- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Messages
- 5,214
- Reaction score
- 10,845
Hi,
I am glad to see there is a lot of interest in British Brown Bess muskets on this forum. The interest is well deserved because Brown Besses were very important to the imperial history of Britain and our own American story. I believe it was the most beautiful military musket ever made and a testament to the skill and quality workmanship of British tradesmen during the 18th century. I think the history of the gun is fairly well known among many forum members but there are contextual factors and influences that I rarely see discussed or understood that explain a great deal about how the musket developed and was issued. Searching the internet for the history of Brown Besses offers some useful information but is fraught with misinformation. For serious discussions of the pattern development of the Bess you must read Bailey's books on British small arms and Goldstein and Mowbray's book on the Brown Bess. However, neither of those sources explain much of the socio-economic context that actually governed the production of Besses. And that context explains why we don't refer to different Bess models, and why the musket changed so little during its operational period.
Unlike the almost feudal control the French king and ministers had on arms production, the British ordnance system during the 18th century was a government/private industry partnership. The government declared a set of specifications and issued warrants, then negotiations with the gun makers supplying the components began. Although "setter uppers" in the Tower of London assembled muskets the parts came from private gun makers who acted more like contractors coordinating a network of tradesmen who actually did the work, and then pocketed profits. The gun makers negotiated over price, quality, and even design of components to maintain their profit margins as well as keeping faith with their workers concerning wages. They could not abuse their work force too much because many skilled workmen could migrate to other businesses and follow the money. That was particularly true of barrel forgers and lock makers, who were always the bottleneck in the arms making pipeline. Their continued employment in the gun industry was a matter of national security to Britain. In addition, the government was in mortal fear of a population of unemployed workers because they often rioted and destroyed property in their despair for work. There was no real safety net for workers other than brutal workhouses and pathetic church run charities. Yet Britain had a population of these tradesmen much larger than their domestic needs and had to export goods to their colonies and other countries to keep them employed and docile. The national protectionism of their trade, or mercantilism, suppressed value added industries in their colonies, relegating them to suppliers of raw materials and consumers of the finished goods.
The partnership with private industry tended to suppress any radical technical innovation and change in the Brown Bess. The retooling was costly to the contractors and meant they might be stuck with useless surplus parts from older patterns. That was a major issue because the Brown Bess was not popular for anything other than military service. It was too clumsy and heavy as a sporting gun, and even the African slave traders refused it because it had too large a bore and was not popular with their customers who were selling gold, ivory, and slaves for guns. So because of the negotiations and influence of the gun making contractors, the Bess evolved slowly with relatively minor "pattern" changes such that the last pattern Bess from the early 19th century was still very similar to the first pattern of the 1730s. That is also why British ordnance insisted on using up older Brown Bess components and muskets before issuing newer patterns. They simply could not sell, other than for scrap, the older parts and muskets so they made sure they were eventually issued to the British army, provincial, or colonial troops. This is in contrast to the major model changes that happened to French muskets. The French government simply ordered the changes and either absorbed the surplus or sold it off to other countries, like the fledgling US, because the designs were light and popular for many purposes. The British system and musket design made that difficult if not impossible.
dave
I am glad to see there is a lot of interest in British Brown Bess muskets on this forum. The interest is well deserved because Brown Besses were very important to the imperial history of Britain and our own American story. I believe it was the most beautiful military musket ever made and a testament to the skill and quality workmanship of British tradesmen during the 18th century. I think the history of the gun is fairly well known among many forum members but there are contextual factors and influences that I rarely see discussed or understood that explain a great deal about how the musket developed and was issued. Searching the internet for the history of Brown Besses offers some useful information but is fraught with misinformation. For serious discussions of the pattern development of the Bess you must read Bailey's books on British small arms and Goldstein and Mowbray's book on the Brown Bess. However, neither of those sources explain much of the socio-economic context that actually governed the production of Besses. And that context explains why we don't refer to different Bess models, and why the musket changed so little during its operational period.
Unlike the almost feudal control the French king and ministers had on arms production, the British ordnance system during the 18th century was a government/private industry partnership. The government declared a set of specifications and issued warrants, then negotiations with the gun makers supplying the components began. Although "setter uppers" in the Tower of London assembled muskets the parts came from private gun makers who acted more like contractors coordinating a network of tradesmen who actually did the work, and then pocketed profits. The gun makers negotiated over price, quality, and even design of components to maintain their profit margins as well as keeping faith with their workers concerning wages. They could not abuse their work force too much because many skilled workmen could migrate to other businesses and follow the money. That was particularly true of barrel forgers and lock makers, who were always the bottleneck in the arms making pipeline. Their continued employment in the gun industry was a matter of national security to Britain. In addition, the government was in mortal fear of a population of unemployed workers because they often rioted and destroyed property in their despair for work. There was no real safety net for workers other than brutal workhouses and pathetic church run charities. Yet Britain had a population of these tradesmen much larger than their domestic needs and had to export goods to their colonies and other countries to keep them employed and docile. The national protectionism of their trade, or mercantilism, suppressed value added industries in their colonies, relegating them to suppliers of raw materials and consumers of the finished goods.
The partnership with private industry tended to suppress any radical technical innovation and change in the Brown Bess. The retooling was costly to the contractors and meant they might be stuck with useless surplus parts from older patterns. That was a major issue because the Brown Bess was not popular for anything other than military service. It was too clumsy and heavy as a sporting gun, and even the African slave traders refused it because it had too large a bore and was not popular with their customers who were selling gold, ivory, and slaves for guns. So because of the negotiations and influence of the gun making contractors, the Bess evolved slowly with relatively minor "pattern" changes such that the last pattern Bess from the early 19th century was still very similar to the first pattern of the 1730s. That is also why British ordnance insisted on using up older Brown Bess components and muskets before issuing newer patterns. They simply could not sell, other than for scrap, the older parts and muskets so they made sure they were eventually issued to the British army, provincial, or colonial troops. This is in contrast to the major model changes that happened to French muskets. The French government simply ordered the changes and either absorbed the surplus or sold it off to other countries, like the fledgling US, because the designs were light and popular for many purposes. The British system and musket design made that difficult if not impossible.
dave
