"Musket Quality" Topic

Hi- Hoping some of you deeply knoweledgable folks out there could sketch out some info on which nations/troops carried the best quality muskets in the Coalition wars, and which had second rate equipment. The English has the Brown Bess, certainly a first rate weapon…but we are not well studied in the other nations…thanks in advance for your help!

Best quality is difficult to quantify. The Bess is light weight, hard hitting (to shooter and target) and easy to keep clean. The Charleville is heavier, better muzzle velocity, hard hitting and a bit more work to keep clean because of the bands. The Pottsdam musket for the Wars of Liberation had a permanently fixed bayonet which isn't a great idea IMHO. Hard hitting again, but not real "user-friendly." I wouldn't want to maintain one on a daily basis. I've only handled repros on the Austrian and Russian pieces so have little hard knowledge. They struck me as entirely serviceable; with the Austrian musket the more attractive piece.

Overall when you look at the time in service and models the Bess and Charleville are clear winners with a slight edge to the latter in my book. But as I say, I lack hard data for the performance of the others so it's a selective evaluation at best.

21eRegt,
That's interesting info on the Pottsdam musket. I own one and it clearly has a detachable bayonet. I wonder if this is a revised and later version of the Pottsdam musket?
Another clever thing the British did was to make their Bess's in a larger calibre than the French. This allowed them to use captured ammo but the enemy couldn't readily use captured British ammo.

Saxon Air Rifle

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gun
YouTube link

I recall from one of Duffy's books on the Russian 1812 war that the Russian muskets sucked with IIRC many different calibres used, poor workmanship in general and with a number of Brown Besses that were doled out as gifts or awards to deserving soldiers and NCOs. (This might have helped drive the Russian "cult of the bayonet" as well as national characteristics.)

From what I can gather powder quality was a major factor in performance. If you could hit your mark at 50 yards you were British infantry. If you could hit your mark at 30 yards you might be French (or Austrian?). Under 20 you were everyone else. Which is probably why the cult of the bayonet was also taken up by the Imperial Guard. Why bother taking a shot at an individual, when you may as well run at him, blast him at pointblank range on the run and then if you miss, you can spear him with your bayonet.

Which also leads me to think Napoleonic musket armed skirmishers may have been inclined to do the same against enemy skirmishers. Otherwise, sit back at 100 yards and let fly at a line 3 ranks deep. You're bound to hit someone eventually and to make things uncomfortable.

The accurate effective range is so close that training, experience and fire control could give tremendous advantages to the troops who possessed them. Of course, a line could let loose a massed volley at 70 or 80 yards, reload quickly and wait for the smoke to clear to see the effect or just fire again in the general direction which is what they in effect did before there was smoke.

Thanks Dark Knight.

Well its the first time I've heard Bessie (India Land Pattern) described as a quality musket, Rudyard Kipling notwithstanding!

But yes, those supplied to the Russians were prized items, which implies that the Russian muskets were truly dreadful…(and not in a good way!)

The M 1809 New Prussian Musket to me seems to get high praises with many authors

Bit of a question as to how you judge.

Accuracy was probably not a serious concern. Ease of cleaning and maintanence might be. What about quality of replacement parts – springs turny bits etc? Was there a greater degree of standardisation in one army?

Durability in the field (mean time between failures) might be more important than being able to hit your target at 11 feet rather than 10.

The russian muskets were quite poor and many said they were the worst muskets in europe, the steel was subpar, bayonets bent easly when it met bone or got bloked by another musket.

The russians got a 100 000 British muskets, but by that time the russian army was well over 600 000, some of the russian muskets were of older make and even worse then the new ones, and to make it worse a battalion might have all 3 types of muskets, meaning it would be hard to get the right ammo.

My personal opinion is that the Brown bess was the best, simple easy to use, not as acuurat as the french one, but more sturdy, having a bigger bore ment it could use captured french ammo.

Its a bit like if I'm on a shooting range Id prefer an M16, but if i am leading a bunch of half trained crazies, I might rather that we standardised on AKs.

What was the austrian musket like?

