Tango01 | 05 Jan 2016 12:11 p.m. PST |
"The flintlock or firelock musket is one of the truly iconic weapons in history: first used on the battlefields of the Thirty Years' War and the English Civil War, it was carried by both sides at Bunker Hill, Waterloo and the Alamo, and can truly be said to have dominated warfare for more than 150 years, until the advent of cartridge ammunition and breechloading weapons in the 1840s and 1850s and were still being widely used as late as the American Civil War in the 1860s. During the 18th century flintlocks tended to follow one of two basic patterns: from 1722 the British .75-calibre model, the 'Brown Bess', offered better man-stopping qualities and influenced the Prussians and others, while from 1717 the lighter, handier but more sturdy French .69-calibre Charleville served as a pattern first for the other Bourbon kingdoms such as Spain, then the American Springfield family of weapons, and finally for just about everybody else in Europe during the Napoleonic era. Featuring specially commissioned full-colour artwork, this engaging study examines the role played by the flintlock in close-order combat on European and other battlefields, employing first-hand accounts to show how tactical doctrines were successfully developed to overcome the weapon's inherent limitations; it also explores the use of the flintlock musket by individuals in irregular warfare, chiefly in North America. These two threads are combined in an analysis of the weapon's lasting impact; notwithstanding its frequently negative portrayal in popular films and otherwise respectable histories, it was extremely effective and the first truly universal soldier's weapon"
See here link Amicalement Armand |
Gunfreak | 05 Jan 2016 12:21 p.m. PST |
I do find it strange talking about stopping power for muskets… .69 or .75 it's huge either way. At close range both will take of your arm or leg. And since modern need fir stopping power is just that modern, i don't see the point. If you shoot an enemy today, and he is laying on the floor spraying full auto fire at you, because you bullet didn't have good enough terminal balistics, thats one thing. That is not a senario seen i the horse and musket period. |
historygamer | 05 Jan 2016 12:29 p.m. PST |
Eh. There are more scholarly books out there just on the King's Arm (bess) and others used in the AWI period. Just seems like an Osprey reach. |
The Hound | 05 Jan 2016 2:34 p.m. PST |
Did the minutemen use Brown Bess seeing as they were British at the time, so they would have Brown Bess' at Concord, Lexington, Bunker Hill?or would they have homemade muskets? |
von Winterfeldt | 05 Jan 2016 2:40 p.m. PST |
"offered better man-stopping qualities and influenced the Prussians and others" Never heard about that one – what about the Spanish muskets in the AWI? |
zippyfusenet | 05 Jan 2016 5:57 p.m. PST |
Did the minutemen use Brown Bess seeing as they were British at the time, so they would have Brown Bess' at Concord, Lexington, Bunker Hill?or would they have homemade muskets? Hunting carbines, shotguns and fowling pieces were better than a sharp stick for self defense, but not ideal for military use, since they lacked range and hitting power. Minutemen used all the Brown Bess they could get hold of from provincial or royal arsenals. Also, for some time before war broke out the provincial Committees of Public Safety had been ordering military muskets, copies of the Bess, from local smiths and large numbers of these were issued to Patriot forces in the early stages of the Revolution. link |
historygamer | 05 Jan 2016 6:30 p.m. PST |
|
historygamer | 05 Jan 2016 6:31 p.m. PST |
What the American guns lacked was a bayonet. They proved their weapons worked just fine shooting at Bunker (Breeds) Hill. |
Tango01 | 06 Jan 2016 11:31 a.m. PST |
Why?… nobody made them? (just curious) Amicalement Armand
|
Brechtel198 | 06 Jan 2016 4:23 p.m. PST |
The Continental Army was equipped with bayonets, especially after the Charleville became the issue weapon in 1777-1778. The Continental Corps of Light Infantry was famous for two bayonet assaults at night-one at Stony Point in 1779 where the garrison was killed, wounded, or captured. The other was at Yorktown against Redoubt Number 10. |
Tango01 | 06 Jan 2016 10:45 p.m. PST |
Thanks Kevin!. Amicalement Armand |
von Winterfeldt | 07 Jan 2016 7:12 a.m. PST |
most likley they did not need them beforehand – or had difficulty to load a musket with fixed bayonett, after Steuben's manual they should have used fixed bayonetts as well, at the least the regular army |
Tango01 | 07 Jan 2016 10:19 a.m. PST |
Danke mein Freund! Amicalement Armand |
Brechtel198 | 07 Jan 2016 11:07 a.m. PST |
