"Musket rests: When were they used/ not used?" Topic

I've read varying accounts of when musket rests were used or not used in the 16th and 17th Century. My understanding is that the infantry firearms through most of the 17th Century – calivers, pishals and arquebuses – were relatively light and did not require rests. OTOH, heavier, more powerful muskets came into use in the Dutch-Spanish Wars and were too heavy to aim and level without a rest.

In the 17th Century at some point, muskets were lightened and the rests were done away with.

Can anyone comment on the above and indicate whether my understanding is correct?

As well, can anyone indicate approximately when the rests went out of use?

Thanks!

Basically accurate – muskets by the 1640's were lighter – and not just the "bastard muskets". However stocks of older muskets and in-built tradition meant rests were issued to both sides.
Then reality bit in and rests fell out-of-use even though they were still available.
We forget the high percentage of musket-armed troops in an "average" ECW army. The re-enactment groups (and many rules-created armies) give awrong impression.

In 1635 the Swedish armouries still issued over 10.000 musket rests, by 1645 the Swedish army was issued less than 1000 musket rests and Sweden prepared for war with Poland in 1655 not a single musket rest was issued. Musket rests are not listed among the items to be produced by the Swedish arms factories in 1655-1656.

The disaperance of the musket rest was not only due to the reduced weight of the musket, it was also connected to the reducced charges used when firing the weapon.
In 1630 muskets were still loaded with a charge equal to the weight of the shot. By the 1640's the prefered charge was 1/2 of the weight of the shot if the powder was good, 3/4 if it was poor.

Daniel, is the reduction in charge weight due in part to the phasing-out of armour in the late 1630's??

I actually don't know, my sources only record the change, not the reason for it.

I cannot get to my sources just now but powder was improving during this period. I wish I could quote.

Hi

Black powder isn't like modern smokeless powder. And this affects a bit of the above discussion. The really short version is that it is easy to "overcharge" with modern powder and blow up the gun, and at lesser charges get higher and higher velocities. A balencing act, in point of fact.

With black powder, gun bursting is mostly a problem in making the gun itself rather than overcharge. Initially, many gun users didn't patch the ball, and there was a lot of blow by, and max velocity was well less than 900fps. I cannot date when EVERYONE started patching, the first evidence I know of is 15th century italo/spanish and turkish janissary (using silk!). This raises the muzzle velocity.

no matter, the point is that if you overcharge a gun, what you get is a longer flame out of the barrell and more smoke, but not more velocity or penetration. Powder absorbs moisture like crazy, and the "improvement" has more to do with going from bulk powder absorbing moisture, and going to descrete flasks and cartridges with less contamination. People learn that "grain" affects usage and things like that.

R

As Rocky says, overcharing a black powder gun is really just wasting powder. The excess powder will often still be burning as it exits the muzzle along with the ball. As only powder that ignights while still in the barrel can contribute to the muzzle velocity of the ball it is a great waste and nothing more.

In fact there is a diminishing return beyond a certain charge, as the additional gasses generated are created in an expanding space in the gun, and it is the compression of those gases that creates the velocity of the bullet.

A "heavy" gun is, up to a point, easier to hold steady than a light one. This is because the mass of the gun is better able to absorb small muscle tremors. Go beyond a certain point and holding the gun steady becomes hard again as more weight requires more work.

"We forget the high percentage of musket-armed troops in an "average" ECW army. The re-enactment groups (and many rules-created armies) give awrong impression."

Quote Reddrabs.

Definitely agree. My recent reading suggests ECW armies were very high proportions of musket. The latest Naseby book suggests the Royalist foot, being lots of ex garrison troops were maybe 4:1 in favour of shot to pike shot. Essex's 1644 army appears to have been 6:1 in favour of shot. I've yet to see that addressed on the wargames table and it does fly in the face of the popular view that the Kings forces were short of firearms.

I'm buying more musketeers to up my 2:1 units.

The only reason us re-enactors have a large proportion of pike to shot is cost! To equip a musketeer (and the home security and licence costs) far outweighs the cost of a pikeman's kit. Any of you guys who want to help us to correct the balance please let me know and I will be happy to point you in the right direction :-P