"Brown Bess musket " Topic

I am currently reading Julian Spilsbury's 'The Indian Mutiny' and came across this interesting passage:

'Tests (with the Brown Bess) in 1841 had shown that its range varied from 100 to 100 yards – at 150 yards, three shots out of four hit a target 12 feet by 3 feet. Beyond that no hits were scored'.

This is a little earlier than my usual area of interest, but I was surprised at how woefully inaccurate the Brown Bess was – and this was presumably a test done on a range and thus possibly showed the weapon in a better light that the reality on the battlefield. I know it was employed in as a volley weapon etc etc, but even still, it seems to have been fairly useless and of surprisingly short range.

I have no knowledge of any wargames rules of the Napoleonic or Crimean Wars, but would be fascinated to learn how musketry is treated in various sets. What maximum / effective ranges are used, for example, and do the firepower effects seem reasonable? I would not be surprised if many rule sets make musket fire a lot more devastating than it would seem to have been in reality.

When designing rules I usually reckon on a maximum effective range in battlefield conditions of ~100yds.

Good light infantry man was supose to be able to hit a man at 150 paces/yards(depending on the source)

But how realistic it was I don't know.

Generaly fireing muskets at more then 100 yards is a waist of ammo, you might hit, but you only realy end up with fategued soldiers, and fauled muskets, with little gain.

a waist of ammo

That sounds like quite a thing to stomach…

The Brown Bess is based on a very old design. It is said that it was not as accurate as some of the continental counterparts, namely the La Belle which was supposedly very well made and quite accurate for what it was.

However, the Bess, like all other smooth bore muskets, really sees the maximum effect at 50 yards or closer when the target is a mass of troops. At that range, who cares about accuracy!

3 out of 4 hit at 150 yards. That is surprising. I have fired one but only a couple times at 25 yards. I think I hit the target paper (not the target area itself) once.

Maybe some reenactors who shoot a lot can give their experiences. If not here, than try the Muzzleloaders Forum.(I think that is it.) People who shoot alot of black powder guns can give some stories from their experience.

"However, the Bess, like all other smooth bore muskets, really sees the maximum effect at 50 yards or closer when the target is a mass of troops. At that range, who cares about accuracy!
"

At that range the big caliber of the brown bess is enoug to take of a leg or arm, a few hits in the stomac and your guts fall out, and ofcourse if you are lucky enough to get it in the head, there's isn't much left of it.

The strange thing is that the exact same ball at 170-200 yards do very little damige, often only going just inside the skin.

Thats why you hear about French fireeater colonels and generals that get hit dozen of times during their carrer with only some minor problems.
It was all about distance.

50 yards it takes of your leg, 200 yards it just digs in a inch and a half.

Actually, the smoothbore was a lot more accurate than some folks seem to think, There is a lively discussion of that going on on this Thread:

TMP link

Rob

I fired about a dozen rounds in college while writing a paper on the evolution of muskets (flintlock to cap) with a Brown Bess replica. Range was 25, 50, 75 and 100 yards, the target a double bed sheet.

I'm a good shot, but the sheet was pretty safe at 100 yards (smile).

Hardest part for me to get use to was the delays in the firing proceedure. First you pulled the tigger, then the hammer fell setting off the pan powder, THEN the musket actually fired. Keeping the musket on the target during this process was hard to do.

In comparison, shooting a '61 Springfield replica with minnie ball and cap, I could and did hit 2" wide boards at 50 yards, and could group 20 rounds in a 10 inch circle at 100 yards.

Dan

50 yards is probably about as far as the average soldier could fire at something and hope to hit

That being said, the Brown Bess was not actually designed for aimed fire – for platoon fire, it did yeoman service for 116 years as the issue infantry arm for His Majesty's Forces

From extensive recorded target practice sessions in Madras, the soldiers firing individual aimed shots with flintlock brown bess muskets at target 6 feet tall by 2 feet wide, the percentage hits were:

80 yards: 31%
100 yards: 25%
120 yards: 19%
200 yards: 8%

The accuracy in battle was obviously much lower than this, especially if the battalion was in close order, but it should be pointed out that these soldiers were only issued 36 rounds and 3 flints for live fire practice per year. In view of this, the figures are impressive. I normally fire more than 36 rounds per week with similar weapons and can do a bit better, but the smoothbore is inherently innaccurate.

