Buck and ball loads

[nit wit]

In 1775 were the British or American colonists using buck and ball loads?
Thanks
Nit Wit

 

[Loyalist Dave]

YES

 

[Loyalist Dave]

OK sorry, I was being soooper technical. :grin:

All colonists in America were British Subjects and hence they would have all been "British" at that time. :wink:

So to answer what you were really asking...,

The Continental Army and especially Colonial Militia would use buck and ball, IF the ammunition permitted it. The British Regulars, no, as the cartridges were pre-made, and the British Army relied on the bayonet charge, not firepower.

The Continental Army and the Militia didn't start out with a lot of arms that would mount bayonets, and then when they had transitioned to muskets for the most part, they were not trained in how to use the bayonet. So, if they weren't short on ball, they could load 3 buckshot with a musket ball, and hope that at close range the added pellets would break a bayonet charge, before they broke and fled. IF they were short on ball, then buckshot would be remelted and made into ball. The British, on the other hand, would try to get the Continentals to fire early, well out of effective range for a ball, and useless for the buckshot pellets, then slam into the Continentals (if they held) before the Continentals reloaded. (See With Zeal and Bayonets Only by Matthew H. Spring) By the campaign of 1778, Von Steuben had trained the Continentals how to deal with incoming bayonets. They were even better the following year, and the need for buck-and-ball was no longer felt.

Militia, if they had experience, or had among them veterans with experience, in the skulking way of war, i.e. Indian fighting would probably favor buck-and-ball, if not straight up buckshot. They knew what an advantage it was in woodland fighting. Take them out into the open, in tight ranks, facing a bayonet charge..., that's different.

Among the British and German forces, there was no percieved need for buck-and-ball, and they were unlikely to have used it. NOW, when it comes to British Loyalists, especially in The South, and if no larger British force was attached, they probably used it against their fellow Americans. The Southern Theater was very civil-warlike when militia faced militia.

LD

 

[George]

Among the British and German forces, there was no percieved need for buck-and-ball, and they were unlikely to have used it.

THE VIRGINIA GAZETTE
December 9, 1775

LONDON, August 26.
"The plumbers at the tower are now casting great quantities of buck shot in imitation of those used by the Americans."

Spence

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I am not saying that it was not available, but it was simply not used here even if the Tower prepared for its use. The British regulars simply didn't have the need. I'm sure one will find an exception, but for the most part, the British won with bayonets and artillery, and they usually "won" the field, although they lost the war. :wink:

LD

 

[tenngun]

I don’t know if the Brits used it or not, we do know it was an historic load. My experiments with it had a man sized spread at fifty yards. I would think one fat Bess ball in a torso would make buck superfluous.

 

[BrownBear]

I would think one fat Bess ball in a torso would make buck superfluous.

I agree.... Almost. Based on my own shooting, there's a pretty good chance that the buck milling around the ball at 50 yards would wound one or both of the guys standing next to the guy hit with the ball. But in truth, my own shooting also proved to my satisfaction that at 50 yards a hand full of buck with no ball would be certain to hit several guys at once. Talk about discouragement for massed troops when the buncha guys opposite you unloosed a volley of buckshot loads!!!! :hatsoff:

 

[Artificer]

I am not saying that it was not available, but it was simply not used here even if the Tower prepared for its use. The British regulars simply didn't have the need. I'm sure one will find an exception, but for the most part, the British won with bayonets and artillery, and they usually "won" the field, although they lost the war. :wink:

LD

Dave,

You are correct that British Ordnance supplied cartridges were made with a single ball.

However, all British Regiments were issued or purchased additional items and equipment to make their own cartridges. The most notable was the issued "Cartridge Paper," to ensure the paper was the correct thickness and strength to make cartridges. They were also issued gang molds, wooden cartridge forming tools, powder measure scoops, etc. These items were kept with the Artillery with the British Regiments.

I don't think it was just a matter of British Ordnance being too cheap to issue "ready made" cartridges, though they were almost unbelievably frugal with that and especially in peace time. Rather, cartridges shipped from England were too likely to get damaged or moisture soaked in shipment on the wooden ships. When that happened, they had to take the cartridges apart and dry the powder.

I seem to recall some instances of British Regular Regiments adding two or three buck shot when they made their own cartridges, though I can't remember where I read that.


Gus

 

[Artificer]

BTW, for many years I never thought about the paper the British Regiments used to make cartridges until I researched more into 18th century paper.

Then it dawned on me the British Army must have had some kind of paper they used to ensure the cartridges would be strong enough to resist damage AND be the correct thickness so it would not make the cartridge too large in diameter to go down the bore of British Issued Arms.

It didn't take me long to find examples of British Ordnance keeping their own special/approved "Cartidge Paper" for issue from both the Tower of London and from the Portsmouth Board of Ordnance for the Navy/Marines' use. I didn't find a reference for the Irish Board of Ordnance, but there is hardly any documentation left on that. Still, they must also have issued special "Cartridge Paper."

The earliest documented source I found for issued Cartridge Paper was in 1748 here in the Colonies, but I'm sure it went back further than that.

Gus

 

[Grenadier1758]

I found the following blog on the use of Buck and Ball at the Kabinettskrieg Military Blogspot.

