Making and shooting military paper cartridges

[duelist1954]

I recently tried my hand at making paper cartridges. As will be obvious, I’m not a military reenactor, so this was a learning experience for me.

But once I got a good batch of cartridges made, I filmed an extended firing sequence using a reproduction of a .69 caliber, 1766 Charleville musket.

This is probably too basic for most of you, but it is always fun to see flintlocks being shot. So, maybe the vid is worth a look on that basis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BEg-xdabHs

 

[Alden]

To tie the end is OK and period fun but that's where stick-glue could be used and was as well, instead of a tie (well, not stick-glue, but...). For cartridge-making parties I'd buy a three (or buy-three-get-one-free) Staples glue stick pack annually -- glue sticks do NOT last and must be consumed in the same campaigning season or thrown out if they were opened.

The ball-end would be folded over on itself in thirds with a wipe of glue on each "petal" kinda like a crimp on an American shotgun shell. Not alot of reason to tie the ball in either. This is the part of the cartridge that goes down in the cartridge box -- we would usually (I rarely do personally) dip that end in melted beeswax to really secure that end as they often did too. Wax is melted in a double boiler bath in another room and brought to the room where powder-filled cartridges are by the way!

The French, I believe, would twist their other ends and the Brits (unless I've reversed them now) would fold the long tail you made over on itself the long way on each side (so once on the left to the middle and once on the right to the middle, and THEN fold down once near the powder, and then back up once making a letter "z" if you will with a tail to grab and pull up and out of the cart box. THIS stays closed in a cartridge box and when properly stored to ship. You missed three of the four folds... Note that thin, strong, paper is necessary. Modern newsprint is garbage for this -- WAY too weak for the demands I just mentioned. Strong and/or thick paper can cause finger wear when folding (dude, you start to bleed after a lotta cartridges being folded and pressed down on at the edges!) and you saw what thick paper does to loading.

Few other things...

In first attempt you didn't seem to prime the pan with paper cart.

At some point you referred to your 1866 Charlevile.

Twice you said or implied troops didn't aim at a specific target -- this is an old wives tail and I can't believe you are propagating it. The best, most professional, practiced, standing army in the world and they couldn't figure out that aiming improved chances for hitting a target? Com'on man!

Finally, please, PLEASE stop putting most of your hand over the muzzle while drawing the rammer, ramming the cartridge, and returning the rammer. Christ, I spit coffee laughing when you pounded the muzzle with your clenched fist to start the ball once (you did it fast -- LOL)! We want to keep you around in one piece Mike.

Peace Mike!

 

[Artificer]

Mike,

Generally I liked your video and I hope you will take the following as constructive criticism.

I realize it was a slip of the tongue when you called it an 1866 Charleville shortly before you fired, when you had earlier mentioned it was a 1766 Charleville.

Have to admit I cringed when you mentioned that an 18th century Soldier never aimed his musket. This is a LONG standing myth that just won't die. The British Army (and many of us don't think about we "Americans" were actually British until 1776 or actually legally until The Treaty of Paris in 1783) began a lot of training their Soldiers in "Aiming at Marks" here during the French and Indian War. British American Miltia serving with the Regulars were also taught to Aim because they used the same Drill Manuals. So it was not just American Frontiersmen who aimed.

You and I are old enough to remember Bill Cosby's famous joke about the Americans winning the coin toss.... http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Winter08/tactics.cfm

Here's another good reference that explains where part of the mistaken belief that Redcoats did not aim had originated. http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/the-aim-of-british-soldiers/

What I was highly impressed with on your video was the fact you showed your first attempt with a .68 caliber ball and paper cartridge would not fit in the bore. I believe you will save people from a lot of frustration and applaud your character for admitting the mistake. FWIW, musket balls excavated from various ARW battle sites show the most common Musket Ball Size to run .71" for the .76 Caliber Brown Bess and .63" for the French Muskets, though some balls were one to three thousandths smaller for each musket.

American Troops did use "newsprint" to make their cartridges, though it was not made with the wood pulp paper that it is made from today. Paper back then was known as "linen" or "rag" paper as it was made from linen fibers as modern American "Paper" money is still made today. Americans also tore out the paper from books and even Bibles to make their cartridges.

British Regulars had special "Cartridge Paper," procured by the Ordnance Department and Issued to make cartridges, that has been documented as early as the French and Indian War and most likely before that. This was procured/provided by the British Ordnance Department to assure a quality paper to make cartridges and very importantly, when rolled around the issued Musket Balls or Balls from issued Ball Molds, would always fit the King's Musket or Brown Bess. This was necessary when British Soldiers were stationed all over the world and correct sized and quality cartridge paper may or would not have been available.

Gus

 

[duelist1954]

Alden and Artificer,

Thanks for the great input. You provided me with lots of detail that I didn't know. As I said, I'm not a military reenactor.