Actually, the Charleville was lighter than the Brown Bess. I posted this on another thread, but perhaps it will be helpful:

The following is from the Book of the Continental Soldier by Harold Peterson, a known authority on the weapons of the colonial period and the War of the Revolution:

'Following their country's disastrous defeat in the French and Indian War, the French had redesigned their infantry muskets, and they had continued to modify and improve them almost constantly from 1763 until 1777. There were official models of 1763, 1766, 1770-1771, 1773, 1774, and 1777. Some authorities also include a model of 1768. Each was a little different from the one preceding it, but all had some of the same characteristics. They were, for example, all .69-caliber, and all had the barrel fastened to the stock by three iron bands. Both of these characteristics were important design factors, for they permitted a lighter weapon than the .75-caliber Brown Bess, which needed a forestock heavy enough to support the barrel-fastening pins. Also, all the French muskets had flintlocks with reinforced or 'throat hole' cocks, as contrasted with the British goosenedck cocks. Again this was an important refinement, for it offered a stronger cock, less apt to snap off at the neck. Finally, all were made at the royal manufactoires of Charleville, St. Etienne, and Maubeuge.'

'The major differences among the various French models can be quickly catalogued. The model 1763 had a falt lockplate, a flat cock, and an angular priming pan. It s barrel was 44 1/2 inches long. The model 1766 was similar but slightly lighter. In 1770 a rounded lockplate, cock, and pan were introduced. In 1773 the arm was lengthened by an inch, but very few muskets of this model were ever made, and probably none found their way to America. The model of 1774 continued the increased length. In 1777 several major changes were made. Most noticeable are the brass priming pan, the cheekpiece carved out of the left side of the stock, and the ribs on the rear tang of the trigger guard. Probably the greatest number of French muskets to reach the Continental Army were of the models 1763 through 1770-1771. It is doubtful that any of the model of 1777 were either sold or gfiven to the Americans, since they were still the standard for the French Amry and only put into production during the war.'

'All of these French arms were good ones, and they quickly made their presence felt. As noted above, they were both stronger and lighter than the British models. From 1777 on, they became increasingly easier to obtain, first through Silas Deane's purchases and then, after France entered the war, on a more direct basis. Faced with the availability of these good weapons, American preferences began to change. The British-style muskets were relegated to second place, and French-patter arms in .69-caliber became the standard. Probably no British-pattern arms were made in America after 1777. The Committee of Safety musket was finished.'
-Peterson, 37-38.

So, in different aspects, the Charleville was stronger than the Brown Bess also. The American 1795 Springfield musket was almost a direct copy of the 1777 Charleville and was considered an excellent weapon. The Austrian musket was also considered by the French to be an excellent weapon.

K

Anecdotally I've read the British rankers referred to the muzzle of the Bess as "the end that kills" and the butt as "the end that maims." Referring to the injuries resulting from the lack of weight to absorb the recoil.

I would think that that three bands on the Charleville would more than compensate for the difference in wooden stock, but I can state that my Model Two Bess is a pound and a half lighter than my An IX Charleville.

Interesting discussion.

If there were any significant difference in the performance of the various muskets, you would expect to see a difference in infantry performances among the armies, as well as tactics, and justifications for those tactics. We don't. Was there:

1. A significant difference in what were considered 'effective' ranges.

Here, tactics having nothing to do with the quality of the musket do appear. At Talavera, the French opened fire at 200 yards according to Oman. The British waited until the French were within 80 yards. No one has suggested that the Brown Bess was that much worse than the French musket.

2. A significant difference in tactics--attributible to different weapon effectiveness.

No one has I have read suggested that the French columns were used because their muskets were worse than the Allies, or that French Tirailleurs regularly targeted their enemies at 150 yards or better with smoothbores because the weapons were that much better. I have read that the Russians chose column attacks because of poor musket and powder quality, but that doesn't explain the French use of columns, and supposedly the Russians were copying their tactics to some extent.

