"Brown Bess – The Story of History’s Most Famous Musket" Topic

"IT WAS LONG, heavy and inaccurate. It has no sight with which to aim; only a bayonet nub. It took 18 separate motions to load and misfired one out of nine times the trigger was pulled. It lacked rifling, used powder that was susceptible to dampness and it required a new flint every 20 shots. Nevertheless, this rudimentary, single-shot weapon enabled Britain to build and defend an empire. Officially designated the Long Land Service Musket, history remembers it best by its nickname: the Brown Bess.

The forerunner of the Brown Bess made its first large scale appearance at the Battle of Blenheim in 1704, though it wasn't standardized until the 1730s. In various patterns, it served as the principal long arm of the British military until the introduction of the Enfield rifled musket in 1853. Even then, vast numbers were upgraded from flintlock to percussion cap firing systems during the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny of 1857. Even the shortest version of the musket was just a foot under the five-foot, seven-inch height of the average soldier of the era. Its recoil was so ferocious, rankers frequently suffered bruised shoulders during battles. Decades after it was officially retired, cast offs were still being traded to indigenous populations in Africa and Asia…"
Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

Courtesy of Military History Now

Thank you Bill!

Most famous, but perhaps not the best.

I have modern reproductions of both a Bess and a Charlie. If I had to choose one over the other, I would take the Charlie. It's lighter, much easier to clean and maintain, and IMHO slightly more accurate. Disclaimer: I've never fired an original of either.

I believe the 1795 Springfield was modeled on the 1763/66 Charleville, but I may be wrong.

I don't suppose the Brown Bess was the best musket either, iirc the Navy version was even worse than the one supplied to the army.

I suppose mass manufacture is the key to its success, it was probably the AK47 of its day, supplying third parties with a cheap, ubiquitous weapon with fearsome stopping power if you managed to hit anything with it.

Accuracy was never a key consideration in 18th and 19th century warfare, which tended to emphasise the importance of close range massed firepower between large blocks of infantry.

The 1795 Springfield musket was indeed modeled on the 1766 French musket, dubbed the Charleville in the US because most of the models that were imported from France to the Continental Army were made at the Charleville armory.

The Charleville was then the issue musket of the Continental Army who preferred it over the Brown Bess, for some of the reasons already given. The banded musket was preferred over the pinned musket.

And the French muskets were also mass produced, the model 1777 being the last produced for the old French Royal Army. After the production chaos of the French Revolution, the production of muskets was once again put under the artillery, and the new musket was a simplified version of the 1777 model. It was an excellent weapon.

Any phrase about "ferocious recoil" makes me wonder about the experience the writer has with small arms. Most long .30/7.62mm rounds (NATO 7.62, .30-06, .303, but not the old Soviet short 7.62) will bruise your shoulder after a day's shooting, just like a black powder rifle or musket.

I know from my replica a cartridge full of rounds is quite a workout.

My first shot with a 7.62 L1A1 SLR (FN FAL) nearly took my cheek off. The corporal thought this was hilarious. Then he adjusted the gas regulator.

I did shot my Pedersoli replica of a fusil d'infanterie M 1777 with gun powder load and lead ball according to historical specifications quite a lot, however always with fixed bayonet, I found the recoil quite forgiving in contrast to the G3 assault rifle.

But it beat the French, year in, year out, right across the globe.

I had shot the usual melange of things (.22, shotgun, M-16A2, muzzleloader at summer camp) when I first fired an M-14, and it validated all the complaints my father passed down to me. The Lee-Enfield I got for $20 USD in a big box store almost thirty years ago always leaves me with a bruise (although I like it, it's as good as an ‘03 Springfield and better than a Mauser). Heavy recoil is a rule, rather than the exception, for small arms that predate the 5.56 era. IiIRC, that was one of the insights that gave us smaller rounds: lower recoil makes aiming and control better.

I don't mean to be picky, but it's a personal peeve of mine. When I read this kind of comment, I tend to think the author is clearly writing for a general audience with limited experience of firearms- and it suggests they have little themselves.

The linked article is a strange mixture of facts and inaccurate clichés.

The conversation often leads into the subject of the quality of these arms, or which was the best musket of the era.

Outside of wartime production, the quality of the Brown Bess was second to none. Gunmakers preferred to provide arms to the East India Company, where inspection standards were lower, rather than have much of their work rejected by the Board of Ordnance as being sub-standard.

