Brown bess

[Jason holgate]

What were good and bad features of brown bess ? Which was better the charleville French or brown bess? Why

 

[FlinterNick]

The Brown Bess is a beautiful military arm, that’s its most revealed feature. Its style, and character and culture of 17th and 18th century england and connection to colonial american history are all part of the Brown Bess, thats its best feature in my opinion.

Its next best feature is the lock. Most brown bess locks from the earliest land pattern to the third model locks including the new land patterns were made to work and last. Their geometry is i would rank as very good, the size of the locks are generally oversized which makes correcting them or fixing them much easer. Stout strong springs ensure a lock with adequate energy including its graceful features. My favorite Brown Bess Lock is the 1742 Brown Bess Lock, its curved plate, strong springs and robust internals, double bridle features ,,make it a highly reliable and serviceable lock.

The Brown Bess is military arm, with a barrel around 8 gauges (.75 - .78 caliber, some as high as .80). The barrel tapered from .1500 at the breech to a muzzle at .880, at .46-39 inches depending on the model. The stock was intended to be heavy and strong, reinforced at key locations on earlier models and then later models hat their stocks reduced for cost savings and practical matters. As a military arm the Brown Bess won the field many times over and was in service for nearly 200 years and then as a private arm even longer. With an average weight of 10-12 lbs the brown Bess is a heavy gun.

What the Brown Bess isn’t. A Brown Bess isn’t a great shooting blackpowder arm, its high caliber, and weight make it heavy and awkward for many to shoot. A lug at the end of the barrel doubles as a front sight and bayonet stud, not a true front sight but can be modified into one, however still does not do the shooter much good past 70 yards.

A pretty good buck and ball gun that can be used continuously without much cleaning.

It’s not my favorite gun to take in the field or range, while still fun to shoot, if i want to actually hit something with it, not the best choice.

Personally I would recommend the following Brown Bess variants, a short land Brown Bess for Dragoons 1740 era model, has a significant drop in the butt stock with a 42” barrel and wooden ramrod, this makes the larger caliber musket more comfortable to shoot. Its basically a 1730/40 era musket with a 42” barrel.

A light infantry carbine Bess, with a 42” barrel in .62 caliber or .66. These have all of the best. Features of a brown bess while being much lighter with a tighter caliber that will more accurate.

Please dont confuse a pedersoli bess with an actual brown bess. Pedersoli brown Bess’s are a 7/8 scale version of a brown bess, they are not actual brown Bess’s, just a modern replica made to look like one. If a pedersoli bess was available in .66 or .69 caliber with a little more drop in the butt, I’d call it the perfect Bess esque’ style to own. But the barrel a .75 with a very straight stock make it to me, one of the least comfortable guns to shoot.

You can modify a pedersoli bess with a lined barrel in .69, however this will add weight.

 

[Jason holgate]

Great answer thank you

 

[Felix the Cat]

The Land Pattern musket (Bess) has its barrel pinned to the stock. There is an opinion that this is less accurate than later designs that use barrel bands. The logic is that a barrel will heat up and lenghten on firing and if pinned to the stock, may warp. Bands allow the barrel to expand unhindered.

Personally I don't think it makes that much difference. The Land Pattern musket was used more as a holder for the Bayonet, which was the weapon that was actually used to win a battle. Musket fire was more used to keep the enemy at bay whilst you manoevered!

Also a tiny point of order.. this is in the rifle section! The land Pattern musket is smoothbore and not rifled!

 

[FlinterNick]

The Land Pattern musket (Bess) has its barrel pinned to the stock. There is an opinion that this is less accurate than later designs that use barrel bands. The logic is that a barrel will heat up and lenghten on firing and if pinned to the stock, may warp. Bands allow the barrel to expand unhindered.

Personally I don't think it makes that much difference. The Land Pattern musket was used more as a holder for the Bayonet, which was the weapon that was actually used to win a battle. Musket fire was more used to keep the enemy at bay whilst you manoevered!

Also a tiny point of order.. this is in the rifle section! The land Pattern musket is smoothbore and not rifled!

Depends how the pins are done. I use music wire, it has some spring action.

 

[smoothshooter]

H

The Brown Bess is a beautiful military arm, that’s its most revealed feature. Its style, and character and culture of 17th and 18th century england and connection to colonial american history are all part of the Brown Bess, thats its best feature in my opinion.

