"How many round before fouling." Topic

Makes it hard to fire a smoothbore.

I have one guy on facebook claming fouling is not a problem, and he can't even precvie how fouling could make it hard to ram the ball down.

So are they any sources of the 18th and early 19th century that makes this clear?

If he is refering to personal experience it is with modern black powder which is very diffrent in quality and performance when compared to 18th C stuff. MOdern BP is always perfectly mixed with high quality ingredients and none of the impurities found in period munitions.

Bits of period sources can be found here link

He does clame, that both the powder and musket is made the old fashion way.

Just from my personal experience with a Brown Bess reproduction I own and built. I went through many a reenactment and live fired many times. The ball I have actually almost can be dropped down the barrel it fits so loose. IMHO I would think more than 40 rounds might start to make it a little work to ram the round down with modern black poweder.

But Daniel S. is correct every source I have read and I have seen real American Civil War black powder (of course this was 150 years old at the time) once, I can tell you it is very different from modern times. Even making your own the materials available today are much better than 100+ years ago. So I would think musket fouling would be greater in the past question is would it be enough of a problem for one battle? Where 20-60 rounds would be fired.

After 5 or 6 shots with a .72 caliber ball in a .75 caliber brown bess you can start to feel having some difficulty in ramming the ball down. After 20 shots it is getting very difficult.

If you are firing quickly the heat of the barrel becomes a more serious problem more quickly though, after a dozen shots in relatively quick succession the barrel becomes too hot to touch without pain and it is more comfortable to load it while holding the strap.

I know that feeling. During one reenactment battle,after about 15 blank charges in succession,the barrel tends to heat up. Also,the powder charges vary ,depending on the caliber. A .58 Springfield or Enfield can usually handle a 60 grain charge,while a .69 cal may need a 70-80 grain load of 2f or reenactor grade powder.

My 50 caliber long rifle is almost impossible to load after about 5 shots without swabbing out the barrel. With my 62 caliber smoothbore if I am loading ball then wadding on top I can probably go 15 – 20 rounds depending on the ball size before it gets tight, but running a spit patch up and down the barrel will clean it good enough to keep on going. And the barrel will get to hot to touch very quickly.

That is why guys needed to wash out their barrels during combat. The lack of water gave rise to the phrase"pissing down the barrel"

It was a real issue and that is why the union developed cleaning bullets to be used during the ACW. They did not work as originally as well as intended but they were to be used for every tenth shot.

I recently bought a bullet mold for my Brown Bess in .715. The other option was I think .735 but while I haven't shot it for a long time I rememberbut after a few rounds it was harder to load with the bigger ball so went for smaller size. There is stories of this happening during battle and everything that could be used to clean out the barrel was used. Water wasn't the only option.

With period style ammunition made up in paper cartridges, with no lubricant (period musket cartridges were not lubricated), it all depends on the size of the ball compared to the bore. That is why the ball for a Brown Bess was 0.685" in the Napoleonic Wars which gave plenty of windage in a bore that would have been slightly bigger than 0.75". Some of this space was taken up by the paper wrapping of the cartridge, but even with the paper it was a loose fit.

The gunmaker William Greener commented on this in his 1835 book "The Gun", referring to the Brown Bess:

It is said, that during an engagement, the musket gets so foul that she could not be loaded, without so much windage. This may be correct; but I have conversed with many veterans, who passed through the whole of the campaigns on the Peninsula, and I have never met with one who ever experienced such a difficulty; on the contrary, it seems to have been the general practice, during an engagement, to slip the cartridge into the muzzle, stamp the butt of the gun on the earth, and the cartridge was home.

Although modern powder is undoubtedly different from that used 200 years ago, it might be wrong to assume that it is all better. British Napoleonic-era powder was especially clean-burning, according to the French engineer Charles Dupin:

This powder, which possesses great strength, burns without leaving either foulness or residue.

Some modern day black powder leaves a lot of residue and ash behind.

I own a 45 caliber black powder Kentucky long rifle. My experience is similar to Pictor's in that after about 6-8 shots using a greased patch the barrel is very foul. And that's using modern BP and not pyrodex.

Some additional thoughts here:

link

Perhaps missing the point? The fouling is more likely to occur on the lock, not the barrel, for the short, sharp musket exchanges of the period. I don't think anyone in the 18th century stood and shot off their entire cartridge box at once.