Regarding the penetration capabilities of musket balls, in one test three targets 30 feet long and 8 feet high were placed one behind the other, separated by one pace, at 200 yards range. The targets were constucted of mango planks one inch thick. Out of 150 shots, 102 struck the target:

45 penetrated all three boards.

32 penetrated two boards.

24 penetrated only one board.

1 lodged in the first board.

I'm not sure how a one inch mango plank compares to human flesh and bone, but these figures indicate that a ball fired 200 yards would probably do more than just "digging in one and a half inches".

I don't think many smoothbores fired by conscripts or veterans were of much danger to the enemy beyond 75 yards. And even there, it was more miss than hit.

I am getting tired of expert blackpowder firers claiming that since 'they' can castrate a knat at 200 yards, any enemy within 100 yards of a Brown Bess was history.

Most era European peasants and small tradesmen apprentices did not use firearms and didn't fall to sleep dreaming of being Davy Crocket. 10 or 20 rounds of live firing a year,,, that was a dream. I would like to ask these people, why they didn't put sights on the blasting things? If the soldiers and veteran soldiers were so intent on firing accurately "for their survival".. why don't we see sights, rear sights with knotches for firing at different ranges? You would think we would hear of a lot of ad-hock modifications done by grizzled veterans or keen officers. Not many stories about these.

Billsfan,

I am not making any exaggerated claims about the accuracy of smoothbore muskets, but rear sights were fitted to British and East India Company Light Infantry muskets as standard. After 1842, all British muskets had rear sights, and believe it or not, they make a difference.

My 1848 issue HEIC percussion musket has front and rear sights; they are very useful and do make a real difference, as CS says.

In his The Colonial Wars Sourcebook Philip Haythornthwaite quotes period stats on Waterloo and the Crimea to show the relative battle performance of the Brown Bess and the Minie rifle. The Waterloo stats were something like 1 round in 400 causing a casualty, a figure which also included casualties caused by artillery which makes it even worse. In the Crimea it was something like 1 round in 20. This is from memory so I might be slightly off but not far.

I turn of shooting in wargames rules doesn't represent a single volley, or so I have always understood it, but a series of volleys over the timescale of the turn and the effect on the opposition is not just dead people but damage to morale and discipline too.

This thread is most interesting. Thanks for all the info.

BTW, does anyone knows how the Brown Bess compares to the French musket?. From a couple of Waterloo accounts I have the feeling that the Brown Bess was far superior to its French counterpart so that could mark the difference in their battles.

Well, consider this – go out to a range with a modern firearm, set up a man-sized target at 100 yards. Then take your modern firearm – preferably a bolt-action weapon without a scope, leave only the front sights on. Then – make sure you bring about 10-15 friends to watch and participate – have a friend yell Ready!, Aim!, Fire! in rapid succession. During the AIM portion – make sure all of your friends are there making noise, yelling, screaming, setting off caps, and keep shooting til you run through the first magazine or 10 rounds whichever comes first – and see how many times YOU hit the target. It isn't easy. Now, imagine a line of fellows out there near that target – shooting BACK AT YOU! Now you get the idea on how inaccurate the weapon is or isn't. Also consider that at closer ranges common practice has you loading buck and ball – so you would spray the enemy with shotgun type pellets or gravel at closer ranges. 100 yards is a good distance – most people don't consider it a long range, unless or until they try to shoot something out that far. A Brown Bess is as accurate as the shooter and the conditions it is in. Veteran troops will do better – they are used to the noise, the recoil, the smoke, the screams, and so veterans will likely hit their targets more often than raw recruits.