Its next best feature is the lock. Most brown bess locks from the earliest land pattern to the third model locks including the new land patterns were made to work and last. Their geometry is i would rank as very good, the size of the locks are generally oversized which makes correcting them or fixing them much easer. Stout strong springs ensure a lock with adequate energy including its graceful features. My favorite Brown Bess Lock is the 1742 Brown Bess Lock, its curved plate, strong springs and robust internals, double bridle features ,,make it a highly reliable and serviceable lock.

The Brown Bess is military arm, with a barrel around 8 gauges (.75 - .78 caliber, some as high as .80). The barrel tapered from .1500 at the breech to a muzzle at .880, at .46-39 inches depending on the model. The stock was intended to be heavy and strong, reinforced at key locations on earlier models and then later models hat their stocks reduced for cost savings and practical matters. As a military arm the Brown Bess won the field many times over and was in service for nearly 200 years and then as a private arm even longer. With an average weight of 10-12 lbs the brown Bess is a heavy gun.

What the Brown Bess isn’t. A Brown Bess isn’t a great shooting blackpowder arm, its high caliber, and weight make it heavy and awkward for many to shoot. A lug at the end of the barrel doubles as a front sight and bayonet stud, not a true front sight but can be modified into one, however still does not do the shooter much good past 70 yards.

A pretty good buck and ball gun that can be used continuously without much cleaning.

It’s not my favorite gun to take in the field or range, while still fun to shoot, if i want to actually hit something with it, not the best choice.

Personally I would recommend the following Brown Bess variants, a short land Brown Bess for Dragoons 1740 era model, has a significant drop in the butt stock with a 42” barrel and wooden ramrod, this makes the larger caliber musket more comfortable to shoot. Its basically a 1730/40 era musket with a 42” barrel.

A light infantry carbine Bess, with a 42” barrel in .62 caliber or .66. These have all of the best. Features of a brown bess while being much lighter with a tighter caliber that will more accurate.

Please dont confuse a pedersoli bess with an actual brown bess. Pedersoli brown Bess’s are a 7/8 scale version of a brown bess, they are not actual brown Bess’s, just a modern replica made to look like one. If a pedersoli bess was available in .66 or .69 caliber with a little more drop in the butt, I’d call it the perfect Bess esque’ style to own. But the barrel a .75 with a very straight stock make it to me, one of the least comfortable guns to shoot.

You can modify a pedersoli bess with a lined barrel in .69, however this will add weight.

Have you ever tried one with the barrel shortened to about 30 inches?
Sometimes I am tempted.
Long ago I used a Pedersoli with the 42” or whatever for hunting with shot loads. A lot. Was somewhat cumbersome, but fired almost every time, and after getting used to that big gun, was pretty effective with 1 1/2 oz. of bird shot and about 100 to 110 grains of Goex FFG powder.

 

[tenngun]

Not recommending anything here but every perdisloli I’ve seen was a .75, they make the short land style, what I grew up calling my second model

 

[PathfinderNC]

Try aiming them. The Bess is far better at aiming than the "Charlieville".

 

[Eutycus]

I don't own one but I have heard that the Brown Bess was a heavy weapon. I read a story about how some of the Mexican soldiers attacking the Alamo were equipped with this gun. Some of the soldiers of small stature "shot from the hip".

 

[DuncNZ]

The Brits could and did use Charleville ball taken from a Frenchman who no longer needed it .
I purchased a Pedersoli Charleville when I was looking for a musket for competition shooting , after a few modifications , like hardening the frizzen so it would spark , I never regretted my purchase.

 

[FlinterNick]

Try aiming them. The Bess is far better at aiming than the "Charlieville".

I have to disagree with you there.

 

[Grenadier1758]

Some of the earlier Long Land Brown Bess Muskets with a bit more drop at the heel were better aiming than the straighter stocked Short Land Pattern muskets. The straighter stocked muskets used less wood and aiming was not really a concern of the British (or French for that matter) military. Reliability of firing and ease of loading was a greater concern. As far as the pins that hold the stock to the barrel having an adverse effect on accuracy, that wasn't much of an issue as the holes in the lugs were lengthened slightly and accuracy was in second place to rate of fire. It wasn't so much that the ball hit what it was aimed at, but that it was close enough to hit something. Since stocks were not allowed to be removed from the barrel, the barrel bands were a higher manufacturing cost than pins and the pins were equally effective at keeping barrel and stock together.

The Charleville had the advantage of using a smaller gauge ball than the Bess (66 caliber compared to 69 caliber). More ammunition could be provided at less cost. The Charleville was slightly lighter in weight than the Bess and length was about the same. At the beginning of the F&I (Seven Years) War, the French flints were generally better due to the French technique of knapping the flints to a shape that fit to the jaws better and provided two edges. By the Revolutionary War, both the French flints and British flints used the more effective knapping techniques.

