Brown Bess -Why

[Coinneach]

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.

"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. "

Your assumption doesnt stand considering the fact that the Brit Infantry regiments stood to in Defensive deployments with Bayonets fixed, readied for Volley firing. Bayonets were kept fixed during the advance to contact on Battlefields, also when there was a Cavalry threat; and advance to clear the battlefield (as after the French Old Guard recoiled in the final phase on Waterloo).

The only exceptions were in the case of Brit Light Infantry in the case of an Infantry Regiments Light Company being deployed as Skirmishers, and the Rifle regiments deployment in similar deployments.

 

[Artificer]

Consider this, if the British Ordnance Board intended the Brown Bess to be a Sighted Weapon, why did it lack a rear sight ?

Consider this, why put a sight on it at all, if it wasn't intended to be sighted?

If it was primarily a bayonet lug and not meant to be sighted, why was it decades ahead in the design for a front sight?

Why did British Ordnance and the British Army call it the "sight?"

Further, it was a rare 18th century smoothbore firelock that ever had a rear sight, including much more expensive fowlers, BUT they always had a [front] 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.

The P1730 came out LONG before the British Army was involved in the Napoleonic Wars and quite some time before they accepted rifles for anything but specialized troops. They had DECADES of experience using it before and did not change AFTER the British Army began their Rifle Regiments. Why go to the expense and time change something that worked so well with no rear sight?

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).

With respect, your continued use of the term "the Lug" is your nomenclature, not that of the Period British Ordnance Department nor the British Army. IF you really want to make your point, please find historic documentation they called it "the lug" and cite period documents they did not aim the muskets using the sight.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

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

Jamestown and Plymouth both had ‘armorers’ in their company. 1711 was the earliest identified ‘rifle maker’. The Dutch would produce the Hudson valley fowler style early eighteenth century. This type of gun is all American in style, I don’t know if all were made in the lLow Countries or if some were made here. The Dutch had a similar idea about armed civilians as the British at the time.
I suspect that the earliest American guns were ‘kits’ European barrels and Locks assembled by American craftsmen

 

[Coinneach]

Consider this, why put a sight on it at all, if it wasn't intended to be sighted?

"The best target rifle in the world is not accurate if it has poor sights. The Brown Bess, Charleville and other muskets of the period have no sights at all. The Brown Bess does have a bayonet lug to secure the bayonet. The bayonet lug is not an ideal sight (my itallics) but it is on the top of the barrel; so we will consider that a front sight."
(Journal of the American Revolution)
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/the-inaccuracy-of-muskets/
"If it was primarily a bayonet lug and not meant to be sighted, why was it decades ahead in the design for a front sight?"

"decades ahead" ?
And your creditable reference for that is ?
Consider the German Rifle makers in Europe and Pennsylvania in the early 18th century, were the Foresights they installed similar in any way to the Bayonet Lug / "Sight" on the early Brown Bess at the time ?

"The .75 calibre barrel, usually 46 inches in length, was rounded for its entire surface and had a small, rectangular stud, two inches from the muzzle, which served more as a bayonet lug than a sight". (my itallics)
(Historical Arms Series No. 12. Red Coat and Brown Bess. Chapter 2. The Long Land Pattern Musket. P19. A,D, Darling. 1986.)

Can you provide one other example of such a thick stubby rectangular Foresight on either a "rare 18th century smoothbore firelock" or "expensive Fowlers" ?

Page 61 of Goldstein and Mowbrays well illustrated reference book "The Brown Bess an Identification guide and Illustrated Study of Britains most famous musket" shows a bayonet fitted to a 1748 Pattern Bess and the perfect fit of the barrel mounted Bayonet Lug into the forward slot of the Bayonet socket. Obviously "the Lug" was designed in length, width and depth to retain the Bayonet as locked in that position. Interestingly in every illustration of every pattern of the different patterns of Besses throughout the book, not one Bayonet Lug can be seen to protrude above the rear collar ring let alone the forward tube of the fixed Bayonet itself, thereby rendering the Lug useless as a Sight when fitted with a Bayonet. The Bayonet Lugs have no resemblance to any other conventional Foresight of the FL ML era, being thick stubs rather than a specifically designed Sight.