I am no expert with black powder, but I can hit a target 100 yards – sometimes. I've a friend who is an expert – shoots spaghetti at 50 yards and stuff like that at shows and for recreation.

As for the "woefully inaccurate" comment – consider that the Brown Bess is NOT an M-16, or even close to a modern weapon in design, craftsmanship, or caliber. It was perfectly adequate for the ranges at which troops engaged during the time it served the militaries that used it. I'm sure in 150 years the M-16 will be considered wholly obsolete and "inaccurate" as a weapon by comparison with the newer more modern weapons which will circumsize gnats at 1,000 yards and THEN hit you in the spleen while you are hiding behind a wall inside a building through three doorways with no part of you visible to the weapon which fired the projectile.

BTW, does anyone knows how the Brown Bess compares to the French musket?. From a couple of Waterloo accounts I have the feeling that the Brown Bess was far superior to its French counterpart so that could mark the difference in their battles.

I've heard that the La Belle was a better made weapon than the Brown Bess. The tolerance of the ball of the Bess was not that good. It was designed for close in fighting.

That said, 50 yards and combat situations, the answer has to be, it really doesn't matter. Both probably perform adequately well at 50 yards and closer.

In the N-SSA we shoot smooth bore muskets all the time, at targets aiming and taking our time (in some matches, others are timed speed based). We shoot 25 yards and 50 yards. Try it and I think you will see why these ranges are used. These distances are half of what we shoot riffled muskets and the same distance we shoot cap and ball pistols.

Less tolerance also made it easier (i.e., faster) to reload.

The Charleville has a higher muzzle velocity with a "battle" load than the Bess and is less hard on the shooter. But the difference at these ranges is the man and his training, not the weapon, and man for man the British soldier was superior to his French counterpart. That being said by an ardent Francophile and unapologetic Bonapartist.

Oh, and I don't put much stock in modern tests. No one is actively trying to kill you as you take your position and shoot. So while my unit has a very high accuracy rate it proves nothing IMHO except what we did in 2009, not 1809.

Some great comments so far, but any info on how wargames rules represent musket fire?

Some great comments so far, but any info on how wargames rules represent musket fire?

Most rules don't account for differences in musket design except for the use of the rifle, which gets a somewhat longer range.

The musketry difference is in the training of the shooting troops and the situation. English tend to be more steady troops, especially later in the Napoleonic wars.

"Some great comments so far, but any info on how wargames rules represent musket fire?"

IIRC WRG 16xx – 18xx, long range was 100-200m and fairly ineffective, close range 0-100m and quite scary (for massed, steady muskets as opposed to skirmishers or unsteady units.

"English tend to be more steady troops, especially later in the Napoleonic wars."

+1 for being British for sure. This is Napoleonics we are talking about after all.

Hi

Well, the usual extremes being voiced here. Yup, most missed thus the mass volley. On the other hand, there are two problems with just counting bodies. 1)just being vollied might cause units to break. 2)It doesn't take that many casualties to get a unit to break.

One consideration with shooting at at a sheet is that people aren't solid targets exactly 6' tall and 2' wide, nor is a line of troops a solid target. Simple area calculations would suggest that hits on a company front sheet would only actually result in 35% of that number in casualties.

Now, which rules? My unpublished rules for the era gets all geeky and reflects MY prejudices on this subject.

Mechanically, it really doesn't matter if it is 1809 or 2009, really! If we are actually discussing the potential of the weapon, that is mechanical. In general a smoothbore musket has an MOA of 36. That means a "perfect" shot will put a string of balls somewhere within a 36" radius of aimpoint…randomly. A modern M16/M4 is usually 3".

You don't have to wait 150 years for people to observe the lack of accuracy in a 16..they do so now. The older springfield, M1, M1a1, M14 shot tighter groops, longer ranged with more energy. Shooters have considered the 16 a retrograde. Most army personnel are not shooters and do not notice.