The Continentals certainly had them at Trenton and in the Saratoga campaign at the Battles of Freeman's Farm and Bemis Heights. |
historygamer | 07 Jan 2016 12:40 p.m. PST |
I seem to recall that not all the men at Trenton had bayonets. The early army at Boston used their own weapsons largely, which were civilian and did not mount/have bayonets. Interesting question about the state supplied muskets if they had matching bayonets. I don't know the answer off the top of my head. The American army often was without bayonets, especially the militia, which was supposed to supply their own arms, but often could not. |
Brechtel198 | 08 Jan 2016 4:34 a.m. PST |
The Continental Army and the militia were two very different organizations. Lumping them into the same category is a mistake. And not all the troops at Trenton or Princeton were Continentals. And with all the weapons and material captured at Trenton troops could be reequipped and rearmed if necessary. Many times the militia showed up after being called up without arms and equipment and were then equipped from Continental stores and made off with the material and weapons when their term of service was up. They were, as Washington stated, a 'broken reed.' |
14Bore | 08 Jan 2016 1:52 p.m. PST |
Would like to have this but would like to see it for a kindle. |
14Bore | 26 Nov 2018 1:22 p.m. PST |
|
14Bore | 26 Nov 2018 1:23 p.m. PST |
My Short Land Pattern Brown Bess with 12 .723 balls I cast underneath. 17 in bayonet |
Brechtel198 | 26 Nov 2018 3:08 p.m. PST |
I have a replica 1795 Springfield musket which was modeled on the French Charleville. It's a beautiful weapon. |
Lion in the Stars | 26 Nov 2018 7:20 p.m. PST |
If you shoot an enemy today, and he is laying on the floor spraying full auto fire at you, because you bullet didn't have good enough terminal balistics, thats one thing.That is not a senario seen i the horse and musket period. No, you need to be able to stop a charging horse.There is an enormous difference between a weapon big enough to hunt large game versus one big enough to STOP large game. I mean, the 6.5mm Mannlicher was big enough to hunt elephant, but I don't want anything short of a 12ga slug to stop one! |
ConnaughtRanger | 27 Nov 2018 1:05 a.m. PST |
"the 6.5mm Mannlicher was big enough to hunt elephant, but I don't want anything short of a 12ga slug to stop one" Not sure why would you want to do either – there are other ways of impressing the guys in the office when you get home from vacation? |
Major Bloodnok | 27 Nov 2018 6:15 a.m. PST |
I'm surprised about the statement of the French pattern musket being sturdier than the British. There are accounts, during the Pennisular War, of British troops tasked to destroy captured French muskets commenting on how easy it was to do so. The colonials at Lexington etc. would have been using a mix of fowlers, often 20 bore, as well as muskets nicked from the authorities from the F&I wars as well as more recently. Interestingly enough it seems that the US Marines preferred the British musket over the 1798 US musket. Cheers. |
von Winterfeldt | 27 Nov 2018 6:53 a.m. PST |
maybe the Indian pattern had a sturdier stock, but I cannot see that the British muskets were in any ways sturdier (see the delicate neck of the butt) compared to the fusil d'infanterie. It would be interesting to know why the US Marines preferred the British musket to the US pattern (modeled after the French). |
Major Bloodnok | 27 Nov 2018 12:33 p.m. PST |
I believe it had to do with the larger calibre. |
Major Snort | 27 Nov 2018 12:44 p.m. PST |
There is little difference in the sturdiness of the two types of musket. The wrist or neck of the stock may appear visually to be more delicate on a Brown Bess, due to the shape of the butt, but it is almost exactly the same diameter as the wrist on a French M1777 ANIX musket (this is based on measuring originals, not replicas). The Brown Bess muskets used by the US Marines were of India Pattern. A letter written by Marine Corps adjutant F.K Fenwick to Colonel Wharton confirms the pattern issued, which can be determined by reference to the length of the barrel:
I have examined every class and description of foreign muskets in the Arsenal at this place [Harper's Ferry]. Some are good. Many are indifferent. I have however made choice. I flatter myself that choice will give you satisfaction. The stock consists of between six to seven hundred stand. They are British, nearly new, & have seen no other service than the ill usage of bad soldiers. They are the best muskets for Marines. I have never seen anything heretofore more convenient. The barrels are 3 feet 3 inches long. These muskets were almost certainly some of those imported from Britain in 1799 and 1800. Another letter written in 1813 by Lieutenant Thomas Legge commanding a Marine detachment aboard the frigate Macedonia confirms why they were preferred:
