Soldiers And Militia Getting Burnt While Shooting Flintlocks?

[rkmeyer]

I'm going through my old law books. There must be a law suit here somewhere! :cursing: It must have been a lot different back then. Can you imagine, no lawyers to protect those poor soldiers. Wow! :surrender: :surrender:
Dusty :wink:

 

[netoleon]

My take (as a former museum professional) is that a statistically insignificant number of museum specimens has to be evaluated in light of normal collections management challenges. As a collections manager, you have to be wary of "originality" in older specimens. For example, you would not take a feature in your museum's 14th century suit of armour and publish it as an example of standard 14th century armour style - unless you were absolutely certain the armour hadn't been modified in the 15th century (or later). It is almost impossible to get complete and verifiable provienance on pre-19th century items.

I've seen dozens of museum flintlocks in the US, Canada and Europe. Haven't seen one yet with a flash guard (doesn't mean I have perfect powers of observation however). I have not been to the museums in question (have avoided the Tower of London as too touristy - perhaps a significant oversight in retrospect). I've also done my share of studying period artwork and that leads to the same conclusion. Any flashguard a member has observed on a original flintlock was likely a later modification, IMHO.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Soldiers can't sue the government. That doesn't say much about re-enactors, tho'. If I were the lawyer for a group, I would be advising my Directors to do what is necessary to avoid causing burns and injuries to the members, by providing, or requiring flash deflectors on the guns used in the volley fire demonstrations.

What happens if someone faints in the heat, and falls into the live of fire, and takes the gases in the face, or eyes? Or stumbles to arrive at the same place at the wrong time? Do you think, " Gosh, we were only shooting blanks", is going to play well with a jury that is being asked to find negligence, and award large damages to some one who has lost an eye??

 

[mykeal]

...I have not been to the museums in question (have avoided the Tower of London as too touristy - perhaps a significant oversight in retrospect)...

Unfortunate you haven't been to the Tower. Yes, it's a tourist destination, but the collection is unbelievable. Another worth seeing is Hampton Court; the numbers are not as impressive but some really fine examples nonetheless. And then there's the Musée de l'Armée...

 

[nkbj]

So, as always, to be historically correct you simply have to (1) do most anything that works because we are no more inventive than those that were there back then and (2) put up with self appointed experts that are like crabs in a bucket, forever working to pull back down any that dare rise above.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

To be historically correct you would have to do whatever they did in period--whatever that was.

Not sure about that bucket of crabs thing, but if you can spare it, we'll have an old fashioned crab dinner. Can you bring oysters too or is that just asking too much?

 

[mikee51848]

Original Flashguards Permalink Pottsdam musket & screwless Nock lock

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Neat! Got any more pictures of that musket?

 

[Shine]

Speaking from experience when you have rounds incoming. The least of your worries is a little sting on the side of your neck and face.Heck you don't even remember hearing the shots half the time.

 

[mikee51848]

Neat! Got any more pictures of that musket?

Unfortunately no. I lifted it from another (Rev War) board. The gunsmith who posted it states that the flash guard "was definitely not retro-fitted".

 

[LRB]

This won't really help since I don't recall the details, but 3 or 4 years ago someone on another board posted a rev war period copy of a British military shipping manifest that listed a few thousand flash guards. I don't remember what they were called, but they were unmistakably flash guards by their title. Maybe this was a joke, or other type of BS, but the list had a lot of other military items on it. I think if they were in common use, they would show up in paintings, military regs, other manifests, or as artifacts.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

............................ I think if they were in common use, they would show up in paintings, military regs, other manifests, or as artifacts.

Agreed. I have seen pictures of a flashguard on at least one other Pottsdam but the vast majority of German muskets in existence today do not have them. Also, the Nock is not a standard issue musket. If they had been common at the time when these were in use, more would be seen on original muskets. Still a safety required reenactorism.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Agree: We have to remember how much Class Distinction guided every consideration in both civil society and warfare in those days. The Officers came from the upper classes, often earning their Commissions based on who they were, rather than on any measure of competence. Common Soldiers were considered no more than DOGS for a fox hunt. They were all expendable.

Why would you worry about someone getting hit with the flash of a pan of powder, or gases from the vent of a musket when you would never think to bother to learn the name of that same man?? Or make any plans to treat his wounds when he was hurt?

For that reason, I don't think Flash Protectors were commonly used. However, for those same reasons, I think they MUST be used by today's Re-enactors.

We live in a different world, where the value of every human being is cherished. The h$*l with the audience. Collectively, they are the same kind of morons who went the Coliseum( in Rome, Italy) to watch the Christians being slaughtered and eaten by the lions. Only the family members of the Re-enactors are concerned about safety measures being taken to insure their loved one is not hurt, and don't want any one else hurt, either. :hmm: :hatsoff:

 

[Mike Brooks]

Neat! Got any more pictures of that musket?

Post 1800 gun. I believe the model 1809 or some such thing. purely European and not seen on the north american continent.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Neat! Got any more pictures of that musket?

Post 1800 gun. I believe the model 1809 or some such thing. purely European and not seen on the north american continent.

The Nock musket, yes. The Prussian musket shown dates from 1740 - 1790. The Prussian M1809 had a flat lockplate with a round tail. Similar German muskets may have been used by German mercenaries fighting for the British in our Revolution but doubtful that any of the Nock muskets were used in North America.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Naw, I was refering to the Prussian musket. I just saw that gun on some action site or another and It was refered to as the M1809....or something like that. When you see the whole gun it looks fairly late, almost certainly post 1800. But then again I have been having strange dreams lately too... I have seen Nock's screwless lock on guns dating from the 1780's. Sporting guns that is, the civilian version of that lock did not have a flash guard.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Ah, their mistake then, hey dreams are a good thing. Anyway here is a M1809 Prussian, converted to percussion, but you get the general idea.
http://www.gundersonmilitaria.com/descriptiondisplay.html?musketgermanm1809dated1825

These were imported by the Union government and Yankee speculators for use in the American Civil War. Most were used by Yankee troops in the Western Theater, relatively uncommon in the east.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Are there more pictures to be found at the Rev War board?