In short, complex subject that gamers want simple. Like "roll a 6 kill a yank".

Rocky

1809 or 2009 DOES matter.
I'm a conscript in 1809. Before I joined the army I'd only ever seen a couple of hunting weapons that belonged to the toffs on the estate where I was effectively a slave.. I can't read (Nor can the sargeant who is my instructor). Before i joined the army I'd never been more than 5 miles from my home.
I don't know what the word "rifling" means, I have no concept of "windage". I'm not entirely sure what aiming is, I think it means pointing the thing where I'm told to point it, a bit like when I threw stones at ducks on the pond.. I don't actually know why the chemicals in the tube I pour down the barrel makes the thing go bang. I do what I'm told (or the sargeant hits me).
I've not studied physics or maths and I don't have the first notion about perspective or paralax.
The most important thing I know about this "musket-gun thing, is not to lose any bits of it or the sargeant will hit me again. I DO know how to clean it, thats what I do most with it (apart from carry it about, its very heavy).
Most Soldiers in the Napoleonic wars did what they were %$^$%^*& told! and thats it!
They didn't know about firearms…weren't "interested" in them. Didn't have 20 or 25 or 35 years experience in handling them. They hadn't bought every issue of "Big Gun Monthly" since they were 12 years old. Their dads didn't teach them to shoot. They didn't see guns on TV every single day of their life. To them a musket was something you carried, cleaned and pointed where the officer told you to before you fired it.

I fired my Bess on a 75 yard range. I nailed the human shape on the target 4 out of 5 times. We would fire in groups of 5 and then inspect the target. After 5 rounds I got progressively worse because I started to flinch from the Bess kickback. After 25 rounds I had a nice big bruise on my shoulder and not one hit on the target!
So I'd have to say from my experience was that my accuracy was very good initially but soon declined with the kickback pain factor.
One interesting observation I had though was during one of the target inspections the 2'x4' target post actually got hit by a shot. The narrow side of the post was facing the shooter position. The ball cut a deep gouge clean through it!

"Nor can the sargeant who is my instructor"

I think it was a requierment to be able to read and write to by a NCO, atleast in the british army

read and write about ballistics, physics, chemistry, optical science? or just spell your own name?….I think you get my point.

"read and write about ballistics, physics, chemistry, optical science? or just spell your own name?….I think you get my point"

I doubt most modern grunts know much about that either.

I wonder if the effective marksmanship of the gun would increase with the soldier's familiarity with the piece. I knew an older gentleman who used a Browning rifle that shot to the left and he compensated for it and was an excellent shot.

""read and write about ballistics, physics, chemistry, optical science? or just spell your own name?….I think you get my point"

I doubt most modern grunts know much about that either."

They know an awful lot more about it than a common soldier did 200 years ago.

(BTW, Whats' in "Big Guns R Kool" this month?)

Marksmanship wasn't really looked at as important (maybe up till WW1??)-Discipline, rate of fire and bayonet drill were probably the most important things for British soldiers during the black powder era..
Christot is right--Most recruits were from the countryside and largely iiliterate, most of the NCO's were experienced hands who could whip a peasant into shape reasonably quickly…During a battle the soldiers fired as a unit (or tried!!!) at other blocks of men coming towards them usually shouting or cheering in French--
Training would then come into action- a few volleys fired at very close range followed sometimes by a bayonet charge some bloody work and the French would run away (usually!!!)..

MdIvancic,

I am calling you out LOL,

How well do you shoot. By that I mean what hit rates do you have at what ranges. you should know since you do it all the time?

Lord Ghee

Given that approximately 30% of the adult population is near sighted, I wonder how that would affect our black powder weapon wielding ancestors in terms of their accuracy. I know that without my glasses I would be hard pressed to use a bayonet at a target within 3 feet, let alone shoot at something even as large as an enemy battalion farther away than that. While I know that some types of units chose men who specifically had good vision, that implies that most line units probably had a good percentage of men who probably couldn't hit the broad side of a barn regardless of how good the weapon was.