Why did British Ordnance and the British Army call it the "sight?"
No idea, possibly because thats how they viewed it, or even intended it to be used when not fitted with a Bayonet, a rarity on the battlefield. The BO responsibilities were Logistics, Regulating Quality and Production of Weapons through what was the "Ordnance System" introduced in 1715.
The BO had nothing to do with the Brit Army Doctrine, or Weapons Training and Tactics of the Infantry Corps.
In my earlier posts I never denied that the Bayonet Lug could at times be used as a Sight reference, but I also stressed that the British Infantry armed with the Bess fought in Ranks both Defensively and in the Attack with Bayonets fixed; and the British Infantry was rigidly trained and deployed to fire close range (40 to 60 yards max) Volleys in their Company ranks; with their Bayonets fixed.

"The P1730 came out LONG before the British Army was involved in the Napoleonic Wars"
Refer to my comment above ref "Interestingly in every illustration of every pattern of the Besses throughout the book, not one Bayonet Lug can be seen to protrude above the rear collar ring of the fitted Bayonet, thereby rendering the Lug useless as a Sight when fitted with a Bayonet" BTW that included the Pattern 1730 illustrated in Goldstein and Mowbrays book.

"With respect, your continued use of the term "the Lug" is your nomenclature, not that of the Period British Ordnance Department nor the British Army. IF you really want to make your point, please find historic documentation they called it "the lug" and cite period documents they did not aim the muskets using the sight."

"....the generously sized ramrod pipe made to accept a wooden rammer and the construction details of the bayonet lug. Note that the lug (my itallics) is dovetailed and braised into place" (P 33 The Pattern 1730-40 LLM)
"A close up of the bayonet lug dovetailed and brazed in place" ( P53 The Land Pattern 1748 LLM).

With regards to citing "period documents they did not aim the muskets using the sight." nothing I've researched states that unsurprisingly, because aiming "the muskets using the sight." wasnt a common practice on the battlefield (refer above) other than among Light Infantry Bess armed Skirmishers and Rifle equipped specialist Light Infantry.

(The Brown Bess an Identification guide and Illustrated Study of Britains most famous musket. P 33. E. Goldstein and S. Mowbray. 2010).

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Back on Page 4 of this thread in my post 72, I did post original documentation of Regular British Soldiers (not Light Infantry) being trained to aim in formation and that meant with the bayonets fixed.

On page 5 in Post 91, I documented even more from the original manual.

So indeed, there is period documentation on the subject to support my claims.

With respect, you have not posted a single bit of period documentation to back up your claims.

On page 5 in Post 92, I talked about actually sighting the front sight with the bayonet fixed on three original Bess's in my own hands and not trying to extrapolate something from a book.

On page 6 in post 103, I talked about how the vertical post sight, as seen from the rear on the Bess, is the same sight picture as the M1903 through M16 rifles, so yes it was decades ahead of its time

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 when they ****** the triggers during volley fires. This is far better documented in our UnCivil War, but it was just as true with flintlock muskets. Further, I and others have actually documented this by using repro Bess's with bayonets fixed and live firing.

As to "the inaccuracy of the Brown Bess," it was plenty accurate for the role it was used in combat at the time as the main infantry arm and that includes during and after the Napoleonic Wars, with Black Powder propellent.

On June 17, 1775 at the Battle of Breed's Hill (normally erroneously called Bunker Hill) there are two excellent examples of combat accuracy with the Brown Bess.

The British Regulars advanced to between 50 and 60 yards when they stopped and began firing at the entrenched colonists in the main part of the battle. This demonstrates what they believed was the range of effective fires with bayonets fixed. Yes, they were forced to retreat a number of times because the fire from the colonists with the protective cover of the entrenchments caused more casualties to the British than they normally would have received had the colonists also been standing in open formation.