During times of war, often the Board of Ordnance initially had too few arms in store, and had to scrabble around to find sufficient arms to meet the increased demand and therefore had to accept sub-standard weapons before getting their act in gear. During the American Revolution many Brown Besses were made in Liege and were of an inferior quality. During the French Revolution the Board of Ordnance purchased many muskets from the East India Company and also muskets made for commercial sale by British gunmakers to make up for a shortage of muskets in store. None of these were of the same standard as arms made for the Board of Ordnance.

It is said that the India Pattern Brown Bess, which was mass-produced for the Board of Ordnance from c1797, was an inferior arm. It was only inferior when compared to the older patterns of musket that had been made in peacetime in much smaller numbers and only slightly inferior at that.

Each Board of Ordnance India Pattern musket was still subject to at least eight inspections (not including the proof and subsequent view of the barrel) by Board of Ordnance employees during various stages of manufacture.

The French engineer Charles Dupin, writing just after the Napoleonic Wars, considered the British muskets to be superior to the French on two counts; The lock was better and misfired less frequently, and the calibre was larger (which meant that the ball didn't loose velocity as quickly) meaning that it had the potential to inflict dangerous wounds at a greater range.

The fact that the Americans chose to copy the Charleville musket in 1795 probably has little to do with any perceived superiority or preference. This was the musket they had been supplied with by France in large quantities during the Revolution (both as complete arms and as parts – in addition to arming allies, also to rid themselves of muskets that were considered obsolete) and was the most common musket in store when the decision was made to produce muskets in the US on a large scale. The "Charleville", or M1766 musket that was copied, was not even the best, or most up to date, of the French muskets at that time and the early American-produced muskets were inferior arms.

If the Americans did have a preference for "banded muskets" such as the French M1766, it didn't prevent them from purchasing more than 10,000 India Pattern muskets from Britain in 1799-1800 (which was probably the result of the Board of Ordnance clearing sub-standard muskets from store). The US Marines later chose some of these muskets as their standard arm in preference to others available.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

"..a general audience with limited experience of firearms.."
That will be most of the rest of the world who don't share the Americans' apparent fascination with guns?

Or just those who don't have any actual experience. I acquired my knowledge of firearms through hunting and soldiering; if you classify that as an "apparent fascination," I can only guess you lived a different sort of life.

I don't understand the recoil issue either. Having fired Pedersoli replicas of the Charleville, Brown Bess and 1809 Prussian muskets, using 100gr and 120gr charges for ball, I've never had a problem with the recoil, let alone bruising. However people that haven't done much shooting, and don't pull the butt into their shoulder properly, didn't like the recoil on my musket at all. Most of them were alright once they got the idea of putting the butt firmly in the shoulder, though.

As for accuracy, at 60m and using un-patched ball I didn't notice any difference. At about 100m my mate, who had most black powder experience, was the better shot but the rest of us preferred and did best with with our own muskets (which doesn't prove anything).

Compared to 7.62mm NATO and .303" the recoil is negligible- and more of a shove than a kick- if you know how to hold and aim a firearm.

Dal wrote:

.Having fired Pedersoli replicas of the Charleville, Brown Bess and 1809 Prussian muskets, using 100gr and 120gr charges for ball, I've never had a problem with the recoil,

The main problem we face when trying to assess the recoil of a Napoleonic musket is that we don't have access to the same gunpowder that was used at the time.

Most people assume that the powder used at the time was inferior to that which is available today, which is probably a mistake. British gunpowder in particular was probably much stronger than even the best available today.

Some years ago, trials took place to try and achieve the same velocities that Major Mordecai achieved in trials with a US smoothbore musket on the 1840s using the best available modern-day black powder, but all brands fell way short of the 1500 feet per second recorded in the 1840s.

With this in mind, Napoleonic gunpowder charges were 165 grains for the Brown Bess (this had been greater in earlier times when the powder was not as good) and 195 grains for the smaller-calibre M1777 ANIX French musket. This is significantly greater than the 100 grains or so used by modern day shooters in replica muskets.

If a Brown Bess is loaded with 150 grains of a good-quality modern-day black powder, such as Swiss No 4, (I don't suggest that anyone should try this because it exceeds the recommended loads on most replica muskets) even though this is in all likelihood less strong than Napoleonic British powder, the recoil is significant and also increases noticeably as the fouling builds up.

The recoil, although significant, should not be a problem for anyone used to military firearms, although the shape of the butt on some muskets can make them very uncomfortable to shoot by striking the shooter's cheek.