In the British regs the term was 'Level'.
You 'levelled' the musket at an angle , if you could only see 3 feet you had enough to level the same as the bloke next to you – if you were close enough placed to the platoon officer he whacked the barrel down with his cane for you.

Modern shooters doubtless have perfect mix of powder kept at a standard humidity, rammed to a standard compactness. Something a 18thC grunt almost certainly didn't get to have and so had unreliable muzzle velocity – and doesnt matter its Brown Bess, Charleville, or whathavyou.

Still intrigued why some people continue to attribute minor racial origin as an important combat factor. English/Irish/Portuguese/KGL need we say more.

To the OP:

I'm surprised nobody has cited it before, but in a pamphlet published in America in 1814 Colonel George Hanger, a veteran of the War of American Independence, made some well-known observations about musket accuracy in action. He said that:

"…a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards, providing his antagonist aims at him; and as for firing at a man at 200 yards with a common musket, you might just as well fire at the moon…no man was ever killed at 200 yards…by the person who aimed at him."

I can't speak to how "most" rules address this because I'm not familiar with "most" sets. Broadly speaking, the different characteristics of different nations' muskets are subsumed into a rating for fire effectiveness which is modified by range and target density.

British line troops are usually rated better than the line troops of other nations. Anglophobic Americans on here object to this assessment, but unfortunately for them, it was the view of their officers, allies, and enemies at the time. It reflects the Brown Bess (which fired a heavier bullet than the equivalent French weapon), but other things besides.

Dense formations usually aggravate musket casualties, since those that whistle through the first few ranks are likely to hit someone in the next few.

The factor that's hardest to model in a wargame IME is the fact that, as soon as a battalion fired a volley, a dense cloud of white smoke filled the space between itself and its target. The subsequent volleys would be fired through this, at an enemy who had probably moved in the 30 seconds or so it took to reload.

This must be one of the reasons why firefights could go on for so long without really serious loss: most participants were firing blind at empty space. Barbero's account of Waterloo suggests that, in a battalion versus battalion firefight in line, each side might lose four or five men a minute. After ten minutes, 10% of the battalion is down. At this point, individual participants start to apprehend their own mortality, and to give serious thought to running away.

There were exceptions, but in the main, musketry took a long time to inflict significant casualties. Fire from very close range, preferably using the first, most carefully-loaded volley, seems to have been the best way to do rapid, heavy damage. Even then, as witness the exchange of fire between the British and Imperial Guards at Waterloo, it could be a long time before one side decided it had had enough.

Accounts of warfare in any era stress that experienced troops are steadier than newbies. This can only be because to a newb, every bullet fired feels dangerous. An old hand is able to ignore fire because, having experienced a lot of it, he knows that almost all of it misses. This is especially true of musket fire. It's very unpleasant when it does hit, but it doesn't hit that often.

In the big set-piece battles the real execution seems to have been done by artillery.

Still intrigued why some people continue to attribute minor racial origin as an important combat factor.

National characteristics don't reflect racial origin, they reflect training, equipment, weaponry, doctrine, and junior leadership.

If you were writing rules that modelled the fighting capabilities of 1879 Zulus and British infantry, you would most probably score the British troops' firepower rating higher (because they used rifles for shooting with, rather than less-effective spears), and the Zulus' hand-to-hand ratings higher (because they used spears for fighting with rather than less-effective rifles).

These distinctions do not reflect race, and if you didn't make them, your rules wouldn't reflect anything at all.

Hi

Cristot, I found your post less than useful.

The point was made that there was a difference between 1809 shooting an 2009. OK, everyone was illiterate and …the rest of your suppositions don't actually supply any useful concepts.

Is the short version "no one was at risk"?

MY point is that the machinery is around and can be tested. When those tests indicate that the MOA is 36, that is a hard number that results in two points. ONE, no matter what your 5 or 15 shots, the statistics of the issue are that your limited string might be a matter of "lucky hits" or "lucky misses", but the ultimate LIMIT of accuracy is known.