The fouling is more likely to occur in the touch hole and gunk builing up around the lock and pan. The flint is also tricky and can dull or break rather unexpectedly.

Rifles area different matter.

Got to agree with Historygamer. I've found that the barrel stays clearer, longer with ball cartridge than with blanks, because the ball carries a lot of crap out with it. The lock is usually the area with the most fouling.

My own record for shots without a misfire is 22. Ball cartridge at a competition.

I agree with spontoon – in the French Army you had one flint in the look and 2 spare flints covered in lead fitting so you could change flints – ammunition ususally 50 to 65 cartridges.
fouling of the look is not that great problem it can be solved quite easy, but to change a flint when being in rank and file, quite difficult.
The most shots I did fire – blanks were 60 – and for the last ten it was really difficult to withdraw the ramrod from the barrel

"fouling of the look is not that great problem it can be solved quite easy, but to change a flint when being in rank and file, quite difficult."

Kind of yes, kind of no. If you remember to pick and brush in the heat of combat, the fouling can be reduced. If you remember that while people are trying to kill you. Also, often when you pick and brush the flint comes loose or out entirely. The man really had to fall out of line to dig out his musket tool to tighten the flint, or replace it if lose. Again, more digging – while people are trying to kill you.

I think that the problems of caused by fouling, either of the lock or the barrel, are often exaggerated.

In the 18th century, it might have been normal for fire to be given in short bursts, but I have never looked into this period in any detail. However, certainly in Napoleonic times it was not unusual for an infantryman to fire the entire contents of his ammunition pouch or pouches (c60 rounds)and be re-supplied and carry on shooting.

There are recorded instances of British soldiers firing 107,108,150,170,200 and even 250 rounds in a single day's action and none of these particular participants record fouling being a problem, so that indicates what was possible in some circumstances. There are many more accounts that describe shooting an unspecified large number of rounds and being resupplied, sometimes more than once.

Also of interest are the military experiments recorded by Lt John Russell, several of which tested the sustained shooting speed of infantrymen. A couple of infantrymen selected at random managed to shoot respectively 35 and 37 rounds one after the other at a speed just exceeding 3 rounds per minute. The trial was halted not because of any fouling, but because of the excessive heat of the musket barrels.

In another test, an infantryman of the 58th regiment shot 36 rounds as fast as he could, with a very short break after the first 18 just to allow the wooden block in his cartridge box to be turned. He shot the first 18 rounds in 6.5 minutes and the second 18 in exactly the same time, indicating that fouling had not retarded the rate of fire at all. After the 25th round in this experiment, the barrel was so hot that it had to be held by the sling, but the experiment continued until all 36 rounds had been expended.

My own experience shooting flintlock muskets with ball hasn't given me the impression that fouling of the barrel is of any great significance, either with original style ball cartridge or with a more tightly fitting load (patch and ball)for competition shooting, as long as the ball is correctly sized. Likewise, fouling of the lock has never caused any issues, although it does end up covered in filth.

@ Major Snort

Very interesting, I am impressed that soldiers shot more than 60 rounds in one day, how did they deal with the flints?

The French reckoned one flint for 20 shots, now it may last longer but also shorter, so to fire 200 shots, one would consume quite a lot of flints, but from where to get?

My experience with flint lock shooting is to deal a lot with the flint, getting dull, covered in grease, splintering, etc., what kind of superflints did those chaps shot doing 36 round in 13 minutes?

I am not really surprised that 36 rounds could be fired with no flint problems. With the original India Pattern Brown Besses that I have tested, I would be disappointed to get less than 50 shots out of a black English flint.

Much depends on the way that the flint has been fitted and more importantly the hardness of the frizzen. If this is only slightly too soft it will still spark but will destroy flints in a very short time. On most original muskets that I have seen, the temper of the frizzen is just right – this is not the case with most replicas.

Regarding fitting the flint, a general order was issued to the British army in 1809 giving details of how it should be done. Whether this was followed at all times is debatable, especially in the heat of battle, but if the advice is followed, it does work.

The issue of flints in peacetime was 3 per 90 rounds for line infantry and 3 per 110 rounds for light infantry, so the minimum expectation was for the flint to be good for 30 rounds.

