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

Sorry, don't remember the incident. I sincerely doubt, though, that I was saying 'something preposterous.'

And if he was 'locked out' it had to be something worse than that.

He may have been doghoused, but getting 'locked out' is usually a personal choice, not a punishment.

G'day, Major Snort.

That's some good information, mate, and makes your case well. I suppose it's just counter-intuitive because we tend to think "modern is better than all before", so I'll need a re-think. If I was ever able to own an original example of one of those muskets I'd never fire it, whether it is safe or not- I'd just take it out and admire it occasionally.

The bit about fouling is very interesting. With modern FFF you can feel the fouling after about 20 shots and at about 30 need to push the ramrod a bit to get the ball to seat on the charge. Until then the ball just rolls down to the charge and I drop the ramrod down, literally, to seat the ball. There's also a lot of memoirs of the broader period (~ 1700 to 1865) that describe fouling being a problem, but none that I remember that give any idea of the number of charges fired, just an impression of "many".

Cheers.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a reason why modern black powder produces lower muzzle velocities? Would be interested to hear why. It's so counterintuitive that modern chemistry would produce a less effective compound- I can only suppose it was deliberate. Any ideas?

Sorry, have to speak up (again)…

Another really interesting and informative discussion marred by the needlessly aggressive and argumentative tone adopted by one of the participants – is it really necessary or appropriate amongst like-minded hobby gamers?

For me it is difficult to access the quality of contemporary black powder, some nations could produce high quality like the Prussians who needed quite a fine one for their self priming pan.

About fouling, yes one can read in memoires about it. The usual maximum allowance – to be carried on the battle field would be 50 to 65 cartridges. Another limiting factor are flints which needed to be changed on the battle field as well.

As to originals, we just tried out how well the lock sparked and to our surprise it sparked much better than the re production.

Then as I mentioned above the flint played a big role as well, we were lucky to obtain French ones which sparked much better then the British ones.

without testing original muskets with original powder and flints compared to modern re production – I am tempted to say that a lot is speculative.

Regarding fouling of muskets, I have also read accounts of this being a problem in action, but not that many accounts of it from British soldiers in the Napoleonic Wars. British gunpowder had been improved considerably by the work of Congreve from c1784 following complaints about its poor quality in earlier times, with different grades for artillery and small arms. We have also seen that Dupin claimed that the musket powder burned cleanly and left no residue.

The ammunition used by the British, as with all other nations, took potential fouling into account and the ball used was 0.685" in a bore that was around 0.75". This did not mean that the ball was loose-fitting and rolled into the barrel when loading, or bounced down the bore on firing as is often claimed, because the ball was loaded still contained in the paper cartridge which, if loaded and rammed properly, filled the void between bore and ball and formed a wad between the powder and ball to help prevent gas escape.

Writing after the Napoleonic Wars, the gunmaker William Greener criticised the small ball used and imagined that it could be made larger without causing any loading issues due to fouling build up. This is what he had to say on the subject – his comments about short-cuts used in the loading procedure are for another day:

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 the heat of an engagement, to slip the cartridge into the muzzle, stamp the butt of the gun on the earth, and the cartridge was home.

We also have many accounts from British soldiers claiming to have fired their entire quota of 60 rounds during action, being re-supplied and carrying on shooting. Some even recorded how many rounds: The "Soldier of the 71st" claimed to have fired 107 rounds at Fuentes de Onoro. He also thought that he had fired 108 rounds at Vitoria, which is also backed up by Richard Henegan who was tasked with re-supplying the troops in action. William Surtees of the 56th regiment wrote that he fired "near 200" rounds during one action in Holland in 1799, Charles Cadell of the 28th Regiment noted that his unit fired 170 rounds per man at St Pierre and William Brown of the 45th Regiment claimed to have fired 250 rounds at Orthez.

So is there anything that can back up the fact a musket could be fired a couple of hundred times without cleaning when using good-quality powder? Luckily there is;

In Mordecai's experiments in the 1840s, several firing sessions took place with a musket loaded with the new US A4 musket powder up to 200 times without cleaning. The muskets used had been selected because their bore size was on the small side and at the lower limit of acceptance. One was 0.688" and the other 0.687". The ball was also slightly larger than normal at 0.65" rather than 0.64" (this larger ball was subsequently adopted by the US army). The balls were loaded wrapped in paper to replicate service conditions as closely as possible. The comments on the report for all these sessions say:

No difficulty in loading and firing, very little dirt remaining in the bottom of the barrel.