It is not only about accuracy, only the fixing of the barrel by rings, compared to the pins of the Brown Bess, makes the French musket much easier to handle for field stripping which is quite an important factor, at least for me.
The view on the Continent was quite pro fusil d'infantrie in handling and acurary.

In case I cannot see why the Brown Bess lock is more reliable than a French fusil d'infantry, especially when the later one has the superb French flints, the silex blondes.

I could test those with a original the the flood of sparks compared to the Pedersoli replica was overwhelming.

About the quality of the black powder, it is difficult to access, it may well differ from army to army.
In case I remember correctly the French used the same quality of powder for artillery and small arms.

The original premise is which was the most famous musket, not which is the best.

You could make a reasonable argument that much of the history of that era is decidedly anglocentric in bent, that the British reach around the globe was all encompassing, coupled with the fact that the Brown Bess has an easily remembered soubriquet, hence it could be considered the most famous musket.

I agree that the original premise was not about the best musket of the era, but I was trying to provide some balance as three posters specifically mentioned that it was perhaps in some way inferior to the French muskets, or not the best, without pointing out any of its potential advantages.

Back to the misfire issues, just for reference, this is what Charles Dupin wrote in ‘View of the history and Actual State of the military Force of Great Britain':

The locks of the English musquets are of better workmanship than those hitherto manufactured by any nation in Europe; they will less frequently miss fire upon a given number of rounds than all the rest. The same applies equally to the goodness of the fine powder used by the British for their small arms; this powder, which possesses great strength, burns without leaving either foulness or residue, that, by adhering to the lower part of the hammer, could fall among the powder and prevent it from taking fire.

Didier Bianchi also mentions a similar thing in Volume 1 of ‘French Military Small Arms' in relation to the French ANIX muskets, claiming that their misfire rate was double that of the Brown Bess, without giving any sources for this. He says the problem was caused by poor quality steel used for springs and frizzen face.

The statement by Dupin regarding the clean-burning British powder also calls into question the extent of the build up of "sticky residue" mentioned in the linked article and probably explains why British infantry were often able to fire in excess of 100 rounds with no loading issues during engagements in the Napoleonic era.

Why do you suppose modern black powder is less powerful? I would assume it's done deliberately, since more modern and stable explosives are available for most military or engineering purposes that require high explosive power. It would make sense to me that black powder for hobbyist's purposes was deliberately engineered to be more stable, with less power as a consequence.

G'day, MAJ Snort.

Good point about the bigger charges when the muskets were in use. As you noted, though, 120gr FFF powder is the max safe charge on my musket and I'll stick with that- I've seen the results of an over-pressured breech on an Indian Bess copy (blew out on 100gr FFF, fortunately for Jim on the lock side).

Not sure I'd agree about the older powder being more powerful, though. Modern production techniques mean the powder composition is more uniform, so it burns more evenly, and they can also reliably make finer,consistent-sized powder grains. Powder "settling out" was a problem up to the mid-C19, especially with coarser grained artillery charges, which indicates that the powder would be less uniform, burn unevenly and be less powerful per grain.

I may be wrong though. It's like the old 7.62mm vs 5.56mm arguments post-Vieties and when we went from the SLR and MAG-58 to the F-88 and Minimi- lots of opinions and emotion, little practical data (and everyone knows 7.62 NATO is better, anyway :-)

Back to original point- Brown Bess the most famous? In the English-speaking world and possibly Indian sub-continent as well, I'd say. In Europe it may well be the "Charleville" of various versions.

Cheers.

Dal wrote:

Not sure I'd agree about the older powder being more powerful, though.

Dal,

Most people find this difficult to accept, but records of trials that took place in the 1800s and well-managed trials that have been conducted in recent times indicate that gunpowder of the 19th century was in fact stronger.

For anyone who is interested, a good starting point would be to seek out a copy of the work of Major Alfred Mordecai: "Reports of Experiments on Gunpowder Made at Washington Arsenal in 1843 and 1844".

The information contained in this work will dispel many of the myths that are normally trotted out regarding smoothbore muskets of the time.

However, for the point in question, consider this:

Mordecai recorded muzzle velocities for, among other arms, both flintlock and percussion 0.69" US smoothbore muskets. Various types of powder were used along with the standard 0.64" ball, loaded while contained in its paper cartridge, as would be the case in the field, with the paper forming a wad under the ball and also surrounding the ball and taking up some of the windage.