For what it is worth, My canard about line infantry not aiming comes from the book, "Wellington's Rifles; the origins, development, and battles of the rifle regiments in the Peninsular War and at Waterloo from 1758 to 1815"by John Cusick

The title is a bit misleading because half of the book deals with the evolution of light infantry starting with the Seven Years War in America.

Cusick is an expert in the 5/60th and 95 Rifles, and has written extensively on 18th and early 19th century warfare. He formerly served in the rifles himself, albeit in the modern regiment.

At anyrate, Cusick asserts, several times, that line troops were actively discouraged from aiming because it slowed the rate of fire, which is paramount in Frederician tactics. He says aiming was the province of skirmishers and light troops. Volume of fire was the lines job.

This is a major contention by Cusick in numerous places in the text, and I'd have thought that Ian Fletcher, who wrote the foreword and is a well known military historian of the era, and John Grehan, who is an editor of Britain at War Magazine, who urged Cusick to write it, or Richard Doherty, another noted British historian, who edited the manuscript, would have corrected it.

But, it looks like they missed it.

I'd take Cusick to task about it, but he passed away just before the book was published in 2013.

It is an interesting book anyway. I recommend it.

 

[Alden]

Mike;
You know legally there's no such thing as libeling the dead. Have at it!

 

[Ken Cormier]

I though that the video was cool. I LIKED IT.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Mike,

I think Cusick doesn't quite understand the difference between "aiming" a musket, and "aiming" the rifle in 18th century warfare, hence his being adamant that it slowed the rate of fire.

IF you take the American Civil War, and some of the units being trained to take the time to figure out who was opposite each soldier, i.e. the front rank soldier who was fourth from the right picking out the guy fourth from his right in the opposing line, then aiming at that soldier when given the command... then YES that does slow down the rate of fire.

However, the aiming at marks with line troops with muskets was to teach them the general sight picture when they leveled... it is more like pointing a shotgun than aiming a rifle. Whatever poor chap on the other side ended up in front of the soldier's muzzle when he leveled, was who he fired at, and he tried to point using the bayonet lug/front sight either where the head met the shoulders, OR where the other guy's belts crossed on the chest. This doesn't reduce time, BUT does increase the hit rate somewhat as it keeps the firing soldiers from tossing the ball over the heads of the enemy or into the ground at their feet.

The problem though is that the privates tend to shoot at the center of whatever formation they are firing upon. Which is great if an understaffed company is attacking you, as it gives the soldiers some hits on a rather small enemy front, but on a battalion sized or larger
unit near full strength, that is advancing, it often means a few poor fellows in the center get shot to bits, but doesn't really phase the oncoming enemy. If they took the time to spread out the shots, although rate of fire would drop, the effect on a larger unit would've been dramatic.

Cusick's other problem is that although volume-of-fire might have been the key in India, or on the Continent... the British were firing one volley at open order, and then charging with bayonets, in the AWI. (See the book: With Zeal and Bayonets Only) Nothing to do with rate-of-fire here in the Colonies.

I am also wondering what he has to say about Waterloo, where Maitland's Foot Guards waited until the French were upon them, gave them a volley at point blank range, charged, and broke them, then did the same to the French Chasseurs troops coming to help the French infantry fighting the Foot Guards? :grin:

LD

 

[Oudoceus]

Sorry I don't have any ready references handy, but I've always been under the impression that British officers considered aiming at and killing individuals on the battlefield to be murder. Or maybe it was just if the shooter was aiming at them. :grin: The Colonials, although British, didn't seem to have such qualms. Nor did the French. If this was the case, I wonder how the same officers justified aiming in the case of a duel?

 

[Artificer]

Sorry I don't have any ready references handy, but I've always been under the impression that British officers considered aiming at and killing individuals on the battlefield to be murder. Or maybe it was just if the shooter was aiming at them. :grin: The Colonials, although British, didn't seem to have such qualms. Nor did the French. If this was the case, I wonder how the same officers justified aiming in the case of a duel?

There was a difference between Aiming a Musket at opposing troops and what we call "Sniping" today, where an individual is targeted.

Perhaps the best example of that was when Major Patrick Ferguson chose not "take out" a VERY senior American Officer who was well within range of his Ferguson Rifle.
http://www.americanrevolution.org/ferguson.html

Then there are the accounts where Benedict Arnold at Freeman's Farm in the Battles of Saratoga, directed Dan Morgan to have his men take out the British General Fraser. Arnold supposedly said something to the effect of British General Fraser was "Like a Regiment unto himself." and "That gallant officer is General Fraser. I admire him, but it is necessary that he should die, do your duty."