The same trial was carried out with powder from some old cartridges that were thought to date from 1816 and three sessions were carried out firing 100, 150 and 200 rounds without cleaning. This was not the same stuff as the US army A4 powder. The comments on the report for some of these sessions say:

Some balls required hard ramming. 23rd and 64th balls stuck fast, on account of the great quantity of dirt caused by the powder.

And on another session with the old cartridges:

Barrel very dirty after these 200 rounds.

So, much would depend on the quality of the powder used. Also the heat and humidity would affect the fouling build up and how hard the residue in the barrel was. Finally the condition of the arms would also have an effect. If the muskets were not maintained and cleaned properly the bore would quickly become roughened through corrosion which would add considerably to the loading and fouling issues.

Thanks for posting- your pieces on musketry have been interesting and informative.

invitation to you as a 'combat veteran' to explore the proposition and provide an answer for yourself.

@42nd
You are very generous with your response to Kevin. I thought your post warranted a mature response; sorry to see you were accosted with the usual one.

From The Notebooks of Captain Coignet, 76:

'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 in the barrels to cool them, and then to dry them by pouring in loose powder and setting it alight unrammed.'

For the unbelievers, perhaps you could find something, besides insult and mocking those with whom you disagree, that would counter it and prove Coignet wrong.

I eagerly await the final deciding proof that Coignet 'remembered with advantages.'

For the unbelievers, perhaps you could find something, besides insult and mocking those with whom you disagree, that would counter it and prove Coignet wrong.

I eagerly await the final deciding proof that Coignet 'remembered with advantages.'

This isn't a hill I want to die on. I simply prefer to not believe it. And laugh at the absurd picture of a man placing his most prized possession in close proximity to a barrel that is so hot it's unsafe to come in contact with loose gunpowder.

If upholding Coignet's honor over a silly anecdote is a hill YOU want to do on, be my guest.
Congratulations. You "win the argument" because nobody else can be bothered to take the whole argument seriously.

Congratulations!

You two have clearly demonstrated an excellent rabid example of 'keyboard courage'-Well done. 🤦‍♂️

@ Swampy Terrain

Actually, I don't think I elicited any 'response' at all, but to be honest I wasn't expecting to receive a field report any time soon.

Meanwhile, I am enjoying one of the most ludicrous squabbles I ever expect to see gracing the pages of the Napoleonic Discussion Forum. My musket barrel is definitely half full.

Marcel Duchamp would have been delighted.

Sigh. If you really think this exchange is worthy of "Meet me in the Parking Lot at Midnight!", you need to adjust your meds. I made fun of a Frenchman! Oooga Booga!
"Keyboard courage" goes both ways. You seem to think that all you need to do to "win" is to be the last one to post, because "the other side" just got bored with you and walked away.
Every time you throw out insults, all I can say is "look in the mirror".

You seem to think that you can get away with any kind of insult, snide remarks, accusations of being illiterate, and so on.
Yet as soon as anyone replies to you in kind, you hide behind the same old sad snide accusations of "keyboard courage". What does that even mean? But it's your fallback position for "You're right, but damned if I'm going to acknowledge it."

Thank you very much for illustrating my point so well.

I have read this account as well, water in a battlefield is at a premium. Artillery needed to have a bucket of water on hand, a infantryman might have had a water bottle but if it's using that up or something not needed there was no option.
Never fired my Brown Bess to red hot but it is fouling those rounds are going to slow down.

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?

I can't believe Editor Gwen would lock out someone permanently just for being snarky. I'm sure she would have tried to have a conversation with him about any problem.

Surely you keep notes?
That's what Brendan (Supercilious Maximus) told me.
I believe him.
And that could explain at least part of the animosity and lack of respect I have for Brechtel.
Good, productive people get run off. And some with a crystal clear record of bullying remain.

Is Kevin a Golden Boy? Beyond reproach?

42flanker posted a picture of a urinal. NOT a toilet. It's an amusing reply to the query of how exactly one … aims… the fluid necessary for quenching a red hot barrel without severe pain.
Kevin calls it a self portrait. He skates. 42 gets the DH.
I find that regrettable. I would have ruled the opposite. But then, I'm not in charge here, am I?

By the way, Swampy asked me why he was DHed for 7 days, and then additionally had his account locked. He's curious why the Double Secret Probation. He can understand one or the other, but why both?