It CAN take time to do significant casualties, but that isn't the issue either. The issue is when the unit breaks. Historically, that might be at the point of zero casualties or it might be "to the last man".

So, it is important to discuss hits on a company front and working out how many hits that means and how that affects the target AND the shooter.

Perhaps the issue should be as my friend Tom insists that casualties don't matter. Or that Keegan and others suggest is that with casualties, the likely hood of failure goes up with things like Camorada being an exception.

Just saying, Nope, isn't a real discussion.

Rocky

Evryone has forgot the cheer.

A fight between battalions in the 18th century and early ninteenth was typified by one side making an approach march usually in column, until they deployed into line at say 100 yards. The other side would wait until the line approached to fifty yards or so. Often waiting to fire second as some contempory cartoons showed.

The volley would go off causing very little damage or casulties, then the main part of the fight!

700 voices would raise a mighty cheer! Pour l'emporour! Avante! God save Mad King George!

The muskets , with l'bayoniette fixed or unfixed would be raised aloft and the line would stumble forwards.
At this point the non-cheerers would break and run invariably away. Deverstated by the shout and their impending doom!
The line would overrun anyone who tripped over, otherwise it would stumble on in pursuit a hundred yards until everyone was exhausted.

Result. One broken battallion 5 dead 10 wounded.
Expenditure 500 odd rounds and a packet of strepsils.

I don't buy much using the machine-limited grouping size between a M-1 and a Brown Bess at 100 yards for almost anything about "column vs. line" effectivness. A 30.06 (or .303 Enfield) or a Brown Bess are sort of okay in hitting a division-wide bunch of 5'6" people, in theory. I don't agree when bench-rest comparisons between the precision of these are used to support conclusions on the effectiveness of different Napoleonic methods of assult.

The important thing is "what can go wrong". Before retirement, I used to work in semiconductor R&D and manufacturing- there are 10's of thousands of steps and parameters to know about in making a "chip". Figuring out "what can go wrong" and lessening them is a road to making more money for your company.

While a Brown Bess and a 30.06 might both group well enough at 150 yards to hit a 66 yards line of men in the torso, there is a lot more "can go wrong" with the Brown Bess. With the Brown Bess, you have to:

o know the range,

o know the lob trajectory of the roundshot,

o know the vertical offset to aim,

o figure out what that is (without an adjustable backsight in the era),

o hold it properly (plus or minus one thumbswidth at arms length no less),

o hold the heavy musket out the same after several shots,

o be knowledgable enough not to flinch during the delay between pulling the trigger, flashing of the pan, and ignition of the charge in the barrel..and these times vary

o of course you need to also have figured out whether the target was on the same elevation as you, as shooting down or uphill at somebody 15 feet higher or lower (at a distance of 150 yards that is aboat (Canadian accent applied here) 1.5 degrees compensation on top of all the stuff above. (P.S. go out with a typo map and see how good you're estimates are)

o can figure all this out even if you are standing on ground that is sloped by 3-5 degrees (hint: your eyes, at best see the horizon, in smoke they don't see schitz, your inner ear can't see anything- the outdoors is not the same as inside a squared-off and leveled house)

o Did I mention the smoke?

o Of course you kept your blackpowder rounds in a dessicator, (hint, sodium nitrate absorps water from the air, even through a greased paper wrapper, nitrated cellulose inside of a metal-to-metal seal or even outside of it, doesn't and even if.. doesn't care)

o Of course you tamped down the blackpowder exactly the same each time, whereas it don't matter with smokeless powder contained within a cartrage- the primer there ignites everything the same each time,,,,,Oh, and the vent hole sizing varys on the Bess with manufacture and moreso with fouling,,,,, not so with the bursting of the mercury fulmate primer…

o the Napoleonic soldier was being bumped by neighbors, whereas the 30.06 guy is most likely firing from a rest or at least prone and firing at will rather than when told…

o the Napoleonic soldier was in 3 ranks (sometimes 2) and was restricted in how widely he could swerve his weapon to a side to fire (hint: don't kill your neighbor). With the short range of the weapon, only a small portion of a line could shoot at a division-width attacker at an effective range. Think about the tactics of a column hitting the end of a line rather than the center

Okay, my point is that comparing the results of target shooters using Brown Bess and Springfields ignores all the reasons why formed troops using Napoleonic muskets would be very inaccurate, should not be a part of figuring out the effectiveness of fire.