The necessity for Marines using Tower muskets must appear obvious to you, particularly in boarding, as they can use them with more facility and with better effect than they can the Springfield. The barrels of the latter being much longer, the calibre smaller, and with shorter bayonets than the English muskets generally used by Marines. |
14Bore | 27 Nov 2018 1:24 p.m. PST |
My Short Land Pattern does have a barrel 42 inches and the India pattern is 39 inches. I can easily imagine US Marines would prefer a shorter length aboard ship. |
Stoppage | 28 Nov 2018 5:49 a.m. PST |
Why not the sea service one? Shorter barrel still. Unless.. they used the sea-service on-board and the land-service off-board |
Major Snort | 28 Nov 2018 10:06 a.m. PST |
Why not the sea service one? Shorter barrel still. In the case of the US Marines mentioned above, probably because the arsenal at Harper's Ferry did not have any Sea Service muskets, although there is no indication that they would have preferred anything shorter than the India Pattern. The US had bought 10,000 muskets from Britain in 1799 and 1800, probably all of them India Pattern. In the case of the British Marines, the shorter Sea service muskets were only used by sailors, not Marines. The British Marines were issued the Marine and Militia Pattern musket from the 1750s until the 1770s which had a 42" barrel. Earlier than that they carried an even longer musket with a 46" barrel. After the 1770s they were issued standard infantry arms – first the Short Land Pattern with a 42" barrel and then, during the Napoleonic Wars, the India Pattern with a 39" barrel. |
Stoppage | 28 Nov 2018 12:32 p.m. PST |
The barrel length reduction is interesting – enabled by better quality powder? I wonder if the shorter barrel length (39, or 42 inches versus 46) would make any appreciable difference when facing cavalry, bayonet fixed, in square. |
Gunfreak | 28 Nov 2018 2:10 p.m. PST |
No, you need to be able to stop a charging horse. There is an enormous difference between a weapon big enough to hunt large game versus one big enough to STOP large game. I mean, the 6.5mm Mannlicher was big enough to hunt elephant, but I don't want anything short of a 12ga slug to stop one! Horses are quite timid things. Your can probably make it rare away with a pocket .25colt.
You aren't going to stop a horse in full gallop unless you blow it to pieces. Dead or not that horse is going straight forward many meters. So if you want to "stop a charging horse" you'd better do it from a distance. Because of its galloping and you shoot it from 10 meters. It's going to come crashing into you weather you shoot it with a brown Bess or a .36. Cap and ball revolver The shorter barrel was simply because a longer barrel wasn't needed. It wasn't needed in 1725 either. The just didn't know it.
The dose of powder was spent long before the ball left the longer barrels. In a modern rifle this would actually seriously affect the velocity of the bullets as a vacuum in the barrel is created when the propellant is spent. But this effect would be much less when the balls and barrel don't make a tight fit.
|
Lion in the Stars | 28 Nov 2018 2:54 p.m. PST |
Yes, I am aware that a dead horse will still continue moving forward quite a distance, unless you shatter a shoulder or the spine. Crud, a deer with a heart completely destroyed can run over 200 yards! "the 6.5mm Mannlicher was big enough to hunt elephant, but I don't want anything short of a 12ga slug to stop one"Not sure why would you want to do either – there are other ways of impressing the guys in the office when you get home from vacation? I generally wouldn't want to shoot an elephant either, unless it was a rogue. Rogues get to feed an entire village, which can feel pretty good. But I was illustrating a point about the difference between acceptable hunting caliber and caliber required for stopping. |
Gunfreak | 28 Nov 2018 3:59 p.m. PST |
I'm not sure a 12ga slug stops an elephant. I've never heard of anyone using it on elephants. The Mauser or other modern hunting calibers can be used because of of the very high penetrating power. I'm unsure a shotgun slug can penetrate elephant bones or a skull. |
Murvihill | 28 Nov 2018 6:02 p.m. PST |
Is that a Confederate regiment on the cover of the book? |
Major Bloodnok | 30 Nov 2018 9:06 a.m. PST |
Yup. Perhaps they are meant to be the VMI who, supposedly, were armed with Tower muskets. Whether they were India pattern flintlocks or Pattern 42 percussions I don't know. |