For the sustained fire examples, flints were carried with the reserve ammunition, as per Wellington's general order:

The commanding officer of the artillery will attach to the new divisions of infantry the same proportion of musket ammunition and flints for their numbers as is attached to the other divisions; and he will make a requisition upon the Commissary General for mules to carry it

British infantry during the AWI period usually only carried something like 60 rounds.

60 rounds was the standard in the Napoleonic wars as well for the British. The rest was carried on mules close behind the divisions ready for distribution – there are quite a few accounts of this reserve ammunition being distributed during various actions.

The issue in peacetime mentioned above was per year for practice.

Never had a lock foul during a full days Rendezvous. Needed cleaning, sure, with a vent hole cleaner, at the end of the day. Lot's of bore cleaning, though. And with a good piece of leather holding the flint in the jaws of the cock, can't remember the last time I lost a flint. Mind you, I wasn't marching over hill and dale …

It is quite common to see men falling out of the line to replace a flint or clean out a lock after firing several rounds. As someone pointed out, our black powder is far superior to the period stuff.

As someone pointed out, our black powder is far superior to the period stuff.

I am not sure how anyone can be certain about that. If modern-day black powder cannot achieve the same muzzle velocities in smoothbore muskets that were recorded in 18th and 19th century tests, why is it superior?

seemingly not only their black powder did the Job but also their muskets, with my reproduction muzzle loaders (Jäger rifle apart) I couldn't do more than 20 shots on average bevor the flint had to be replaced, also I noted much less misfires of originals compared to reproductions and much more sparks on originals as well

Cleaning after a round of firing is one of the joys of life. Very similar to a root canal. I'm sure every musketeer had a picker to clean the touch hole, I have one in my pouch.

I'm still looking for a pot and ladle to melt my lead. Trying to find something fairly cheep. Maybe a old cast iron pot. And I'm definitely doing outside on a open fire.

Great topic in my opinion. Hoping I am not too far off the subject, I have always assumed that the rate of misfires must have been very high, in actual combat, in the flintlock era, when compared to percussion firearms used later. This assumption being based on my own experiances, mostly using reproductions, (I am only a casual black powder shooter, no technical expertise on my part). I get the impression from the above very informative comments that I may have an exaggerated idea of the incidences of misfires using flintlocks. Would any one know if there were any estimates of the rate of misfires among military thinkers in the flintlock era. In the research I have been able to do since this topic was posted I have been unable to find any references to that particular aspect of musket warfare. I will have no access to computers for a couple of days so thanks in advance to anyone who cares to comment. John Miller

Regarding the rate of misfires with flintlock muskets, the East India Company carried out experiments in the early 1840s. Several units (both EIC native regiments and regular regiments of the British army) were involved, who all fired several rounds and recorded the results. The average misfire rate across the board was 13%.

I think that it would be safe to assume that in the heat of battle this figure would increase. That is not to say that the experiments quoted above, where British soldiers managed to fire 35, 36 and 37 rounds apparently without misfires, are not believable. A well made, managed and maintained flintlock musket hardly ever misfires.

The British army considered that the management of the muskets, and more particularly the fitting of the flint were to blame for the majority of misfires and issued a General Order in 1809 in order to remedy this.

Here is the order (note that the "hammer" referred to in this order is what is now commonly known as the frizzen):

The cause of a piece missing fire is generally ascribed to the badness of the flint, the softness of the Hammer, or the weakness of the mainspring or Feather Spring, but the real cause will generally be found to be a want of correctness in fixing the flint.

This sometimes proceeds from carelessness but is too often owing to ignorance of the true principles which ought to direct the fixing of the flint.

It is frequently imagined that uniformity should prevail upon this subject; as it does and ought to do, on many other, respecting the movements and management of arms. Instances are not unfrequent where directions have been given that flints should be fixed in exact conformity to some approved pattern.

This practice is founded in error, and is productive of more extensive mischief than can well be imagined.

In fixing flints, no uniform mode should be attempted; the flat side must be placed either upwards or downwards, according to the size and shape of the flints, and also according to the proportion which the cock bears in height to the hammer, which varies in different musquets.

This is ascertained by letting the cock gently down, and observing where the flint strikes the hammer, which ought to be at the distance of about one-third from the top of the hammer.

Most diligent observation ought at the same time to be made whether every part of the edge of the flint comes in contact with the hammer, so as to strike out the fire from the whole surface.

