the Concord Bridge on April 19, 1775. These Brown Bess muskets were owned by them a bit later in the war. Thought to have been captured from a privateer. They are both East India Company muskets and both dated 1779 and the bayonet is also dated 1779. Seth Brooks musket was sadly converted to percussion at some point later in it's life. These have been in my family since new.

 

[FlinterNick]

This is a 1763 charleville front band sight that I made from a mold of a Miroku front sight, the casted band from the Rifle shoppe had the sight casted to the band and was very small.

 

[Artificer]

I’m working on a 1740’s Light Infantry Fusil, its a cool looking kit, pretty much a miniature Pattern 1740 musket with a cast nosecap.

OK, at risk of once again being criticized for trying to be historically correct, I have to ask what documentation is there for Light Infantry in the British Army that early?

Let me make myself clear, I don't object to the gun as a Militia or commercial "made for the trade" paramilitary firelock, as all sorts of different weapons were made and sold then.

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

OK, at risk of once again being criticized for trying to be historically correct, I have to ask what documentation is there for Light Infantry in the British Army that early?

Let me make myself clear, I don't object to the gun as a Militia or commercial "made for the trade" paramilitary firelock, as all sorts of different weapons were made and sold then.

Gus

Not sure Gus, I bought the kit because i wanted it, not becuase I wanted it to be historically correct. When it comes to historical correctness I always expect someone to tell me I’m in the wrong, so no worries. I’m actually modifying it too, having Bobby Hoyt make a .62 copied and rifled barrel that I can swap out with the smoothbore.

I wanted a fusil that could take a bayonet, with more drop than the 1742 and one that didn’t weigh 12.5 lbs. My choices were the 1760 light infantry fusil, this kit or the chambers officers fusil kit, I went for this one.

http://therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/english_arms/(578).htm
As with all officer’s fusils, these guns are often customized and not indicative to any specific pattern, some are found with wooden or steel rammers, nose cap or nose band, long upper thimble or short barrel shaped.

When I spoke to Jess Melot about the kit, he said he’s had various styles of these come into his shop for restoration work, some had different style wrist plates, some had nose bands and some had full panel side plates.

The closest thing it resembles is the lord louden musket, which I’ve only seen three of and none were identical.

Fort Ligonere has one officer’s fusil which resembles this musket,the difference being I think think the trigger guard was in teh Dutch pear final and the lock was flat faced.

 

[Artificer]

Not sure Gus, I bought the kit because i wanted it, not becuase I wanted it to be historically correct. When it comes to historical correctness I always expect someone to tell me I’m in the wrong, so no worries. I’m actually modifying it too, having Bobby Hoyt make a .62 copied and rifled barrel that I can swap out with the smoothbore.

I wanted a fusil that could take a bayonet, with more drop than the 1742 and one that didn’t weigh 12.5 lbs. My choices were the 1760 light infantry fusil, this kit or the chambers officers fusil kit, I went for this one.

http://therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/english_arms/(578).htm
As with all officer’s fusils, these guns are often customized and not indicative to any specific pattern, some are found with wooden or steel rammers, nose cap or nose band, long upper thimble or short barrel shaped.

When I spoke to Jess Melot about the kit, he said he’s had various styles of these come into his shop for restoration work, some had different style wrist plates, some had nose bands and some had full panel side plates.

The closest thing it resembles is the lord louden musket, which I’ve only seen three of and none were identical.

Fort Ligonere has one officer’s fusil which resembles this musket,the difference being I think think the trigger guard was in teh Dutch pear final and the lock was flat faced.

Thanks Nick,

So, it sounds like the Rifle Shoppe just came up with the name for their kit and not actually a copy of a known British Ordnance Pattern. That's fine, as it is their prerogative to name their kit any way they want to.

Still looking forward to pictures of the kit. Gentle nudge, nudge.

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

Thanks Nick,

So, it sounds like the Rifle Shoppe just came up with the name for their kit and not actually a copy of a known British Ordnance Pattern. That's fine, as it is their prerogative to name their kit any way they want to.

Still looking forward to pictures of the kit. Gentle nudge, nudge.

Gus

Thanks Gus, this is absolute going to be phantasy project of mine.

I’m Torn between pinning the barrel and keying it.

Ironically i did find a slab of English walnut for this kit, but the cost was nearly 6x’s the cost of black walnut, I’d have a hard time explaining that to my wife. To her wood is wood.

 

[Artificer]

Thanks Gus, this is absolute going to be phantasy project of mine.

I’m Torn between pinning the barrel and keying it.

Ironically i did find a slab of English walnut for this kit, but the cost was nearly 6x’s the cost of black walnut, I’d have a hard time explaining that to my wife. To her wood is wood.

The real question is:

What would you do for the wood you want? (Try saying that five times fast.)

Trade for jewelry, perhaps?

Gus