3. Significant differences in casulaties or Firefight results.

Whenever you see the French and Allies in standup firefights, where the differences in weapon quality should shine, like the Austrians vs Hilaire's division at Austerliz, or the French vs. the Spanish and British at Albuera, there is not much difference in the respective casulaties reported.

While I am sure there were real differences in weapons at times, I don't see them being large enough to actually bother with in a simulation/wargame. Remember, the Napoleonic wars lasted twenty years and a number of manufactures made each weapon. As Murphy reminds all soldiers:

"Remember that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder."

I can provide quotes written by British officers stating how bad and badly made the Brown Bess was. Any perceived differences seem to have evened out on the battlefield.

Bill

What Potsdamaganz musket should have a permanently fixed bayonet??

As to Russian musket quality, sadly there is a lack of compentent statements here – there the experts about this topic left this board.
Surely the Russians had good muskets as well.

There was no "charleville" musket as such in use in the French army, it was either a M 1777, or a an un or a M 1777 corrigé an 9, the highest production runs were in St. Etienne.

Not an expert but the caliber that was different at the time of the Napoleon Wars was of lenght not of Muzzle diameter. Each aresenl (3?) patteren fired the same ball but the lenght was different.

Still did not have a good rep.

Lord Ghee

My understanding was that any edge in Muskets in the whole war by the British, was nothing to do with the gun, but to do with the fact we had superior powder, so they clogged slower and misfired less.

some old information when excellent contributors about the Russian Army were around :

I do wonder what is windage for the British rifle when used with and without a mallet.
For Russian weapons :
Infantry Musket of 1808 year : calibre 17,78 mm, dia. ball 15,87 mm (89,3%)
Jäger Rifle of 1805 year : calibre 16.51 mm, same ball – dia. 15,87 mm (96,2%)
There was no mallet that i do know about.
Evoliutsiya Strelkovogo Oruzhiya Ch. 1
Prof. V. Federov
Moscow, 1938
- un ami

Dear colleagues,
Yes, the author is the same as the maker of the Automat:
Федоров Владимир Григорьевич (1874-1966)
I fear I did not ask my question correctly. I was interested in why a mallet was needed to load the English weapon, and then not. Was there some change in the size of the round ? Was there some change in the construction of the rod ? Was there some other difference. I am very interested also about the idea of the rifleman with a selection of diffferent size rounds.
I did give the Russian example to have one where the loading did not require a mallet. The idea was also that the jäger will have only one size of round (not a selection in the box), and in effect the same size as the musket.
It was about the types of ammuntion and the method of loading that I was interested.
I also have shot some of these weapons, including (one shot) a true 1805 year jäger rifle and (many times, it is a favorite of mine) a reproduction of him given as present by my compagnie in the Army (one does not know of course the perfectness of a reproduction).
But, I know little of the British usages and equipments, and they are such great famed as riflemen.

According to Dr. Dewitt Bailey (author of "British Military Flintlock Rifles 1740 – 1840"), for the Baker Rifle :
The bore across the lands : nominal 0,625 inches, but measures 0,628 inches on surviving new or little used examples.
The grooves : 7 in number, rectangle cut, 1-120 twist (1/4 turn in 30 inches), 0,165 inches wide and 0,020 inches deep
The bore across the grooves : 0,668 inches
The rounds were (i) loose balls in 0,653 inches dia. (104,0% of the bore across the lands), but these little used; (ii) standard cavalrie carbine cartridges with balls of 0,615 inches dia.(20 gage – 97,9% of the bore across the lands) and charge of 0,25 ounces; (ii) cartridges made up with balls of 0,596 inches dia.(22 gage – 94,9% of the bore across the lands) and the same charge.
The mallets more an idea of the gun maker than in truth used. The ramrod steel, used with 2 hands when loading. The barral round of length 30,375 inches. The overall length 45,75 inches.
The sword bayonette of 27,75 inches overall length, blade of length 23,0 inches and width of 1,1875 inches at base.
The weight 9 pounds, or 11 pounds with the sword bayonette. The fininsh on the wood of a brown stain.