HOWEVER, there are also accounts of Dan Morgan's boys immediately before this incident having run into the advance of General Simon Fraser's wing of Burgoyne's force. Supposedly, every officer in the British advance party died in the first exchange, and the advance guard retreated. Dan Morgan's Boys fought with different rules. Grin.

I believe the case can be made where "Gentlemen" did not believe in the deliberate targeting or "Sniping" of other "Gentlemen," though the slaughter of Private Soldiers was "expected." This notion probably did come in part from the Dueling Codes of Gentlemen where if both opponents fired and were unhurt, then "Honor" was satisfied and the Duel could be ended. If one opponent WAS hit, or blood was drawn with swords, that also ended the Duel on most occasions. Duels between "Gentlemen" often did not end with the death of one or both parties. (Of course we Americans turned the Code Duello into a blood sport in the years following the AWI.)

The argument about not deliberately taking a particular soldier's or Officer's life in war being "dishonorable" or "Murder" hung around through the 20th century so much that after WWI, WWII, and Korea; Sniper Programs were abandoned and had to be totally started over again with each new war. Nowadays we know better.

Gus

 

[Luzur]

I am also wondering what he has to say about Waterloo, where Maitland's Foot Guards waited until the French were upon them, gave them a volley at point blank range, charged, and broke them, then did the same to the French Chasseurs troops coming to help the French infantry fighting the Foot Guards? :grin:

LD

Heh, i guess this Maitland guy had heard about older Swedish tactics then..

The GÃ¥”“PÃ¥”“method (Literally Go-On) specialized on shock tactics and was the standard combat technique used in the Swedish army at the time. This very aggressive tactic often resulted in short”“lived battles in order to counter superior numbers of enemies. According to 1694 and 1701 regulations, the infantry attack operates as follows: In four ranks with gaps, the Swedish battalion would "smooth and slowly" march against enemy fire (which often started at a distance of 100 meters), while making their way to the enemy lines. The Swedish soldiers were first issued to fire when "you could see the whites in the enemies eyes" a range of roughly 50 meters””when the marching drums stopped the two rear ranks would fill the gaps within the two foremost ranks and fire a salvo””and then draw their swords. The two rear ranks would then fall right behind in their previous position and the two foremost would close the gaps after which the battalion would resume their attack. The two foremost ranks then discharged at a range of roughly 20 meters before drawing their swords and the charge began. At this range, the powerful muskets usually felled many enemy troops and was demoralizing to them. Directly after the volley the Swedes charged the enemy ranks with pikes, bayonets and rapiers.[10][11] Note that the pikes were used as an offensive weapon: in close combat they had the advantage over their foes' weapons thanks to their range, it often happened that complete ranks of enemies ran before physical contact, frightened by the long pikes and the fact that the morale of the battalion could calmly withstand their fire.

This method slightly changed during the course of the Great Northern War, the slow march was replaced with running, the firing distance was reduced to extremely 15 to 20 meters for the first volley of the rear ranks””who would no longer fall into their previous position behind the front ranks, but instead follow in the gaps within and so the battalion attacked in two filled ranks””and then, the foremost ranks would execute the final volley when the soldiers were close enough to effectively perform a bayonet charge.[10] The battalion would also more often during the end get support from artillery pieces, notably in the battle of Gadebusch where a new set of Swedish artillery inventions saw action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroleans

 

[Nessmuck56]

Nice video !

 

[Artificer]

My apology, this response is to Duelist1954.

LD made some excellent points in his post above.

In Volley Firing and from the time the Command of "Present" was given, there was a very short pause before the Command "Fire." This pause was to allow Commanding Officer to ensure his Unit was ready to deliver a complete volley. This was MORE than enough time to Aim a Musket like a Shotgun and aiming as David mentioned above. Of course IF they were VERY CLOSE to massed opposing forces, as LD mentioned could happen in India or on the European Continent, the pause by the CO was VERY SHORT. Grin.

The problem with firing Volleys so they were "neat and crisp as if one musket rang out," is that the Soldiers had to JERK the triggers to do it. Jerking the trigger causes one to shoot high and can or often lead to them firing over the heads of the opposing forces. Trigger Pulls ran 10 to 13 pounds on original "Brown Bess" Muskets so that meant it was more likely to jerk the trigger and throw the aim and shot high off target. So aiming like a shotgun helped to somewhat make up for the tendency to shoot high during volley fire.

British Soldiers were given strict instructions, during frequent drill periods, on pointing their muskets directly ahead of them when "Presenting" or Aiming their muskets. This was to make it "automatic" that they pointed directly ahead during actual combat. This was not just so that the Units "looked pretty," but also helped overcome the tendency to aim in the center of enemy formations that LD mentioned above. Of course, if a British Soldier aiming directly in front of him did not have a target when enemy formations were not as wide, then he most likely aimed to his left or right on the nearest target directl in front of him.