With 120 grains powder, which was the standard load at the time after deducting the 10 grains used for priming, (note that the French had used 195 grains in Napoleonic times in the same calibre of muskets to achieve similar results and this smaller charge represents improvements in manufacture), the following average results were achieved:

US Army A4 musket powder: 1470 feet per second.
US Army musket powder from "Old Cartridges": 1332 fps.
French musket powder: 1478 fps.
British Musket Powder: 1561 fps.
Hall's English Sporting Powder: 1818 fps.

In the modern-day tests, quoting one of the most knowledgeable period arms experts, David Harding ("Small Arms of the East India Company" Vol 3 p 370):

TPPH is used at the London Proof House. being consistently strong. Its grain size and glazing approximate to those of the Board of Ordnance musket powder of c1784-c1860. Mordecai's tests have been replicated with TPPH. On a hot day it averaged 1333fps over the first five shots, and 1386 over the second, or 1359fps overall – about 200fps or 12.8% lower than Mordecai's 1561fps over 5 shots with Waltham Abbey FG [British Musket] powder of 1839 manufacture. Another modern powder called FO Triangle averaged 1260fps over ten shots, and one in the UK known as "Swiss No 4" only 1200fps

Also of interest is that in some of Mordecai's trials the muskets were fired many times without cleaning, and comments made on the amount of fouling. With the standard US A4 musket powder, over 100 rounds were fired on several occasions leaving little residue and causing no loading difficulties. Compare this to some of today's powders that leave a huge amount of residue behind after such sustained firing!

Mordecai also comments on the recoil produced by various loads and the service charges were set at the maximum that could be born comfortably by the soldiers. Increasing the charge by as little as 10 grains often led to what Mordecai considered unbearable recoil.

A better article.

link

Very interesting – but just as well I'm no longer teaching 18th history to youngsters, as parents might not care for this explanation of the musket's name!
Thanks for posting.

A number of years ago I read an article about someone who had a replica Sharps. After five rounds he had trouble chambering rounds from the powder fouling. He decided to try replicate 1860s US Army powder. Since he couldn't get some ingredients that were identical to the 1860s variant he concluded that he had made some Grade B powder. The results were that he had no problem with fouling and a lot less smoke.

Just read the OP article- always helps- and was intrigued by his reference to soldiers urinating down the barrel of their firelocks during battle to clear fouling-
"a risky maneuver when barrels became hot to the touch."

Talk about 'taking the p….'

I wonder if he gave that factoid adequate consideration before sharing it with his readers. Forget the hot barrels. If he thinks the muskets weren't accurate… (Would love to to see the experimental archaeology videos on this).

My dad was taught to do the same thing in WW2. If there wasn't enough water available to clean his SMLE he was told to down the barrel. There is a French account (from Austerlitz?) of pissing down the barrels to when they became to hot to hold, and then firing off blanks to dry them out.

Interesting p**s is bleeped, but pissing isn't. Tant pis

is there a quote on this, so on Austerlitz, snow lying around, which is much colder then the urine soldiers are pissing into the barrel, my concern, fixed or unfixed bayonets?

Did anyone try to p… down a 5 feet long musket?

The quote is from Coignet and refers to the Battle of Marengo:

Our musket- barrels were so hot that it became impossible to load for fear of igniting the cartridges. There was nothing for it but to p*ss into the barrels to cool them, and then to dry them by pouring in loose powder and setting it alight unrammed.

This is the only account of this practice that I am aware of, and it was not done to clear fouling, as claimed in the linked article. It sound like a tall tale to me.

Why a 'tall tale'?

Try it.

Let's just say that if the barrel of the gun is that hot, my aim will be off by a few inches.
Think about it. Pouring water from my canteen seems a bit more likely and less likely to interfere with future amorous pursuits. "You want me to do WHAT???"

Try it.

It is a truism that by urinating on a jammed modern rifle bolt when the bolt jams when firing and you don't have any oil, urinating on the bolt can cause the bolt to loosen and operate properly.

Urine is oily and that is the reason.

I don't believe that Coignet's story is a 'tall tale' but one told accurately from a combat veteran.

And your 'response' does not answer the question.

You are describing a jammed bolt on the outside of the rifle. No danger to the member performing that task.
What is being called into question is a red hot barrel, so hot that it is feared that powder will ignite. I'm sorry, but urinating into that barrel, with no "spillage", being close enough to ….
That just invites skepticism.

Let's hear from reenactors, rather than old soldiers who "remember with advantages".
"Today's Living History presentation involves what to do when your barrel gets too hot."

Yes-Great Idea-listen to reenactors who are play-acting, not really in the field, and not getting shot at instead of combat veterans.