- votre ami
@CPTN IGLO
"used musket style"
For comparisons, what I do for now think to be the typical uses on the field of battles:
Russian
Infantry Musket of 1808 year : calibre 17,78 mm, dia. ball 15,87 mm (89,3%)
Jäger Rifle of 1805 year : calibre 16.51 mm, same ball, infantrie cartridge – dia. 15,87 mm (96,2%)
8 grooves, 3/4 twist, 1,27 mm x 1,27 mm grooves, no mallet
British
Brown Bess : calibre 0,75 inches, dia. ball 0,69 inches (92,0%)
Baker Rifle : calibre 0,628 inches (as measured), cavalrie carbine cartridge – dia. 0,615 inches (97,9%)
7 grooves, 1/4 turn, 0,165 inches wide and 0,020 inches deep, no mallet
Will you say then that both of these ways of using the rifles is of "musket style" ?
Will you say or say not that spin is given to the ball in either example (by the cartridge paper as a patch, by a plastique deforming of the base of the ball, etc.) ?

Thanks to you and to all the colleagues for your excellent messages.
- un ami

Kevin

There is a reason why the French thought the 1798 pattern weapon was good, because it was essentially a copy of the M1777 Charleville! The Unterberger commission as one of its recommendations suggested a new weapon, as the 1767 pattern was felt to be outclassed by the Charleville. They added some Austrian touches, like a double headed ramrod, and proceeded to roll it out…slowly.

I do not think it was in wide use among the regulars until 1805 and accross the army as a whole by 1809. The landwehr got what they could find, and 20,000 1767 pattern weapons were given to the Prussians in 1813.

The design is only part of it, though. Build quality was also an issue, with weapons often being ten or even twenty per cent above official weight.

Personally I always preferred my Charleville to a Bess: far far easier to clean for a start: I had all my rings popped off before my chum with his Bess had got his braddle out.

K

Hi

One minor point here, if you have handled a modern reproduction, the steels involved are much more dense than the period steels which changes the weight, feel and balance of the weapon.

Second, the issue of rifles is not related to the muskets. In addition the use of a mallet for loading was standard until the colonials in the French and Indian wars had out of field necessity gone to undersized patched ball. The French and British did not usually have rifles in the 1750s because of the mallet issue and the frontier patch approach changed their ideas.

Rocky

Rocky wrote:

One minor point here, if you have handled a modern reproduction, the steels involved are much more dense than the period steels which changes the weight, feel and balance of the weapon.

Rocky,

I agree that the weight and balance of repro muskets are very different from the originals. As far as the Brown Bess is concerned, the original barrels are far heavier than any Italian or Indian made modern reproductions mainly because there is far more metal in the originals and the barrel wall is much thicker, especially at the breech. I find repro Brown Besses very uncomfortable to shoot with anything approaching original service loads, whereas the originals are not a problem.

One advantage of the Brown Bess over the French musket was the heavier ball, which gave it a greater effective range, although the British didn't tend to exploit this at all, prefering to rely on close range vollies followed by a charge when at all practical.

It was correctly stated early in the thread that it is difficult to ascertain "best quality" in Napoleonic firearms, and there are a lot of claims made that aren't backed up by any evidence.

There are several quotes from British officers complaining about the clumsiness and poor quality of the Brown Bess. I am thinking in particular about the statements of Colonel Hanger, which are often used to illustrate how poorly-manufactured the average British musket was. Unfortunately some of the claims made by Hanger were nothing more than a promotion for his own design of musket, which he claimed was as accurate as a rifle at 200 yards – a ridiculous statement and a fact that is ignored by most people using this material.

To balance the argument a little, The French officer Charles Dupin conducted a thorough investigation of the British military soon after the Napoleonic wars. He claimed that:

The locks of the English muskets are of better workmanship than those hitherto manufactured by any other nation of Europe; they will less frequently missfire upon a given number of rounds than all the rest. This applies equally to the goodness of the powder used by the British for their small arms; this powder, which possesses great strength and burns without leaving either foulness or residue.

and:

The calibre of the English musket is greater than that of the French; and, as the piece itself is shorter, it is not much more weighty. The calibre of the arm being thus superior, and equal to ours in other respects, it carries further, notwithstanding its diminished length than the French firelock….it preserves, for a longer time and for a greater distance, sufficient force to inflict dangerous wounds.

