Brown Bess -Why

[lexington1]

Here is my 1744 Short Land musket for Dragoons that I built several years ago. It is TRS parts and is .66 caliber, with 42" barrel. I showed it next to the original artillery carbine just to show size perspective. I wanted something that was reduced scale from a full-sized land pattern, yet early enough that I could use it for F&I stuff. This one fits really well as far as stock drop and weight. The original artillery carbine is so straight in the stock that it is nearly impossible to sight along the barrel. I know, I did the farb thing of browning the lock and barrel, but I also use this for hunting. I could knock the finish off of this pretty easily if I needed to.

 

[Artificer]

Here is my 1744 Short Land musket for Dragoons that I built several years ago. It is TRS parts and is .66 caliber, with 42" barrel. I showed it next to the original artillery carbine just to show size perspective. I wanted something that was reduced scale from a full-sized land pattern, yet early enough that I could use it for F&I stuff. This one fits really well as far as stock drop and weight. The original artillery carbine is so straight in the stock that it is nearly impossible to sight along the barrel. I know, I did the farb thing of browning the lock and barrel, but I also use this for hunting. I could knock the finish off of this pretty easily if I needed to. View attachment 121844View attachment 121845

Your 1744 Short Land musket for Dragoons was originally designated by British Ordnance as a Carbine.

British Ordnance was ALL over the place on what constituted the caliber and barrel length for at least another decade.

It wasn't until the P1756 and P1760 Carbines where British Ordnance began standardizing arms as "Carbines" in having a "Carbine Bore or .65 cal" and a barrel length of 37 inches. Of course, they occasionally made "Carbines" with shorter barrels for decades more, but generally as a special order item.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Oops, forgot to mention the P1760 Light Infantry Carbine with a Carbine bore, but barrel length of 42 inches.

Confusing, isn't it? LOL!!

Gus

 

[lexington1]

Your 1744 Short Land musket for Dragoons was originally designated by British Ordnance as a Carbine.

British Ordnance was ALL over the place on what constituted the caliber and barrel length for at least another decade.

It wasn't until the P1756 and P1760 Carbines where British Ordnance began standardizing arms as "Carbines" in having a "Carbine Bore or .65 cal" and a barrel length of 37 inches. Of course, they occasionally made "Carbines" with shorter barrels for decades more, but generally as a special order item.

Gus

You are right. I had always wondered why Jess Melot had referred to this as a Short Land musket, when it clearly is reduced scale and smaller bore size. It never bothered me, in fact I thought it was pretty cool to have an early carbine built for a steel rod.

 

[lexington1]

Oops, forgot to mention the P1760 Light Infantry Carbine with a Carbine bore, but barrel length of 42 inches.

Confusing, isn't it? LOL!!

Gus

Yes it is, lol.

 

[Artificer]

You are right. I had always wondered why Jess Melot had referred to this as a Short Land musket, when it clearly is reduced scale and smaller bore size. It never bothered me, in fact I thought it was pretty cool to have an early carbine built for a steel rod.

Originally the P1744 Carbine for Dragoons was in Musket Caliber (.76 cal.) as well.

In effect, this made it the first "Short Land" pattern musket.

Gus

 

[sturmkatze]

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.

Because modern 'Muricans call it a "hammer" on guns. And, probably, because the term "****" is now used for something else and people get weirded out.

 

[tenngun]

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

They did their volley shooting, and trained their men to shoot no less then four times a minute. Not much time to aim.
However we have lots of references to being taught to aim.
Men didn’t have corrected vision and the ranks were drawn from the poorer classes. Men who often didn’t have the best nutrition.
All and All musket wars produced about ten times causulties per shot fired then WTBS and hundred times more then WW2 or Vietnam
Nelson was famous for not wanting fire from the tops but English French and later Americans did often clear the enemies upper decks with fire from the tops.
mold game keepers were much prized for their shooting

 

[Artificer]

Because modern 'Muricans call it a "hammer" on guns. And, probably, because the term "****" is now used for something else and people get weirded out.

The term probably came during the percussion period and after flintlocks had generally been stopped being used.

Yes, your second sentence may be part of it, as well.

Calling it a hammer is, well, at best showing incredible ignorance, because it doesn't hammer anything or get hammered.

Bottom line, when these guns were in common use, the part that held the flint was the ****.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

They did their volley shooting, and trained their men to shoot no less then four times a minute. Not much time to aim.

I disagree, modern IPSC and combat shooters aim in fractions of a second and still hit what they are aiming at. So, there was plenty of time to take a quick aim, even at that rate of fire.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

I disagree, modern IPSC and combat shooters aim in fractions of a second and still hit what they are aiming at. So, there was plenty of time to take a quick aim, even at that rate of fire.

Gus

Oh and I have to add, the KEY to aiming that quickly is concentrating on the front SIGHT when aiming/hitting that quickly.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

I disagree, modern IPSC and combat shooters aim in fractions of a second and still hit what they are aiming at. So, there was plenty of time to take a quick aim, even at that rate of fire.