In a lesser-known part of that battle on the American left, Col. John Stark commanded American Militia. Col. Stark had been a Captain in the Rangers during the FIW. Because he came up later and had no time to dig entrenchments, he put his men behind a LOW wall that only protected them from about their knee's down to their feet. Stark had his men drive aiming stakes into the ground at 40 yards distance before the battle was joined and strictly forbade his men under terrible threats, not to fire until the British came up to that line and commanded to fire. Stark's men actually did much more damage to the British Regulars there than was done in the main part of the line and so much the British Soldiers had to retreat back to the boats and leave.

We can see from these examples what they considered the effective range and of course at 40 yards, the Brown Bess was devasting, even by RAW Colonial Militia. Some may say, well, that was only 40 to 60 yards. Fair enough.

Let's forward to the American UnCivil War when troops were armed with American or British Rifle Muskets whose effective accuracy range was 300 yards. Did they commonly generally engage in infantry battles at that distance of the effective range of their rifle muskets or even close to it? NO, they did not. The common engagement was at 100 yards or less BECAUSE of the smoke from the Black Powder when volley firing, the same thing soldiers had to deal with in the 18th century. This was only 40 to 50 yards beyond the distance the British Soldiers engaged at Breed's Hill.

Finally let's fast forward to WWII when the effective range of most infantry small arms was 500 to 600 yards and the rifles were commonly "Battle Sight Zero'd" at 300 yards. SURELY with that kind of accuracy one would expect a major number of casualties at or near 300 yards, right? NOPE. Now of course they were no longer firing at long ranks of men in a battle line. Still, the U.S. Army did a large study right after the war and found MOST battle casualties had come at 100 yards or less. I added this to show even with MUCH more accurate arms and smokeless powder, the actual range most soldiers were hit was pretty close to the UnCivil War and not that much further than the 18th century.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Jamestown and Plymouth both had ‘armorers’ in their company. 1711 was the earliest identified ‘rifle maker’. The Dutch would produce the Hudson valley fowler style early eighteenth century. This type of gun is all American in style, I don’t know if all were made in the lLow Countries or if some were made here. The Dutch had a similar idea about armed civilians as the British at the time.
I suspect that the earliest American guns were ‘kits’ European barrels and Locks assembled by American craftsmen

With respect, the overwhelming majority of firearms here up to the AWI, were completely manufactured in Britain or the Continent.

American Gunsmiths had to make ONE complete gun to pass their apprenticeship, BUT in most cases, that was the LAST complete gun they ever made. They mostly did repairs to firearms and that including re-stocking.

Most barrels and the overwhelming majority of locks also came from Britain or Europe until the AWI, though a huge number of our arms then were manufactured in Europe as well. We didn't even get into large scale production of locks until the end of the 18th century AFTER British Lock Makers came here and set up shop and of course we set up our National Armories at Springfield and Harpers Ferry.

You are right about Hudson Valley fowlers being produced by the Dutch and also assembled here with imported locks and barrels.

Even with our rifles, the locks were almost all imported as were many/most of the barrels until we began to set up rough barrel forging companies about a quarter century before the AWI. Even then and up to the AWI, we were still importing many rifle barrels.

Gus

 

[Lonewalker]

I do not know why , except I can't shake the desire for one.

 

[tenngun]

With respect, the overwhelming majority of firearms here up to the AWI, were completely manufactured in Britain or the Continent.

American Gunsmiths had to make ONE complete gun to pass their apprenticeship, BUT in most cases, that was the LAST complete gun they ever made. They mostly did repairs to firearms and that including re-stocking.

Most barrels and the overwhelming majority of locks also came from Britain or Europe until the AWI, though a huge number of our arms then were manufactured in Europe as well. We didn't even get into large scale production of locks until the end of the 18th century AFTER British Lock Makers came here and set up shop and of course we set up our National Armories at Springfield and Harpers Ferry.

You are right about Hudson Valley fowlers being produced by the Dutch and also assembled here with imported locks and barrels.