Rocky, you totally miss my point.
Of course you can do the research, you can perform the evolutions, fire the weapon, analyse the results.
What neither you,nor anyone else can do, is divorce these processes from a lifetime of late 20th century (firearm) experience, you will always be attempting to superimpose your perspective upon the historical model with whom you have virtually nothing in common beyond having two arms and two legs.

I agree with Tommiatkins.

I'm off to write a rule reflecting strepsil supply…..

hi

And you miss MY point.

One has a couple options, reading sources and having no information except guessing what they saw, or actually testing the equipment and finding how what the optimal baseline is.

I have seen so many things in tertiary sources that become obvious silliness if you just go out and TRY the weapon.

If I know that the MOA of a Bess in optimum situation is 36, I then know that if a skirmish game has a shooter having better than one chance in 3 of getting a hit, that the designer is just guessing based on something, or nothing.

If I know what the tests on a company front show, and the rules have the fire be a version of marine scout snipers, I know that it is wrong.

Some of you seem to be saying "well there are so many difference that all guesses are equal." I disagree.

I have, own, shoot both smoothbore and springfield AND Garand(different weapons)….And I do know the differences.

But without a base line, "your guess is as good as mine".

Rocky

I totally agree with you as far as skirmishers are concerned, but with unaimed, mass volley fire then the enormous quantity of variables (which you cannot test for) so outwiegh the performance of individual muskets that comparisons are indeed, meaningless.

"I have seen so many things in tertiary sources that become obvious silliness if you just go out and TRY the weapon."

I don't doubt they are silly (to any of us) but that doesn't neccessarily mean that at the time they were relevant to a contemporary soldier. Believing in witches and that the sun revolved around the earth made perfect sense once upon a time.

British line troops are usually rated better than the line troops of other nations. Anglophobic Americans on here object to this assessment, but unfortunately for them, it was the view of their officers, allies, and enemies at the time. It reflects the Brown Bess (which fired a heavier bullet than the equivalent French weapon), but other things besides.

After reading through this thread and some adjoining links on Aimed Fire and the Baker Rifle, I agree. There seems to be a pile of evidence that the Brown Bess was more accurate at standard engagement ranges out to 100 yards, and more accurate even further out, but perhaps without the same lethality of penetration. In addition, the British appear to have capitalized on this advantage in their training and their tactics. Technically, the most convincing evidence I've read is that the powder was better rather than the weapon necessarily having a better design.

There seems to be corresponding evidence that namely the French and also the Austrians learned or saw the advantages of having their line troops handle smoothbores with better accuracy. However the more accurate the Line infantry became of those powers it appears the British stayed ahead of the curve b/c neither the Austrians or French could match the technical innovation, whatever that may have been precisely.

Either way, the arguments that in general Napoleonic Era soldiers were a mass of ignorant, pitchfork wielding peons--so it didn't matter how accurate their weapons were or what kind of fire training they received---is a complete pile of BUNK in my view.

Anyway, very interesting reading throughout.

I agree. I think most soldiers, if lacking a solid education, were perfectly able to understand the basic working of his musket. They were essentially made up of the similar raw material that makes up today's army. Also if a conscript then there is every chance he has had a little schooling as the conscription net most likely catches a few that wouldn't have joined up otherwise.

Generally I wouldn't enjoy a rules set that got to techie about musket specs. A musket is musket no matter where it's made. A rifle is like a musket but shoots further. That's all I need to know for gaming.