You've got to be kidding.🤦‍♂️

That 'idea' is ludicrous in the extreme.

When a reenactor's musket barrel gets to hot from firing blank ammunition, all they have to do is wait for it to cool-no one is shooting at them trying to kill them.

Absolutely incredible.

"… ludicrous in the extreme…"
Now, now, Kevin. That sounds an awful lot like a PERSONAL ATTACK to me, or at least "snarky".
Isn't that what you used to get Supermax kicked off the site when you went whining to Staff? But don't worry. *I* do not complain to staff if I feel disrespected.

The question is what they do if they HAVE to do if they HAVE to keep firing.
Surely someone has tried it? Let's hear from them.

in case the barrels are so hot, then how to place them so you could p.. down the barrel, caveat severe burn wounds on delicate places.

Also in case they are so hot – no worry to dry them with blanks, even when a bit warm water is inserted into the barrel.

Yes – all sources need interpretations, even in case they are gloryfying Nabulieone, even then they need to be used in a critical historical manner.

I can visualize, soldiers shooting like mad, then panic, self ignition is looming ahead, brake ranks, in the middle of the battle, then find a way to cool the barrels with warm urine. How to do it, comrades using their p.. to cool down the others musket, outside, urine running all over the place – including stock.

Can see an argument for cleaning though, albeit quite precarious.

Sharpe did it, and so did Sergeant Harper!
So it has to be true!

"Hey, Henri! I have an idea! Let's pour some water from our canteens down the barrel instead!"
"Zut alors! Incroyable! Brilliant!"

By the way, if you have oily urine, you had better see your doctor toute suite!
link

Would an order to unfix bayonets precede the order to start pissing down the barrels?

Maybe wimpy reenactors would unfix bayonets, but manly soldiers in the field would not! Especially manly French soldiers!

Anyone who has had to relieve themselves into a bottle, knows this is a delicate and, as often as not, not- entirely-successful operation even when not carried out furtively and hurriedly.

The suggestion that a 'real combat veteran' being shot at would be more capable of holding his johnson straight while aiming a jet of urine at a 2cm metal aperture, than would a dedicated re-enactor conducting experimental archaelogy, now _that_ is laughable.

As for my 'response,' Brechtel, while I am uncertain, as to why it merited decoration with inverted commas, it was of course not intended to answer the question. It was an invitation to you as a 'combat veteran' to explore the proposition and provide an answer for yourself.

Do you have a 1.5 litre or 2 litre mineral water bottle in your recycling, tucked away in your garage or somewhere similar? Well, on you go, then. Splash your boots….as they say.

You'll have to imagine the searing sensation of hot metal against delicate, nerve-packed skin but I am sure you can find someone to shoot at you.

We will be on tenterhooks.

Presumably light infantry could have done this by using their powder horn as a funnel? They were supposed to be marksmen, used to aiming their piece without benefit of a backsight. The Rifles' accuracy was legendary.

I'm sure there was a Hinchliffe figure doing that.

Brechtel wrote:

Why a 'tall tale'?

Apart from the fact that I have not seen this mentioned by any other participants in battles of this era, for similar reasons that others have mentioned above, and because Coignet's tale of the battle gets more unbelievable as it goes along.

He narrowly escapes being decapitated by a sabre, being saved by having the thickest queue in the regiment. Throws his equipment away and escapes by clinging to a horse's tail. Finds another set of accoutrements and a musket and returns to the fight, and then has to p*ss down the barrel of that one as well, this time because it was both hot and fouled!

Battalion fire from echelons formed in the rear, arrested the enemy, but those cursed cartridges would no longer go into our fouled and heated musket barrels. We had to p*ss into them again. This caused us to lose time.

No kidding!

Forgive me if I find all this a bit hard to swallow.

It sounds like something Davy Crockett would say, of course when The Ladies were not present.
"Yes sir, boys. The fightin' was hot and heavy! I shot so many Injuns that my gun barrel glowed red hot! So I had to…. Excuse me Ladies. I did not mean to be so vulgar. My apologies."

Of course, if a FRENCH person wrote it, it is beyond reproach.

Isn't that what you used to get Supermax kicked off the site…

And when did that supposedly happen? If anyone actually was banned from this or any other site, that is their fault, no one else's…

Your false accusations are getting just a little old.

You and Brendan were having a "discussion".
You were saying something preposterous.
Brendan replied "Really?"
He was immediately locked out for being "Snarky".
What other conclusion can I draw?