Mike Target | 11 May 2016 5:47 a.m. PST |
I was just reading through the wiki entries on the AWI and noticed a throw away line about British flints only lasting 6 shots and American flints lasting for 60 shots…I've not read that before- IIRC correctly the British issue was one flint per twenty rounds, just in case, but a good flint could last over a hundred shots. A website with no text was give as the source. So wheres that claim come from and is there any truth in it? |
Terry37 | 11 May 2016 6:16 a.m. PST |
I have a few British flints from the AWI and Waterloo, in my collection and they seem pretty hard to me, so only six shots seems a bit sparse. Terry |
Mike Target | 11 May 2016 6:18 a.m. PST |
Thats what I thought: hardly any point turning up if you can only fire 6 shots… |
summerfield | 11 May 2016 6:28 a.m. PST |
The reading of this was the Americans made the flints last for 60 shots. They would need to renap and reseat the fint in the meantime to give a consistant sparke. British Flints particularly from Kent were sort after particularly by the French. Smuggling in the Napoleonic Wars. Brandy was easy to find on the Kent Coast. Stephen |
Extra Crispy | 11 May 2016 7:12 a.m. PST |
|
Thomas O | 11 May 2016 7:18 a.m. PST |
I shoot flintlocks and getting a flint to last 60 shots would mean that they would be renaping the edge to keep getting a good spark, like "summerfield" said. Though this is not that big of a deal you can do a quick nap on the flint with the back of your hunting knife. Getting 60 shots consistently from every flint would be near impossible though. I have had flints last for what seems like forever and some that will literately shatter with the first shot. Plus remember that they all carried spare flints with them. |
45thdiv | 11 May 2016 7:48 a.m. PST |
My father in law gave me his Kentucky long rifle. He said he could only get it to spark and fire once in 1960. I don't think it is flint as it will not spark at all. Nice wall decoration though. |
Mike Target | 11 May 2016 8:11 a.m. PST |
From the article: " On a logistical note, the flints used in British weapons also put them at a disadvantage on the battlefield. British flints could only fire for 6 rounds before requiring re-sharpening, while American flints could fire 60 rounds before resharpening" In light of the above responses I was about to say that it seemed like the authur was misinterpreting actual events, that perhaps the reality was that the British changed flints more often because they could, but the Americans made theirs last longer (possibly due to shortages or something) , but now I look at it again that doesnt seem to fit. |
Virginia Tory | 11 May 2016 8:11 a.m. PST |
"A website with no text was give as the source. So wheres that claim come from and is there any truth in it?" I think it's BS. Most flints are good for 10-20 firings (if that) before you have to clean them or chip the edge of them with your musket tool. You also have to wipe down the pan/frizzen periodically. Never figured out where the flint quality myth came from. |
von Winterfeldt | 11 May 2016 12:11 p.m. PST |
accoding to my references the best flints were those from France, I did not even knoe that the Rebels of the Colonies in North Armerica did knap flints, I was always under the impression that they were of British or French origin. In the book History with Pick and Shovel camps of the 7YW show mostly entirely French flints while in the AWI it was 50 : 50 It is a bog difference for flints to last in a military musket lock or a more delicate rifle, those usually lasted longer. In the Napoleonic Period a French soldier had three flints, one in the lock and two flints already wrapped in lead for a snug fit in the cartridge box. As already pointed out flints could be "knapped" with the musket tool to sharpen the edge and by this could last longer. A change of flints, especially in rank and file, not an easy task |
McLaddie | 11 May 2016 4:24 p.m. PST |
It could be until the flint chipped and didn't spark, and/or had to be repositioned or shaped/knapped again. This would also require some work. Replacing flints is easier and far less time-consuming that reworking them in battle. |
von Winterfeldt | 11 May 2016 10:12 p.m. PST |
I have to disagree here, just tapping a bit with the musket tool is much more easier than taking the flint out of the cock, re-place it and then – most important adjust it so that the sparks are falling on the pan – all the time your a re shuffled around from your comrades next to you continueing to load and to fire. |
historygamer | 12 May 2016 5:26 a.m. PST |
No source, no credibility. Never heard that and doesn't make a lot of sense. VA Tory's musket is always dirty. :-) For many flintlocks(then and now) often it isn't the flint that is the problem so much as the frizzen – which may simply be worn out and need rehardening or replaced. |
Virginia Tory | 12 May 2016 5:39 a.m. PST |
"VA Tory's musket is always dirty. :-)" Is not. OK, yes, I still have to give it a good scrubbing after Mt Vernon. |
138SquadronRAF | 12 May 2016 7:49 a.m. PST |
What was the source of the American flints? Geologically flints are associated with Jurassic or Cretaceous formations that are common in Southern England and Northern France. There are similar formations in some states west of the Appalachians which would not have been available during the Revolutionary period. |
historygamer | 12 May 2016 8:17 a.m. PST |
"What was the source of the American flints?" The Caribbean. :-) |
Major Snort | 12 May 2016 2:46 p.m. PST |
Have a look at this topic for some facts about British flints: TMP link |
LostPict | 12 May 2016 7:23 p.m. PST |
In a related question, I know the answer is "it depends", but how many times would a musket be fired by a soldier in a battle like Camden, Cowpens, or Guilford Courthouse? |
Bill N | 12 May 2016 7:50 p.m. PST |
"There are similar formations in some states west of the Appalachians which would not have been available during the Revolutionary period." There were flint quarries in the east though that were either in or adjacent to areas occupied by European colonists. I believe one source actually used was located near Ticonderoga. To what extent American militia and continentals were able to satisfy their flints needs from domestic sources, and to what extent they needed to import them is something I don't know. |
historygamer | 13 May 2016 6:30 a.m. PST |
LostPict: Good question, but hard to answer, as to my knowledge, there isn't a lot of evidence to say one way or the other. I seem to recall one rebel commenting about Brandywine that he fired 24 rounds and that was the most he had ever fired. Guilford the British fired once, maybe twice and charge the first line, which ran (militia). After that the fighting gets fuzzy and confusing, but likely more shooting as they went along. I think there were some pretty good fire fights at Monmouth. Five shots from a flint and done? I have a hard time buying that. |
Mike Target | 14 May 2016 7:46 a.m. PST |
"Have a look at this topic for some facts about British flints: TMP link" Interesting stuff. And another clue as to a possible origin of the claim in my OP: According to posters in that thread the EIC trials in the early C19th reckoned a misfire rate of 13% (with flints lasting an average of just over 30 shots) , and other sources (not listed) which gave a misfire rate of 1 for every 6 shots (so 16%). I wonder then if the wiki author misunderstood the 1 in 6 misfire rate as being soley related to the flints, which would just leave me wondering how the rebels had ten times less misfires. |