"Pile of evidence the Brown Bess was better"
Which pile is this exactly? Never tripped over it myself.

There is the fact that the actual musket issued was a cheaper 'East Indian' version that was allowed more tolerance and less stringent checking.
It is also a fact that tens of thousands of these lauded weapons were handed out to continentals and they, mmmmmm, completely ignored them and carried on with their own designs. Even the Americans chose to copy a Charleville rather than a Brown Bess taken from a Brit.

Back in the day musket parts were made in cottages and assembled at the Tower of London – just about hand made, no mass production. High precision weapons like rifles were costly because the skilled labour required was in very short supply.
More muskets = worse muskets. Simple equation.

Blunt truth almost everyone seems intent in ignoring is that British organised infantry had a far higher number of officers to supervise the men and could control the volleys more easily. They could do this as they didn't have long open borders to defend against multiple invasion threats.

Military affairs tend to be very Darwinian. If you don't use the most effective tactics for the technology and terrain your army will die. With some 23 years of warfare and many campaigns I think it would it be a very odd idea to do anything other than assume that the tactics they used were the best for their time. To do otherwise would, among other things, be arguing against Frederick the Great, Marechal de Saxe, Marlborough, Scharnhorst, Napoleon, Wellington, and declaring them all stupid.

Not that its central to the argument, but we might be overdoing the "illiterate peasants" thing a bit. This (the dreaded wikipedia) gives the relevant French literacy rates as about 50%.

I do recall seeing letters, diaries, autobiographies of private soldiers from this period, so they werent all illiterate. A surprising number of them were urban tradesmen rather than the plough boys of common myth.

Just some things to consider
The Brown bess was .75 cal (18.75mm) and the French 55 (13.75mm) at long range this gave the british more damage and the ability to knock down horses which the Americans did not see the need and like the French weapon better. most deer muskets where 55cal or less in America. The French wanted a weapon that was easier on the troop and consider the 55cal to be more accurate. The French Cav and artillery would take on the enemy Cav.

The Brown Bess fired at the level would ground at 190 yds.
at the 45 degrees it would reach out to 400yds and knock down a man or horse. this is important as they did not have as many Cav or artillery as the other powers.

General Hughs book firepower discuss all this and then uses real world example to get firepowr ratings.

one time volley fights at point blank ranges that we know the dead and wounded and range seem to figure about 30% hits. this is in the 90% of shot fired on the range hit zone.

Hughes state that fire of all muskets in battles would give a 1% to 3% hit rate on average but then you have battles like Waterloo where the French seem to have a .005% hit rate.

example of variance fromw Waterloo

The lead French battalion in line caught the British 42 and 43 in column of waiting during the 1 Corp attack and with 2 volleys did 200 or so causities for a hit rate of 1 out of 5 or so. (the 42 and 43 retired to the woods having fired one volley for the King and one for the Regiment with loss of the Cornel)

That most rules do not account for the rate of fire (total potential hits) between the musket and rifle.

example the musket with a rate of fire of 3 (per 30 secounds or minute) the Rifle with the rate of fire of 2 for the same lenght of time.

On the offense 10 men with muskets fire get 2 hits the rifles fire and get 3 the muskets fire round 2 and get 1.4 hits (round in defenders favor) that is 3 rifles hit, seven fire back get 2.1 hits that is 5 down so 5 fire and get 1 hit that is 4 hits. Now on a Perfect day the Musket could get 30 hits and the Rifles 20. The closer you are the better the Musket is becaues of the more chances of getting a hit. Napoleon did give unit rifles and they asked for the muskets back. They as veterans felt that volume of fire was better than accuracy.

just some late night thoughts.

Lor Ghee

and finally more blather

A American Civil War reenactor group built a fort and had 3 gents fire as fast as they could at targets 100yds away. They hit 30%+ then they set up 3 tennis ball throwers and had them lob tennis balls at the shooters who scored less than 3% hits.