Shooting the Pedersoli Brown Bess

[wahkahchimaol.com]

Shooting paper cartridges with 80 grains FFG, for some reason it is beating the stuffing out of my face! Any suggestions? I know I am doing something wrong because it didn't do that before. Thanks.

 

[jethro224]

I find that I have to hold my head farther back on the stock than usual when I shoot my Bess or it whacks my cheekbone pretty good. Poor form but pain free. :surrender:

 

[hawkeye2]

Have you changed your hold slightly? If you get your head down on the stock of a Pedersoli the comb will come up under your cheek hard. If you try for a fine sight picture that may be your problem. I shoot an almost identical load and havn't had any problems. I have shot mine with 120 grains of 2f and survived, actually did very well in a match with that load and had the firing line all to myself!

 

[Rifleman1776]

Move yer face.
I usually use 75 gr. and consider my BB to be one of the funnest guns to shoot I have ever owned. No problemo.

 

[ericb]

If it didn't do it before, what changed??

Eric

 

[BrownBear]

If you're holding it the same as with patched ball loads, I can think of only one thing that would cause the change- If your cloth patched balls are loose compared to your paper cartridges, you could well be getting a more efficient burn with the paper and more recoil along with more velocity. Dunno. Mysteries abound.

 

[spudnut]

I agree with Jethro,I have to hold my head up and back It takes some getting used to but a Bess wasnt made to be a sporting arm.I'm sure originly they held em up and pointed the gun in the direction of the advancing foe,Upright and all very proper english you know. :grin:

 

[Captain outwater]

I agree it must be your hold...don't drop your face down so far, make sure you are holding it snugly against the shoulder. You should rock back with recoil, not get smacked by it.

 

[Mickc01]

Yep, third (or 4th) vote for holding your head up and back a little. Though I've discovered that trick, my BB still gives me the worst bruises on my shoulder and upper arm of all my guns. I just chalk it up to part of the fun.

 

[BrownBear]

This has been a fascinating read for me, pointing out the different results from shooting do to build of the shooters. I'm built so the TC Hawken just about takes off my cheekbone, but my Bess has never touched it. DSDF, as my granddaughter says (Different Strokes for Different Folks). :rotf:

 

[Pchandler]

Well everyone above answered the question but I thought I'd throw in a little historical fact to back up what they're saying. Roughly 80% of shots fired by muskets at that time, missed their targets. This was due to a few things. One was fear, soldiers were not aiming. Another was due to the recoil of the gun, making it somewhat inaccurate just by nature. A third reason was the round bouncing around in the barrel due to it being a smooth-bore, not rifled.

 

[satwel]

I must disagree with you, PatrickC, on your third statement. In addition to holding the powder and ball together in an easily handled package, the paper in which musket cartridges were rolled served as wadding/patch to minimize gas blowby and keep the ball more or less centered in the bore after the whole charge was properly rammed home. If the ball were free to bounce off the inside of the barrel, it would roll toward the muzzle when the musket was leveled at the enemy.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Well everyone above answered the question but I thought I'd throw in a little historical fact to back up what they're saying. Roughly 80% of shots fired by muskets at that time, missed their targets. This was due to a few things. One was fear, soldiers were not aiming. Another was due to the recoil of the gun, making it somewhat inaccurate just by nature. A third reason was the round bouncing around in the barrel due to it being a smooth-bore, not rifled.

I don't know where that information came from.
I'm sure fear was a huge factor. But the method of warfare using the musket it didn't matter. The soldiers pointed at a mass of men, if the ball hit anyone anywhere it had an effect. I do question your comment about recoil. The BB, in my experience with mine, is that recoil is negligible. The broad buttplate distributes recoil quite well. I love shooting mine and find it is very comfortable to shoot. This unlike the CW rifled musket which was designed to increase felt recoil so the soldier knew his gun actually went off.

 

[Rifleman1776]

bounce off the inside of the barrel

He wasn't completely wrong about that. The ball in a BB was not a tight fit like a patched round ball in a rifle. In the BB there is what is called "windage" and the ball pretty much just rattles around the inside of the bore as it is fired.

 

[satwel]

I respectfully disagree with the statement that the ball "rattled" around in the bore. Yes, the ball was smaller than the bore. The standard British BB load consisted of a .69 ball fired from a .75 bore. When the ball was rammed down on top of the powder, the cartridge paper was forced into the spaces between the ball and the barrel. Was it as tight a fit as a cloth or leather patch in a rifle? No way - nor was it capable of delivering anywhere near the same accuracy as a tight fitting rifle ball - but to say that the ball "rattled" around in the barrel just isn't the case. Sure, if you dropped a bare ball down the barrel it would rattle, but the cartridge paper took up most of the windage.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I respectfully disagree with the statement that the ball "rattled" around in the bore. Yes, the ball was smaller than the bore. The standard British BB load consisted of a .69 ball fired from a .75 bore. When the ball was rammed down on top of the powder, the cartridge paper was forced into the spaces between the ball and the barrel. Was it as tight a fit as a cloth or leather patch in a rifle? No way - nor was it capable of delivering anywhere near the same accuracy as a tight fitting rifle ball - but to say that the ball "rattled" around in the barrel just isn't the case. Sure, if you dropped a bare ball down the barrel it would rattle, but the cartridge paper took up most of the windage.

If you have convinced yourself that is the way it was, then, I am happy you are happy.

 

[satwel]

It wasn't too hard to convince myself after conducting interpretive tours for two years at the Springfield Armory National Historic site while under the tutelage of an eminent National Park Service historian and published authority on 18th century weapons.
http://www.nps.gov/spar/index.htm

 

[wahkahchimaol.com]

My experience is that I can barely fit the ball down the bore after about 10 shots. I'm sure that the paper patching is uneven and not repeatable, and thus causes inaccuracy by creating variables. Also on a windy day a bit of the powder may or may not spill out instead of go down the barrel. In combat all these inconsistencies must have been quite magnified. But so far the ball hasn't rattled. I read one history from the 17th century where the writer saw unpatched, unwadded balls literally roll out of barrels which were depressed in ship to ship fighting. But I've never read of such happenings with a Brown Bess. At the moment I'm thinking I should try a .69 ball and a .02 oxyoke patch in my .73 Pedersoli Brown Bess just to see what reducing all those variables will do for accuracy. Thoughts?

 

[Many Klatch]

I haven't shot much with paper cartridges or massively undersized ball in my Bess, but I have been surprised at the accuracy of a bare ball in a dirty barrel. I shoot a .715 ball in my Bess Carbine and at 25 yards it is hard to tell the difference in accuracy between the bare ball and the patched ball. The only time I shoot a bare ball is for a "speed" shoot such as a cutting a post in two, so accuracy at a distance has never been a problem.

After a few shots the fowling seems to make the need for tight patches a little less important.

BTW, one thing to remember about period warfare with a Bess, is that there was no command for "Aim". Simply present and then fire. They were trying to get 3 to 4 shots off a minute per man and aiming would have just slowed things down.

Many Klatch

 

[Rifleman1776]

It wasn't too hard to convince myself after conducting interpretive tours for two years at the Springfield Armory National Historic site while under the tutelage of an eminent National Park Service historian and published authority on 18th century weapons.
http://www.nps.gov/spar/index.htm

FWIW, I have been an historic interpreter, lecturer and presenter on historic subjects, published writer on history and things ml. But, you still disagree with some points. That's OK.
Like I said, if you are happy, I'm happy.