Which was better? Really, both were pretty equal. It was the logistic chain that kept the rifles loaded and firing that would make the difference.

 

[tenngun]

I THINK the bess is the prettiest of the two.
We had during the Cold War the American M16, and the Soviets AK 47
The Ak was mass produced all over the world
Which was the better gun? Nonsensical question
Both were reliable and did everything the military required of it. Any comparison is arbitrary.
Now, it’s 1775, America is producing committee of safety muskets. The ones I’ve seen were besses.
Early in the war French private companies got set up transporting charley to America. A trickle at first, turned if not a flood at least a flow after France recognized the US.
After the war America began producing Charley for our military.
However America wasn’t alone. All over Europe nations built the charley.
Some German states built a bess. But for late eighteenth century and through the napoleonic wars charley outnumbered bess.
Now back to the Ak
They were popular because the Soviet encouraged it
Napoleons army was Europe’s best at the time.(?)
To paraphrase the smothers brothers ‘if your army has a charley you can be a Napoleon too’

 

[FlinterNick]

The Brits could and did use Charleville ball taken from a Frenchman who no longer needed it .
I purchased a Pedersoli Charleville when I was looking for a musket for competition shooting , after a few modifications , like hardening the frizzen so it would spark , I never regretted my purchase.

Some of the earlier Long Land Brown Bess Muskets with a bit more drop at the heel were better aiming than the straighter stocked Short Land Pattern muskets. The straighter stocked muskets used less wood and aiming was not really a concern of the British (or French for that matter) military. Reliability of firing and ease of loading was a greater concern. As far as the pins that hold the stock to the barrel having an adverse effect on accuracy, that wasn't much of an issue as the holes in the lugs were lengthened slightly and accuracy was in second place to rate of fire. It wasn't so much that the ball hit what it was aimed at, but that it was close enough to hit something. Since stocks were not allowed to be removed from the barrel, the barrel bands were a higher manufacturing cost than pins and the pins were equally effective at keeping barrel and stock together.

The Charleville had the advantage of using a smaller gauge ball than the Bess (66 caliber compared to 69 caliber). More ammunition could be provided at less cost. The Charleville was slightly lighter in weight than the Bess and length was about the same. At the beginning of the F&I (Seven Years) War, the French flints were generally better due to the French technique of knapping the flints to a shape that fit to the jaws better and provided two edges. By the Revolutionary War, both the French flints and British flints used the more effective knapping techniques.

Which was better? Really, both were pretty equal. It was the logistic chain that kept the rifles loaded and firing that would make the difference.

I have four brown Bess’s, 1730, 1742, a 1756 and a track of the wolf bess that i would call a contract long land. The only pattern with a noticeable difference in weight is the 1742, it’s the heaviest of them all, 12.5 lbs. With steel rammer its even heavier. It has just as much drop as the 1730 model (earlier model), the drop is not very significant, however the higher comb does allow you to position your aim a little more, but overall.

The most comfortable large caliber musket I’ve ever handled was a Queen Ann Preland Pattern Musket by John Bosch marked Preeden. I would argue it’s a Dutch musket more than an English Musket, everything is smaller, thinner and the locks have detached pans. The drop is significant almost at 3” with a bulbous butt and high comb, it feels a lot like a Hudson Bay club butt fowler. The barrel was custom designed in .78 by Ed Rayl. The breech was a little heavier than a long land, not by much. I’m currently working on this musket for myself.

The French Guns were actually originally in 72 caliber, not 69. They had to be in a minimum of .69. All the originals I’ve measured were in .72 and worn out up to .75. They used both a .65 and a .69 ball, depending on the infantry regiments. One in the Paris arms museum is a kings guards musket and is the original .72 caliber, its a misunderstanding that french guns were all .69 i think because mostly of the reproductions and American guns were all in .69.

So a french gun could use British ammo, not to the greatest degree as a bess but a .72 barrel can take a .69 ball in a pretty clean state.

The Charleville’s tend to out preform the Bess’s starting with the model 1754. The model 1754 used Spanish Steel for their springs, this was high quality steel. The Spanish 1752 musket and 1757 musket were both high quality also, much better than a bess. These muskets had heavier stocks for a Roman nose style gun. The 1754, 1763 and 1766 locks also underwent so rigorous tests, and were found to be superb, only miss firing once every 75 fires.