Yankee Doodle made a couple of remarks about nationality, one of which I took exception to (although I didn't complain, I took him to task). As a former artillerymen, I didn't particularly appreciate Swampy's remark implying they don't know anything about front line conditions (wrong on the facts, as well as being insulting- and he implied it was directed at Kevin). Those two were DH'd for the same things other people have been DH'd for in the past.

Kevin can speak for himself, but I recollect seeing him in the DH on one or two occasions (if I am wrong, I will apologize). I don't think he's immune to doghousing.

The problem on this thread, as on others, is that people lose track of the actual topic of the thread, spot someone they don't like, and get into a prolonged back and forth as they struggle to get the best of one another.

So Kevin gets to Skate and insults people and picks fights with impunity. I guess its because he posts walls of text. Why answer when he will just ignore your response and plaster the pages with mire walls of text. He get real authors and knowledgeable individuals kicked off here possibly because they are a threat to his frail ego. Yet an individual like 42flanker who contributes to discussions and adds to our knowledge gets DH for a little humor? I do not get it. I have to wonder at the moderation here sometimes.

In the past I avoided the ultra modern boards for the politics and the knuckleheads threatening to turn geographical locations into glass. Then I avoided the Napoleonic boards because of the vicious attacks on individuals, some of which continued into the pages of Amazon book reviews. Now do I have to avoid the the 18th century boards ???

Unless we're using black powder muskets in 1991 I'm not sure what relevance modern weapons have. For a start, you can do far more lying down, although if it gets so hot so quickly then the rounds don't sound particularly controlled. There's a reason we developed quick change barrels for squad weapons though.

I can certainly imagine my CSgt's face if OCdts we to start unbuttoning their trousers rather than go through a stoppage drill but I do recall hearing about water-cooled Vickers' gunners urinating in the can (rather than the barrel though), one of them was my grandfather. And David Niven urinating into a champagne bottle under his kilt at a formal Mess Night.

On topic, Brown Bess as an iconic weapon, seems up there with the Dreyse, Martini-Henry, Lee-Enfield, Kar 98k, M16, AK47, SLR, Springfield and certainly of long duration around the world.

I was going to say "Cool it" but had second thoughts, given that this is what caused all the trouble.

Nine pound round, WillBGoode

Whilst I'm not interested in gun control discussion in a thread which started to suggest why the Brown Bess might have been the most famous, it does seem symptomatic that that the first three responses of note to the OP (which listed a string of issues) went straight into disputing an argument which hadn't been made, I'm not sure why.

For reference, the same website, Military History Now had an article on the Charleville musket too so people can knock themselves out if they want to follow the link.

In the interests of fairness I did report Brechtel198's comments. His 'keyboard courage' comments are long past their sell-by date and calling others 'rabid' merely for expressing differing opinions over the writings on one author more than two centuries' ago is the definition of 'insult and mocking those with whom you disagree'.

Especially when Coignet's 'original editor of the manuscript, Loredan Larchey, wrote in his preface that many of the details are known to be wrong or are clearly exaggerations, but the fundamental outline of Coignet's record do not seem to be in question.'

More on the value of Coignet and other memoires from the Napoleon Series here link

4th Cuirassier, it's a certain type of contest, or match, if you will.

you can moderate yourself this board.

There is a stifle and ignore button. Why waste your time with people who are impossible to reason with?

Only because Coignet is a Boney admirer doesn't make his memoires right on all aspects, as usual all sources need critical examination.

Of course the Brown Bess is an iconic weapon in the English speaking world and in the recent by Enlish works dominated history writing.

It is not the quality of the musket but the soldiers who used it, the Zündnadelgewehr was inferior to the Chassepot and yet it is more iconic.

LBR, having watched this contest (and as you say, it is a contest) over many threads, I typically try to stay clear of it. I know the people and positions, and it's a matter on which reasonable people can disagree- and they do. They disagree so strongly, that it has morphed over time into point-scoring and one-up man ship, as so many debates on the internet do.

The only explanation I can offer (speaking as a bystander) is that there are rules. Several posters knew how to walk up to them without stepping over them; two others did not. I posted my comments above because I thought two of the three who were DH'd had stepped a long way over the lines, to the point where their posts annoyed me, and stood out from the general back-and-forth that always goes on here.

I can't account for 42F, except in the most general, "take the piano player, too" kind of way. I thought he was making a joke, but perhaps he crossed a published line, I don't know.

By the way, Swampy asked me why he was DHed for 7 days, and then additionally had his account locked. He's curious why the Double Secret Probation. He can understand one or the other, but why both?