Even with our rifles, the locks were almost all imported as were many/most of the barrels until we began to set up rough barrel forging companies about a quarter century before the AWI. Even then and up to the AWI, we were still importing many rifle barrels.

Gus

Yes to all points. We know fairly early there were smiths but imports were the stock in trade

 

[sturmkatze]

10 pages on this. Really?

 

[Grenadier1758]

It's been more enlightening and less repetitive than some of the stuck ball threads.

 

[fireman1]

"It's been more enlightening and less repetitive than some of the stuck ball threads."

 

[DuncNZ]

Before battle on the second day at Waterloo the Infantry were told to look to the sharpness of their flints , clean their steels and make sure their dog head screw was tight ,
First thing they did in the morning was to discharge their muskets to fire off the nights charge and so ensure they were working , they could hear the French doing the same thing
Some Musket locks failed to **** after a day and night in the rain because of swelled the stocks .

 

[Coinneach]

"With respect, you have not posted a single bit of period documentation to back up your claims."

With respect I published creditable reference source publications, widely accepted as being supported by historical research from original accounts.

"On page 5 in Post 92, I talked about actually sighting the front sight with the bayonet fixed on three original Bess's in my own hands and not trying to extrapolate something from a book."

Really ? Then if that the case you'd be familiar the attached photos of original Brown Bess Muskets sourced from one of those historical research publications I mentioned.

Photos of Original Brown Bess Muskets spanning from the 1730 pattern through to the 1809 Brown Bess Musket (India Pattern type 2) all consistent with the following examples.
(The Brown Bess. An Identification Guide and Illustrated Study of Britains Most Famous Muskets. Goldstein & Mowbray. 2010.)

Note the low level and excessive width of the Bayonet lug / "sight"

With Bayonet fitted and locked in place, two points of interest here; note the Barrel mounted lug / "sight" barely protrudes above the Bayonet tube itself; then look back to the Collar ring on the rear of the Bayonet and note how it's considerably higher than the Barrel mounted Lug /"sight".
Question: How is it possible to use the Barrel mounted Lug as a Sight when the Bayonet is fitted ?

Side view of an original Bess Musket, with Bayonet Lug, compare this to the following M1903 and M16 Rifle Foresights."

"On page 6 in post 103, I talked about how the vertical post sight, as seen from the rear on the Bess, is the same sight picture as the M1903 through M16 rifles, so yes it was decades ahead of its time"

Are you Serious ? How can you possibly compare the original Brown Bess Bayonet Lug /"sight" to either the M1903 or M16 Rifle foresights ?
The only thing they have in common is that they're all mounted on top of the Barrell !
I carried an M16 Assault Rifle regularly over my 37 year Army career, there's no comparison at all with the Sights or Sight picture between an original Brown Bess and M16 Assault Rifle. I cant help but assume thats much the same with the M1903 Springfield rifle.

"Further, I and others have actually documented this by using repro Bess's with bayonets fixed and live firing."

I've owned and fired the Pedersoli Brown Bess reproduction, and the dimensions are markedly different to originals. The Pedersoli bayonet lug is higher and longer than originals.

Your accounts of Bunker Hill, the American Militia and ACW have no relevance to the British Infantry using the Bayonet Lug as a sight for aimed Volley firing.

"British troops in line were not trained to aim their muskets. (my italics) Speed was emphasized over accuracy by military strategists in the 18th century. Mass volley fire into massed targets and rapid reloading up to four times per minute were emphasized. For many commanders, the volley was a mere formality that was followed by a bayonet charge."
(Volleying Muskets in the American Revolution. Revolutionary War Journal.)
https://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/volleying-muskets/
On Volley Firing by the British Infantry.
"Now came the first crucial test of the foot soldier: the ability to hold his fire for the next fifteen seconds or so needed the advance to a point 50 yards or less from the enemy. Here at point blank range, (my italics) the order to fire was given. Then as one synchronised machine and without breaking stride the men reloaded and delivered a second volley, and if the distance allowed a third. At the moment of impact, as it closed in upon its opponent, the attacking force turned to the Bayonet.
In this manner of warfare, rate of fire became more valuable than accuracy (my italics) speed and precision had to be combined with iron discipline factors necessary for the soldiers to continue loading and firing."
(Red Coat and Brown Bess. A.D. Dowling. Historical Arms Series No 12. p11.)