Included is a diagram of a paper cartridge buck and ball load. The blog also lists source material for the use of buck and ball loads by European armies.

Of particular interest is the Xray of a recovered musket from a British shipwreck off St. Augustine, FL.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I would think one fat Bess ball in a torso would make buck superfluous.

It makes it so in an arm or a leg too mind you, but..., at 50 yards firing at the British line coming at you..., at open order (one arm length between each man) and not having a bayonet, or having one and not knowing how to recieve a charge, you get a lot of misses. Now at under 50 yards, if you can wait until the enemy is that close, it makes a huge difference if the enemy is at open order.

WHICH is why the Brits would get the Continentals (during the first years of the war) to pop off shots at 80-100 yards, then close the distance before the Continentals were reloaded. :wink:

Gus, "as the cartridges were pre-made", doesn't necessarily mean shipped across the Atlantic, though one could and they did ship ball as the lead would not "spoil" from the trip. The vast majority of the cartridges were pre-made, meaning the arillerists and the pioneers would make them up for the regiments, probably with a few extra fellows from each regiment there to help, and to ensure of proper construction. Each regiment was supposed to then secure their own ammunition. The individuals, other than perhaps a few selected Light Infantry, did not make their own cartridges.

LD

 

[azmntman]

I found the following blog on the use of Buck and Ball at the Kabinettskrieg Military Blogspot.

Included is a diagram of a paper cartridge buck and ball load. The blog also lists source material for the use of buck and ball loads by European armies.

Of particular interest is the Xray of a recovered musket from a British shipwreck off St. Augustine, FL.

Interesting read, TY

 

[Semisane]

I find it difficult to believe those dirty Redcoats were unable to figure out how to ship made up cartridges across the pond in dry sealed containers, perhaps kegs.

 

[Artie Peltier]

Great read! The diagram and the X-ray photo also added to the article. Wonder who had the foresight to X-ray the breech after they pulled it out of the water? Art

 

[nit wit]

That was great! This has tured out to be a good thread!
Thanks
Nit Wit

 

[thomas]

Great read.

 

[George]

The diagram and the X-ray photo also added to the article.

The article didn't make full disclosure about that Bess x-ray. Just a bit further down the bore there are what appear to be swan shot, 5 of them, on top of the buck and ball load shown.



Spence

 

[Artificer]

I would think one fat Bess ball in a torso would make buck superfluous.

Gus, "as the cartridges were pre-made", doesn't necessarily mean shipped across the Atlantic, though one could and they did ship ball as the lead would not "spoil" from the trip. The vast majority of the cartridges were pre-made, meaning the arillerists and the pioneers would make them up for the regiments, probably with a few extra fellows from each regiment there to help, and to ensure of proper construction. Each regiment was supposed to then secure their own ammunition. The individuals, other than perhaps a few selected Light Infantry, did not make their own cartridges.

LD

Hi Dave,

I was responding to these two sentences you wrote earlier, "I am not saying that it was not available, but it was simply not used here even if the Tower prepared for its use. The British regulars simply didn't have the need."

When you wrote the word "Tower" I presumed you were talking about pre-made cartridges that were issued/came from the Tower of London Board of Ordnance.

I also mentioned the cartridge paper and tools to make cartridges were kept with the Artillery, and I would add that was because the Senior Artillery Officer was responsible for the safe guarding and issuing of all powder for the Regiment, to include that for the Muskets. The Cartridges would be made under the Supervision of an Artificer Serjeant (which was a Title and not a particular rank other than the rank of Serjeant) and yes made by Pioneers, Artificers who were not otherwise employed and yes, sometimes Private Soldiers from the Companies.

I do have to disagree there would not be times it was advantageous to make buck and ball cartridges, though. Not all battles and campaigns were on open fields. When fighting in the woods, Buck and Ball loads would TRULY have been advantageous.

Also, as of the Battle of Monmouth, the Americans were no longer running away and standing and fighting - so going back to using Buck and Ball would also have been advantageous, especially because British Forces had already done that here during the FIW.

:hatsoff: To Grenadier 1758 on providing some documentation of British Regulars using Buck and Ball loads I had not seen before.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

GREAT Photo Enlargement, Spence!!

I would also note the Musket is a LAND PATTERN Musket designed for Infantry and NOT a Sea Service Pattern Musket designed for Navy/Marine use.

However, it might be a Militia/Marine Musket depending on when the ship went down, but we can't see the lock plate engraving well enough, nor the rest of the Musket to make that determination as fact.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

I find it difficult to believe those dirty Redcoats were unable to figure out how to ship made up cartridges across the pond in dry sealed containers, perhaps kegs.

There is plenty of documentation in Bailey and other sources on how gunpowder in "sealed/dry kegs" got wet on the wooden ships and on their way to the colonies during the AWI. Since the water vapor got through the sealed kegs, the paper wrapping of the cartridges would not have stopped water vapor, either. Wet Cartridges got damaged even sealed in shipping containers because of the pressure of the balls in the cartridges over wet cartridges.

The places on board wooden ships that held the gunpowder for the Ship's Guns and small Arms in the Powder Magazines were higher up in the ship to keep down on the amount of water vapor exposure, though it still at times was a problem even there. Cargo holds that held Gunpowder and other supplies being transported, were always in the lower/lowest decks of a ship.

Gus