In the process of Dawghousing Swampy, it was realized this was another account of someone who was already banned from TMP and just coming here to troll. Therefore, this account was also locked. I suppose I could have unDawghoused him too, but I had other things I wanted to do.

Surely you keep notes?
That's what Brendan (Supercilious Maximus) told me.

We rarely keep notes regarding why someone gets tossed from TMP, as we really don't need any more paperwork. But in this case, I did make a note:

threw a fit when Gwen tried to talk to him

So, yes, Editor Gwen tried to talk to him about his snarky posts, and Supercilious Maximum threw a tantrum and refused to have a discussion with her.

So Kevin gets to Skate and insults people and picks fights with impunity. I guess its because he posts walls of text. Why answer when he will just ignore your response and plaster the pages with mire walls of text. He get real authors and knowledgeable individuals kicked off here possibly because they are a threat to his frail ego. Yet an individual like 42flanker who contributes to discussions and adds to our knowledge gets DH for a little humor? I do not get it. I have to wonder at the moderation here sometimes.

In the past I avoided the ultra modern boards for the politics and the knuckleheads threatening to turn geographical locations into glass. Then I avoided the Napoleonic boards because of the vicious attacks on individuals, some of which continued into the pages of Amazon book reviews. Now do I have to avoid the the 18th century boards ???

When he breaks forum rules, he gets Dawghoused – just like anyone else.

If you don't want to see his posts, you can Stifle him and enjoy any board you like.

Please don't complain because you refuse to use the tools we've given you.

Kevin broke the rules on this thread a few times.
He said my post was "ludicrous in the extreme".
He called the picture of the toilet/urinal a self portrait of 42flanker. Since you deleted that, and unlike the Lads at Fro… I don't save screen shots, I can't recall his EXACT words.
Then there is his general offensive SNARKY "keyboard courage" remark he uses whenever anyone disagrees with him.
I laugh at Croignet. (Sp?). As do a few others. Even C's original editor labeled some of his anecdotes iffy. But to Kevin, that's Keyboard courage.
That's a whole bunch of Personal Attacks. And if I went back over other threads I could find quite a few more offensive posts.

"Go ahead. Do your duty". He is every bit as offensive if not more so than others who have been thrown in the DH.
So I'm calling on you to treat him the same way you would treat any other offensive TMP dweller. I freely admit that I can be pretty snotty too.
Had you nailed him over the weekend, he would have gotten … 6 days? But since today is Monday, 3 is enough.
You yourself pointed that he's been disciplined in the past. Please do so again.

Tell you what. Give him 5, and I'll share the sentence. In the past I've asked to share time with friends. Now I ask to share time with someone who is most definitely NOT my friend.

Is Kevin a Golden Boy? Beyond reproach?

Lol! I picture the guy from the film "Top Secret" in the curly wig.

I would say he is. He is a philosopher prince in the Sans Souci sense of the word.

Happy?

Well, Kevin.
I feel apologies are in order here.
I was contacted by one of the principals in the "Really?" incident.
It was not you.
I'm man enough to admit I was wrong.

Apology accepted.

This reminds me of that debate about "spitting musket balls down the barrel."

Another thing no sane person would ever do, especially after the barrel heated up.

Kevin broke the rules on this thread a few times.
He said my post was "ludicrous in the extreme".

Which forum rule does that violate? None that I can think of.

Von Winterfeldt,
That Bundeswehr G3 7.62 was a bruising bucking she boar. I qualified with one at Stuttgart in 85 with the 252 FJR RGT. The MG3 was far more forgiving

Original muskets I've found always outperform reproductions. I believe modern black powder must ‘cake' much more than original powder as well, and for some reason, I believe recast balls (round and Minnie) just refuse to load as easily as into reproduction barrels as originals.

Here is an excerpt of a post by Mark Hambleton on the old Napoleon Series Discussion Forum from 2010 (it might still be recoverable on the rebooted version . It echoes the observations made by Major Snort earlier in this thread, with the addition of personal experience with weapon under discussion.

"The following refers to British weapons and practice, but I would imagine that other nations followed similar principals.

While it is true that we cannot be certain about the quality of Napoleonic powder, there is a possibility that is was actually better than that available to modern-day black powder shooters. For example, it is not possible to achieve the muzzle velocities that were attained in various experiments during the 18th and 19th centuries even with the consistently strong TPPH black powder as used in the London Proof House. Whether this Napoleonic-era powder was cleaner burning than modern powders is also open to question.