Note, there is no mention of Aimed fire when Volley Firing "at point blank range" ( accepted and rigidly trained doctrine) occurred.

Robert Jackson, a one time inspector- general of army hospitals reported in 1804 concerning Volley firing "Such explosions may intimidate by their noise: it is mere chance if they destroy by their impression.....History furnishes proof that the battle is rarely gained by the scientific use of the musket: noise intimidates, platoon firing strikes only at random, the charge with the Bayonet decides the question...." (Red Coat and Brown Bess. A.D. Dowling. Historical Arms Series No 12. p11.)

If aimed firing was expected during Volley fire why is it that all emphasis was placed on Drill, Formation and the Manual of Arms etc ?
"Training consisted on learning parade formation, the manual of arms .....Once or twice a year , the soldier might be allowed to fire his musket with ball."
(Red Coat and Brown Bess. A.D. Dowling. Historical Arms Series No 12. p9.)
Hardly what whats acceptable for the training of aimed Volley firing.

I think we've exhausted the subject, and reached an impasse so this will be my last post on the topic.
Thank you for an interesting discussion.










Gus

 

[Coinneach]

10 pages on this. Really?

Why count pages ?

 

[Kyle Kalasnik]

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

You read some of my posts and questions, you’ll see I am also one of the stupidest.

 

[Coinneach]

You read some of my posts and questions, you’ll see I am also one of the stupidest.

We all have our moments mate

 

[Celt5494]

You read some of my posts and questions, you’ll see I am also one of the stupidest.

Hysterical yes, stupid absolutely not... !

 

[Artificer]

"On page 6 in post 103, I talked about how the vertical post sight, as seen from the rear on the Bess, is the same sight picture as the M1903 through M16 rifles, so yes it was decades ahead of its time"

Are you Serious ? How can you possibly compare the original Brown Bess Bayonet Lug /"sight" to either the M1903 or M16 Rifle foresights ?
I carried an M16 Assault Rifle regularly over my 37 year Army career, theres no comparison at all.

Dr. Dewitt Bailey wrote the dimension of the Sight as manufactured was 1/4 long by 1/8 wide. Certainly not the lumpy square sight you keep posting, which no doubt was filed and worn that way in long service after it was manufactured.

As seen from the rear on the M16A2 below with the exception of the flared part at the very bottom of the front sight which no one actually uses even if they have good enough eyes to see it, you have a vertical post.

I cannot quickly find a picture of a M1903 Sight picture, but here is a pic of the side of the front sight, which also shows a vertical post when shown from the rear.

IOW, the sight picture of the Bess front sight being a vertical post was decades ahead of these rifles.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

"On page 5 in Post 92, I talked about actually sighting the front sight with the bayonet fixed on three original Bess's in my own hands and not trying to extrapolate something from a book."

Really ? Then if that the case you'd be familiar the attached photos of original Brown Bess Muskets sourced from one of those historical research publications I mentioned.

Photos of Original Brown Bess Muskets spanning from the 1730 pattern through to the 1809 Brown Bess Musket (India Pattern type 2) all consistent with the following examples.
(The Brown Bess. An Identification Guide and Illustrated Study of Britains Most Famous Muskets. Goldstein & Mowbray. 2010.)

And how many original Bess's with their original bayonets have you ever shouldered and sighted? This is the difference between you extrapolating from a book and real world experience.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

"With respect, you have not posted a single bit of period documentation to back up your claims."

With respect I published creditable reference source publications, widely accepted as being supported by historical research of original accounts.

I don't doubt that, but they are not the original sources and as shown, the original sources obviously disagree with your claims.

Gus