Gus

Could well be right.
I note from Marlboro to DDay causulties we’re pretty similar percentage for men involved
Shooting paper cartridge in my TFC with a .575 ball in .62 and priming from my horn I was shooting at about twenty five seconds per round. And was able to stay on a 1ftX2 Ft paper
And my priming sucked. I was over primed often and had very noticeable delay

 

[tenngun]

I was at a WTBS demonstration at Wilson’s Creek. Except for the Hall rifle I think my flinter could fire faster.
much of the battle was fought well within smoothbore range

 

[FlinterNick]

Originally the P1744 Carbine for Dragoons was in Musket Caliber (.76 cal.) as well.

In effect, this made it the first "Short Land" pattern musket.

Gus

I think Bailey has the P1744 dragoon musket the very first series of shortland muskets. As the beginning of the shortland era.

This musket was resigned a few times before 1769, and adopted the 1755 styled lock earlier than the Period 1756 long land bess.

I have this kit on back order

 

[OhioHawkeye]

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......

I'm descended from Thomas Goble who was one of the first settlers of the Mass. Bay Colony. He became a freeman September 3, 1634. That means he could vote and own property within the colony. by 1638, he had amassed quite about of property and holdings in the Charleston area. Three of his sons was involved in King Philip's war. They were at the Battle of Great Swamp Fort on December 19, 1675

I quote you because, I'm wondering when the first guns were made on the North American Continent. I know the French did not allow textile production on this continent. All textiles were required to be imported. But I'm wondering about the French and English influence on gun manufacture.

This is pertinent to the conversation simply because it points more to fill out what a said before as to "Why a Bess" This history is part of the reason I purchased my first Bess to begin with. I couldn't afford a 17th c firelock and I got quite a deal on my first pedersoli at $400 and it is a shootable firearm so I could reliably use it to hunt game. I would so like to gain a firelock model after ones used during King Philips War.

BTW, one of the 3 sons who went to war, Daniel: He was one of 3 who were tried and convicted of murder just before the war ended. The other two were from more affluent families and got stays of execution and were simply fined and released.

Sounds like a plot for a movie, doesn't it. LOL

 

[Coinneach]

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 .

"These men would be killed and their horses would shy and swerve at the wall of bayonets and be shot"
The British Infantry Squares at Waterloo all but destroyed Napoleons Heavy Cavalry, Horses wont charge onto what they see as a spiked Wall, and the Brit infantry we're specifically ordered to "aim for the Horses"; at close range it was devastating. Understandably Horses won't approach other dead Horses (or anything else dead usually) so once the first wave was down screaming in agony, it would have been almost impossible for the French Curassiers to press home the attack.

"New troops often fired high when shooting a horsemen ."
It has to be said that the Brit Infantry had reached the peak of training under Wellington and his subordinate commanders, Hill, Picton and others. In 1815 most of the Veterans were still in uniform and new replacements were well trained, the "firing high" habit was well known and trained out with even junior NCO's involved with ongoing supervision. But once the black powder was burning on a battle field poor visibility played the devil even at close range.

For anyone interested in Infantry actions of the Napoleonic era, here's an account of the renowned 42nd Royal Highland Regiment (Black Watch) closing the Square (while French Lancers were inside it) at the battle of Quatre Bras, only 2 days before Waterloo.
https://www.britishbattles.com/napoleonic-wars/battle-of-quatre-bras/

 

[Coinneach]

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

" 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.

 

[Coinneach]

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

You probably won't believe this but I had the opportunity to fire an original Brown Bess (India Pattern) at Sea on one of Her Majestys Australian Ships (HMAS) way back in 1976.
In those days we had an Army rotation detachment on RAN Patrol Boats patrolling the northern approaches, one of the Navy Petty Officers (PO) had a yen for ML's and had come into possession of an original Brown Bess; and was approved to have it on board locked in the Armscote. During quiet times the off-watch crew would do some fishing and the PO would "stand sentry" with his Bess to knock out any Sharks that often came by to interrupt proceedings. Believe me any Shark that got close enough to the surface near the Ships hull took a .75 cal RB through the top of its head....after I had my chance to fire the Bess I was forever hooked on BP ML's.

 

[Coinneach]

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

Consider this, if the British Ordnance Board intended the Brown Bess to be a Sighted Weapon, why did it lack a rear sight ?
Even well before the Napoleonic Wars the efficacy of fully sighted Rifles had been well established, and British Light Infantry RIFLE Regiments were trained in the use of sighted Rifles (Baker Rifle initially).
Installing a Rear Sight on the Brown Bess Muskets would have been easy both economically and time wise, but it didn't happen.
Granted the Brit Infantry were instructed to "Aim" using what they had at the time, and granted it was termed "Sighting", but the fact remains that "the Lug" was purposely designed to locate and fix the standard issue Bayonet, which Infantry doctrine rightfully accorded a priority Weapon after Volley Fire was no longer practical (usually 2 to 3 rounds at best).

 

[DuncNZ]

I'm wondering when the first guns were made on the North American Continent.

The first guns made in North America were smooth bore fowlers , using British , French or Dutch made barrels and locks . I recommend you buy Tom Grinsdale's most excellent book "Flintlock Fowlers , the first guns made in America ISBN 1-880655-17-9
https://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/278/1/BOOK-FF-S
It is now available in soft cover for about half of what I paid for mine .