I shoot ball cartridge and patched ball with both original and replica Brown Bess muskets and an original Baker rifle on a fairly regular basis. I normally shoot 50 rounds per session with these guns, and fouling, particularly with the muskets, really isn't much of an issue. This is perhaps due to the fact that I use balls of a similar diameter to those used historically, while often modern day black powder shooters opt for a much larger and hence tighter fitting ball in the quest for accuracy, and consequently do encounter major problems with fouling during prolonged firing.

In the Napoleonic era, fouling of the barrel was taken into consideration when the ammunition was constructed. A British India Pattern Brown Bess musket had a bore size of around 0.75" – 0.76" and fired a ball of 0.685" wrapped up in a paper cartridge. This obviously allowed a massive amount of windage in the bore and this was to allow for the inevitable fouling. Much confusion seems to surround the method of loading with this cartridge in some modern literature and even amongst some re-enactors that I have spoken to, but the official method was that once the end (the end containing the powder, not the ball) had been bitten off, the pan had been primed and the rest of the powder shaken down the barrel, the rest of the cartridge was inserted empty-paper-tail first, with the ball still tied inside. When this package had been rammed down to the breech, the empty tail of the cartridge was further scrunched up and compacted between powder and ball by two sharp strokes of the rammer. There was no chance of the ball rolling back out of the barrel, because it was still contained within the paper. This paper consequently formed an efficient wad to drive the ball up the barrel and also prevented a lot of the gas escape and rattling about that would have occurred had the ball been loaded "naked" with an unfilled gap between ball and bore. The paper is blown to shreds on exiting the bore and does not impede the flight of the ball in any way. This combination is easy to load, even with the bore fouled, and the paper is compacted into the changing available space in the breech. It doesn't give the same accuracy as the tightly fitting balls favoured today, but it isn't that bad and the accuracy actually improves as the barrel fouls up.

{section on the Baker Rifle}

It is debatable exactly how relevant information gleaned from a comfortable modern shooting range actually is in relation to the Napoleonic battlefield, so it is also interesting to look at accounts from the period dealing with these issues. While there are certainly accounts that mention the difficulties of prolonged shooting, I cannot recall many that mention actual fouling. James Anton's account of Toulouse springs to mind. He states that his musket became unusable after a period of prolonged fire and that he searched for an abandoned French musket with which to continue. The reason that his musket became unusable is not actually mentioned and could have easily been flint, rather than fouling-related.

There are far more accounts that mention that a unit's entire 60 round quota of ammunition was fired off and then replenished to continue the action and there are several accounts that actually specify the amount of rounds fired:

Charles Cadell states that the 28th regiment fired between 160 and 170 rounds each at St Pierre. [3x60]

The Soldier of the 71st wrote that he fired 107 rounds at Fuentes de Onoro and 108 at Vittoria, and actually mentions cleaning his musket the day after, not during, the latter battle.

William Brown of the 45th claims that he fired an incredible 250 rounds at Orthez.

Fouling is not mentioned as a problem in any of these engagements or in others where the exact amount of ammunition expended is not known. Interestingly, in D Harding's excellent Small Arms of the East India Company, he states that Chambray claimed the British musket could fire in excess of 100 rounds with no difficulty due to the fine quality of British powder, whereas the French musket needed cleaning after 50 rounds.

Finally, there is some very good evidence regarding the maximum rate of fire of British infantry in the Napoleonic era. In John Russell's A Series of Military Experiments one experiment attempted "To try in how short a time a Man could fire Thirty-six Rounds of Ball Cartridge".

A flugelman of the 58th regiment who had many years' service was selected for the experiment and it was reported that:
"The first three rounds were fired in one minute; the remainder of eighteen rounds in five minutes and a half; the whole of the eighteen in six minutes and a half. And deducting the time in turning the cartouch box, which the soldier could not do without being assisted, the thirty-six rounds were fired in thirteen minutes. After twenty-five discharges, the firelock became too hot to hold, except by the sling…After every discharge, the firelock was properly loaded, and the cartridge well rammed down with two smart strokes of the ramrod."

Fouling was not mentioned and cannot have been an issue. The second 18 rounds were loaded and fired in exactly the same time (6.5 minutes) as the first 18. It was also acknowledged that soldiers in close order could not have achieved such a rate of fire."

ENDS

youtu.be/IuAcG604kuc
Range test with a Brown Bess reproduction

Muskets from Revolutionary War shipwreck restored

Main page

link

Armand