Another reason the Myth started that British Regulars did not Aim in the French and Indian War or AWI was from earlier 17th and some VERY early 18th century drill manuals. In some of those manuals, soldiers were taught to turn their faces to the right on the Command of "Fire" and when they pulled the triggers. This was due to touch holes burning out on the CHEAP guns some Colonels bought for their Regiments. When the touch holes burned out larger and the soldier to one's right stood very close, the jet of flame from the musket's touch hole to his left COULD blind him. Turning the head was protection against that, though so much for the soldiers hitting much of anything they shot at.

When the British Ordnance Board took over procuring and issuing Small Arms around roughly 1710, they made sure the musket and other small arms barrels were better made and so reduced touch holes burning out as quickly and lessened barrels bursting.

Finally when British General Clinton took over as the British Commander in the AWI, he changed British Line tactics from three ranks to two AND he opened up the distance between soldiers a bit. Though such "Open Order" of the ranks was designed to better allow formations to remain somewhat cohesive in the more broken ground of America, it also kept the Musket Touch Hole to the left of a soldier a bit further away and thus a bit safer to his eyes.

Gus

 

[pargent]

Good video again :applause:

 

[pargent]

This is to everybody and no one in particular , no matter what time period British troops were taught more than one type of firing drill at the one time , quite often new drills and tactics were used on the spot to suite the current needs and circumstances

 

[larryp]

Great video. I love the videos that you make, keep 'em coming!

 

[TFoley]

The excellent historical movie, The Northern Wars, parts of which are on Youtube for the battles involving the Russians and the Swedes, is very good in this respect.

I also found this VERY useful site - especially for those of us who are Francophones/French-speakers. Much of it is also clear without the use of any language skills -

http://www.littlegun.info/arme%20francaise/collection%20fusils/a%20a%20collection%20fusils%20tir%20fr.htm

Also, again on Youtube, and principally concerned with making cartridges for the WoNA-era rifles on both sides, from a friend in Canada -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZXLv5u1JSA

And lastly, from Hungary - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrumZd-G8NQ

I use the Canadian process for my Musketoon.

tac

 

[Luzur]

Not really wanting to go OT here, but I hope you are not meaning the russian "Sluga Gosarev" or Great Northern War movie, because that movie is kinda russian "propoganda" and gives a totally wrong picture of the battle of Poltava, the difference in strengths of the Swedes vs Russians and other things and has been bashed by historians and others, and i feel kinda sad if that is the only reference point you have over there.

http://galleri.nwcaroliner.se/#!home

i would advice you to look here, Nerke Wermland Caroleans have tactical studies of some battles posted in their gallery sections aswell as other stuff, or you could mail them too.

 

[pargent]

May I soothe your stress full worries .IN THE BRITISH MILITARY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN POLICY TO KILL THE ENEMY REGARDLESS OF RANK .Unless the object of the exercise was to capture someone .

 

[satwel]

I have two comments about your nice video.
I wonder which end of the cartridge went in the muzzle first after the powder is dumped down the barrel, the ball or the torn end. I asked the NPS historian at Springfield Armory National Park and he said the Americans put the cartridge in the muzzle with the ball down. He said if you load the cartridge with the ball up, there is a chance the paper will sneak around between the powder and barrel wall when you apply the rammer and block the vent from the inside. Has anyone else heard this? Makes sense to me, but I have to do more research.

This made me cringe. When you returned the ramrod to the channel, you pushed it down with your palm. By doing that you placed your hand directly over the muzzle of a loaded and primed musket! Please turn the barrel away from your face and use the crook of your little finger to push the ramrod back down into place. If the musket goes off, your hand is not over the muzzle. I enjoy your videos and I'd hate to see you, or anyone else get seriously hurt.

 

[Artificer]

I have two comments about your nice video.
I wonder which end of the cartridge went in the muzzle first after the powder is dumped down the barrel, the ball or the torn end. I asked the NPS historian at Springfield Armory National Park and he said the Americans put the cartridge in the muzzle with the ball down. He said if you load the cartridge with the ball up, there is a chance the paper will sneak around between the powder and barrel wall when you apply the rammer and block the vent from the inside. Has anyone else heard this? Makes sense to me, but I have to do more research.

The important thing is the base (or rear end) of Minie Ball has to go into the barrel before the point.

British manufactured cartridges had the base of the bullet pointing outward - or away from the powder charge. So on those, the bullet end went in the muzzle and the torn paper end went in last. This put the base of the bullet in first.

Original British Enfield Cartridge:
http://www.cwreenactors.com/forum/showthread.php?11607-Enfield-paper-cartridges

American Cartridges had the Minie Balls with the points outward. So on those the torn paper end went in first to ensure the base of the bullet was loaded first.

Original American Cartridge:
http://www.civilwarmo.org/gallery/item/CWMO-56?nojs=1

Gus