Did military blunderbusses use buckshot paper cartridges?

[Conrad von Hotzendorf]

I've been trying to find out if any 18th century military ever made pure buckshot paper cartridges for blunderbusses (buck and ball cartridges are another discussion).

The only buckshot cartridges I know of for certain are the ones made by the US military in the early-mid 19th century for the .69 caliber muskets.

I found this blunderbuss/musketoon interesting:
https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-367
It was made around 1781 for British light dragoons, so it was seen as a good alternative to a cavalry carbine. Since cavalry carbines used round ball paper cartridges, I can't see why they would ever give up the convenience of paper cartridges in general for blunderbusses. Also, this blunderbuss has a slight duckbill muzzle, which implies that it was intended to use buckshot.

 

[Flintandsteel]

Second question.
Military blunderbuss? Sounds very unusual.

 

[hawkeye2]

"Also, this blunderbuss has a slight duckbill muzzle, which implies that it was intended to use buckshot."

Not to question your assumption but I do wonder how you arrived at it.

 

[Coot]

Second question.
Military blunderbuss? Sounds very unusual.

Common in Royal Navy and artillery units.

 

[Coot]

I've been trying to find out if any 18th century military ever made pure buckshot paper cartridges for blunderbusses (buck and ball cartridges are another discussion).

The only buckshot cartridges I know of for certain are the ones made by the US military in the early-mid 19th century for the .69 caliber muskets.

I found this blunderbuss/musketoon interesting:
https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-367
It was made around 1781 for British light dragoons, so it was seen as a good alternative to a cavalry carbine. Since cavalry carbines used round ball paper cartridges, I can't see why they would ever give up the convenience of paper cartridges in general for blunderbusses. Also, this blunderbuss has a slight duckbill muzzle, which implies that it was intended to use buckshot.

I have seen a letter in the RN museum at Portsmouth wherein a Captain newly appointed to take command of a RN ship wrote to the ship's officers, outlining things he expected to be done prior to his arrival several weeks in the future. Re the ship's Gunner, he was to make up (I cannot recall numbers but total was several thousand) "musket, pistol and blunderbuss" cartridges. Since I have a repo RN blunderbuss, I was very disappointed that the CO's letter did not specify how the cartridges were to be made up; but it only seems reasonable the the professional Gunner knew what was standard & did not need micro management. My assumption is something like todays 0 or 00 buckshot, the quantity depending on the Bore of the buss.

 

[ADK Bigfoot]

Not sure how correct, but here is a source for buckshot loads for your buss.
https://veteranarms.com/shop/muskets/69-75-Caliber-Buckshot-20-Rounds-Kit-p252844231


ADK Bigfoot

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

I've been trying to find out if any 18th century military ever made pure buckshot paper cartridges for blunderbusses (buck and ball cartridges are another discussion).

Well the US Military sure did, see the attached article! Since we essentially copied most things British (at least of which they did 'right') I'd presume that the Brits did too.

"Also, this blunderbuss has a slight duckbill muzzle, which implies that it was intended to use buckshot."

Not to question your assumption but I do wonder how you arrived at it.

Read the attached PDF article, especially where the quote below came from and then think and reason ... of WHAT VALUE would there ever be for a 'duck billed' b'buss that shot a solid shot load?

"The oval muzzle barrel was tested more times than the other barrels because of testing of paper buckshot cartridges. The width of the shot patterns made by the oval muzzle barrel was consistently wider than the height of the pattern."