The French found that a shorter mainspring worked a little better than an elongated spring, as with the 1754 and 1763 models which used a spring big enough for a 6 1/2 - 7” plate. Reduced down to the 1766 plate at 6 5/16, a stouter spring with thicker arms gave their locks more energy. French springs also didn’t break nearly as much, it’s assumed that because of the Spanish steel which may or may not have included manganese, not sure.

So hands down the French locks were really equal to Bess locks after 1728 and then superior to the British Bess locks after 1763, as the British didn’t really move away from the larger heavier springs until they introduced the third model locks and later period locks, which were very good locks.

The 1717 and 1728 and 1746 French Guns were fragile made with slim stocks (too slim), and the locks were not the most reliable. These muskets are rarely found with original stocks. The barrels were also very light and very thin, and wore out at the muzzle often.

You have to really pair up the variant patterns to get a good idea of what was the better gun. In the French and Indian War and Seven Years War, the Long Lands really owned the field with British and American numerical superiority. In the American Revolution, however the models 1763, 66 and 1774 Charlevilles really did outperform the later long lands and earlier short lands and bess style american muskets (for the Americans), which was why the 1766 Charleville was chosen to be copied for the first Springfield.

It’s hard to say which gun is really the best.

One thing i can say is that the latter 1777 Charleville was copied by nearly every European state that fought against Napoleon, including Spain, Austria, Prussia and Russia and the Ottoman Empire.

 

[stephenprops1]

The Brown Bess is a beautiful military arm, that’s its most revealed feature. Its style, and character and culture of 17th and 18th century england and connection to colonial american history are all part of the Brown Bess, thats its best feature in my opinion.

Its next best feature is the lock. Most brown bess locks from the earliest land pattern to the third model locks including the new land patterns were made to work and last. Their geometry is i would rank as very good, the size of the locks are generally oversized which makes correcting them or fixing them much easer. Stout strong springs ensure a lock with adequate energy including its graceful features. My favorite Brown Bess Lock is the 1742 Brown Bess Lock, its curved plate, strong springs and robust internals, double bridle features ,,make it a highly reliable and serviceable lock.

The Brown Bess is military arm, with a barrel around 8 gauges (.75 - .78 caliber, some as high as .80). The barrel tapered from .1500 at the breech to a muzzle at .880, at .46-39 inches depending on the model. The stock was intended to be heavy and strong, reinforced at key locations on earlier models and then later models hat their stocks reduced for cost savings and practical matters. As a military arm the Brown Bess won the field many times over and was in service for nearly 200 years and then as a private arm even longer. With an average weight of 10-12 lbs the brown Bess is a heavy gun.

What the Brown Bess isn’t. A Brown Bess isn’t a great shooting blackpowder arm, its high caliber, and weight make it heavy and awkward for many to shoot. A lug at the end of the barrel doubles as a front sight and bayonet stud, not a true front sight but can be modified into one, however still does not do the shooter much good past 70 yards.

A pretty good buck and ball gun that can be used continuously without much cleaning.

It’s not my favorite gun to take in the field or range, while still fun to shoot, if i want to actually hit something with it, not the best choice.

Personally I would recommend the following Brown Bess variants, a short land Brown Bess for Dragoons 1740 era model, has a significant drop in the butt stock with a 42” barrel and wooden ramrod, this makes the larger caliber musket more comfortable to shoot. Its basically a 1730/40 era musket with a 42” barrel.

A light infantry carbine Bess, with a 42” barrel in .62 caliber or .66. These have all of the best. Features of a brown bess while being much lighter with a tighter caliber that will more accurate.

Please dont confuse a pedersoli bess with an actual brown bess. Pedersoli brown Bess’s are a 7/8 scale version of a brown bess, they are not actual brown Bess’s, just a modern replica made to look like one. If a pedersoli bess was available in .66 or .69 caliber with a little more drop in the butt, I’d call it the perfect Bess esque’ style to own. But the barrel a .75 with a very straight stock make it to me, one of the least comfortable guns to shoot.

You can modify a pedersoli bess with a lined barrel in .69, however this will add weight.

I have a Brown Bess Rogers Rangers musket/carbine made by craftsman Larry Zornes in Jackson, Ohio. It is the one on the bottom of the attached picture.

 

[FlinterNick]

I have a Brown Bess Rogers Rangers musket/carbine made by craftsman Larry Zornes in Jackson, Ohio. It is the one on the bottom of the attached picture.

I’ve worked on one of these, recently the entry pipe needs to be bigger and the street ramrod is too thin, i reamed out the entry pipe and other pipes , entry pipe which was already broken. I swapped out the rammer with a third model rammer.