A flint will often appear to the eye to be carefully and skilfully fixed, and to stand firm and square, yet on trial being made as above directed, it will prove to have been very ill fixed, in as much as the surface of the hammer in some musquets does not stand square, but stands a little aslant to the cock.

Each particular flint, therefore, requires its own particular mode of being fixed, so as to accommodate itself to the particular proportions and conformations of each particular lock.

In whatever position the flint should be, it must be screwed in firmly, and the cock should be let down, in order to observe whether the flint passes clear of the barrel.

Whenever a piece has been fired, the first opportunity should be embraced of examining whether the flint remains good, and fixed as it ought to be, and no time should be lost in correcting whatever may be found amiss.

So based on sources, the British could fire over 50 rounds with little problems with fouling or flints, while the french had useless flints and in the end had to piss down the barrles because of fouling?

I would like to see some more primary source information regarding fouling of smaller-calibre 0.69" muskets.

I know that there are accounts of 0.69" smoothbore muskets in the American Civil War fouling up so badly that the ramrods had to be driven against trees to get the ball down the barrel. I also believe that the US ball size had been increased just before the Civil War to 0.65" which did not allow the same percentage of windage that was allowed in British muskets.

What was the official ball size for French Napoleonic muskets? Some that I picked up at Salamanca, presumably French, were about 0.63". British accounts often mention French skirmishers loading cartridges by banging the musket butt on the ground and not using the ramrod, so the cartridge must have been a loose fit.

The only reference I have seen to p*ssing down the barrel was supposedly an attempt to cool it down, not reduce fouling.

ok how to pee down an overheated barrel of a musket – where you realy can only hold the musket by the sling or just on the stock otherwise the metal would burn you??

I have to find the Prussian tests, but under field conditions it was aboutreckoned every sixth shot to misfire.

I just cannot believe those magic British muskets and flints, I did a reasearch on flints and contemporary sources agree that the French "blond" flint was much superior to the British one, the calver of the French musket wqw 17,52 mm, the ball had 16 mm (20 balls to one French pound), in the Ancien regime it was a tighter fit and 18 balls to one French pound.

Unfortunatly I just owned reporduction flint locks and they were prone to an enormous misfire trate, I was regarding myself lucky to shot more than 10 shots without a misfire, my reproduction Jäger rifle however, had an incredible lock and I did once fire over 80 shots with one flint, but that lock cannot be compared to a flint lock military musket.

Major Snort, Gunfreak, and von Winterfeldt: Thanks very much to all of you for responding to my question!!! I appreciate your sharing your knowledge, expertise, and experiance with me. Since my last posting above I have been able to find one source estimating one misfire for every six rounds fired. But it now appears things are not quite that simple. Thanks again, John Miller

I find British style flints to be superior in that the French ones shatter more easily. I've had some flints last for hundreds of shots and others shatter on the first shot. I believe that period flints were better, since I've seen discarded flints in museums that I'd kill for compared to the grey chert-filled bits we get now!

Just a note. Regular line infantry men in the British Army didn't carry musket tools. Only NCO's. All had picks and whisks.

"I find British style flints to be superior in that the French ones shatter more easily"

I have the complete opposite experience, French flints, (also knapped differently to the British which had two edges, while the French had only one) last longer and spark by ways better than the black British ones.

One of the Prussians kings even sent disguised NCOs to France to learn the trate of flint knapping and to gain intelligence about it.

The East India Company misfire trials mentioned above also recorded the amount of flints used. The soldiers were left to make their own decision on when they needed changing.

Not all these flints were worn our at the end of the trial, so undoubtedly more shots could have been fired, but the results show an average of 33 shots per flint. Some soldiers fired 75 rounds without any flint problems. I see the same thing every time I shoot an original India Pattern musket, This isn't magic, it is fact.

The actual figures from the East India Company trials regarding flint life are:

First trial held in Madras in 1840:
2,255 shots were fired from 36 muskets. 32 flints had to be changed during the course of the trial, meaning that a total of 68 had been used. That gives an average of 33 shots per flint.

Second trial held in Madras in 1841:
2,500 shots were fired from 50 muskets. 23 flints had to be changed during the course of the trial, meaning that a total of 73 had been used. That gives an average of 34 shots per flint.