The Austrian M 1798 / 99 was by no means a copy of the fusil d'infanterie 1777 – also it did replace the M 1784 (conicical touch hole)and not the M 1767 for more see

Gabriel Erich : Die Hand- und Faustfeuerwaffen der habsburgischen Heere, Wien 1990

The sequence was M 1767 – M 1774 (which was very different to the M 1767 already) – M 1784 – M 1798/99 – M 1807

Original guns – have one great benefit in contrast to reproductions – in my opinion – far more sparks when the flint hits the frizzen

Dear Terry
The Prussian regulations of 1812 stated that the bayonet would be fixed and there was no provision to carry the bayonet. The M1809 Potsdam Musket always had a detachable bayonet.

It is interesting that many contemporary drawings of Prussians do not show attached bayonets. It is as ever parts of the regulations could not be observed due to lack of bayonets possibly.

There is a chapter on Prussian and foreign muskets in my book on the Prussian Army.
link

Stephen

During the AWI, Continental soldiers reputedly preferred Charlevilles (and bear in mind these would mostly have been the pre-1777 models) and Dutch muskets, to the Brown Bess. Soldiers being soldiers, I'm guessing durability, weight and ease of cleaning came a lot higher in their list of priorities than muzzle velocity, hitting power, etc.

I've also read that some British troops in the Peninsula used Charlevilles, but that may have simply been a stop-gap whilst their own muskets were being replaced (which happened roughly every 10 years in peacetime, so presumably campaign use would shorten that dramatically).

The Brown Bess was a general term for British Muskets. There were at least a dozen types under this title. The varied greatly in quality. The "Brown Bess" used a larger ball than European muskets.

Stephen

In the Napoleonic era there were 4 different types of musket used by the British Infantry, but for the purpose of most discussions, the term "Brown Bess" is adequate in my opinion.

If anyone is interested in the differences:

By far the most commonly used was the "India Pattern" measuring around 55" overall with a 39" barrel. This would have been used by the vast majority of British troops and several million were produced during the wars. The calibre was around 0.76" and the cartridge contained a 0.685" ball and 165 grains of powder (grain being a measure of weight, not an individual particle of powder).

There would also have been some "Short Land Pattern" muskets in service early in the period, which were produced in limited numbers until around 1800, although by the time of the Peninsular War I don't think that many, if any, would still have been in service. This pattern measured around 58" overall and had a 42" barrel. The calibre was around 0.76" and the cartridge contained a 0.685" ball and 165 grains of powder.

The "New Land Pattern" musket was intended to become the standard infantry arm and limited numbers were produced in 1802 and 1814 during peacetime. This is a very plain looking musket with none of the decorative carving of previous models. It measured around 58.5" overall and had a 42" barrel and seems to have been used only by the Guard regiments. The calibre was around 0.75" and the cartridge contained a 0.685" ball and 165 grains of powder.

The similar "New Land Pattern Light Infantry Musket" was also produced in limited numbers and was issued to regiments of light infantry and some light companies. This musket measured around 55" overall, had a 39" barrel and unusually for a musket of this era, a rear sight. The calibre was around 0.75" and the cartridge contained a 0.685" ball and 165 grains of powder.

The Austrian 1798 pattern is a Charleville/1777 French design, but with a heavier lock. The Austrian muskets weighed about 4.8kg, but many supplied in 1797 to Italy were as much as 50% overweight.

I suppose that Austrian kit must have been okay, given the large number of weapons imported by Union and Confederacy in the ACW

link

Or the Austrian muskets were available because they were inferior and surplused by their government. My reading of the ACW stories is that the soldiers thought of them as a useless POS and were demoralized at having to use them.

On another note: Although the Russians had a signficiant number of odd muskets, some of the effect was alieveated by assigning armorers, gunsmiths and assistants down to lower level units and supplying them with shot, molds, paper and powder to make their own ammunition.