"Forgotten Weapons - Brown Bess" Topic

Ian McCullom of Forgotten Weapons channel looks at an 18th century British Brown Bess musket used by the 53rd Regt of Foot:

YouTube link

Barry

My replica of a Short Land Pattern

The Brown Bess musket is one of the best-known 18th century weapons. It certainly does not qualify as forgotten.

The video is possibly addressing a younger generation.

PS, I think the regimental name given is a little premature. KLI was formed from 53rd Shropshire and 85th LI in 1881. KSLI in 1882.

Legionarius is absolutely right. But so, alas, is 42flanker. The late Paddy Griffith once told me that most of the new officer cadets he taught at Sandhurst could not tell him in what century Napoleon was born, let alone anything about his battles and campaigns…

Interestingly, the French Charleville musket, in many ways superior to the Brown Bess, was preferred by the Continental Army over the Brown Bess. The 1798 American Springfield musket was modeled on the French Charleville.

A retired British Army major of my acquaintance, Class of 1973, asked me whether the battle of Waterloo postdated the institution of the Victoria Cross.

A few years ago I purchased a replica Springfield 1798 musket and bayonet. It is an outstanding piece…

I once fired a Brown Bess into an two foot oak stump and couldn't believe that that little three quarter inch ball flew right through it. Mind, we were pretty close though.

The strangest quirk is the hang time between squeezing the trigger and the hammer dropping, then the pause while waiting for the powder to go off. It is so un-natural to someone used to firing modern rifles.

I regularly shoot black powder muskets (with no bullet) for reenacting
a "hang fire" is a sign of a problem
there should be almost no time between the pan flash and the main charge going off
a dull flint or dirty frizzen might be the problem
try cleaning out the pan and over priming to clear out the touch hole

Not a hang fire at all, justthat pause waitng while the hammer drops and the flash to enter from the pan into the barrel.

It sure makes you appreciate modern centre fires and the instantaneous bang.

justthat pause waitng while the hammer drops and the flash to enter from the pan into the barrel.

Whether firing or watching someone else fire, I've only ever noticed a pause between pan and main charge going off when the air was cold and humid, and even then it was only just enough to notice (and usually towards the end of the shoot). Friends who'd never seen a musket fired used to ask why there was no "pop then bang" that they had expected, from TV and movies. All our muskets were replicas, mainly Pedersoli, but that shouldn't make a difference.

I'm with cmdr kevin, mate, and would be looking at the touch hole, making sure the barrel is dry (of oil or water) or perhaps what size powder you use. (Most of us used FFF for prime and charge, some FFF for the prime and FF for the charge- not that it made any difference. 4F here was expensive and only used for trophy shoots.)

the delay is noticeable, at least when you shot modern and flintlock muskets, the bang is sort of much softer than of modern rifles. The finer the powder – the shorter delay, for that reason like on Jäger rifles, you would use in case you liked to create, a very fine powder which would "explode" in a much faster way than the usually coarser poweder used for muskets (which would use identical powder from the cartridge to pour the pan and the barrel).

Everything functioning just fine.
Just if you are used to shooting modern centre fire, the lag is noticeable.

Just if you are used to shooting modern centre fire, the lag is noticeable.

Regular army for over 20 years, mate, the first eight in infantry, and four in the active reserve. So I have some slight familiarity with modern firearms.

Perhaps the FFF we use is just faster burning than what you get in North America and Europe.

A comparison video on the French Charleville would be interesting. It better fits the category of a forgotten firearm. Both sides used the Brown Bess as it was issued to American militia units before the war. The British at Concord were after weapons belonging to the crown. The Continentals may have preferred The Charleville but they didn't have much choice.

Between my mates and I we've got a replica Charleville (Year 9 Corige), a couple of Besses (one Indian, one DP) and my 1809 Potsdam, OC.

To tell the truth there's not much difference between the replicas' performance, mate (the real things may have had different performance). Most of the time we used 120gr cartridges, so the charge would be about 110gr and 10 to 20gr in the pan. The Charlie using a smaller calibre ball didn't make much difference to the effect on the termite nest and trees that were our primary targets. Firing range was 40m to 100m and accuracy (unpatched ball) was much the same. Misfire rates were about the same, as well, and depended heavily on wind and humidity.

Before the shooting started the Committees of Safety were having local versions of the "Brown Bess" made up. With the French alliance the Continental Army begins to get "Charlevilles". The French design musket becomes the norm for the new US Army (rather like the Cold War when the winner adopts an M16 variant or an AK47 depending on the sponsor). The US Marines however preferred the "Brown Bess".

Where did you find that the Continental Marines preferred the Brown Bess?

Website for 1812 US Marine reenactors.

Not what I would call a reliable source…and there is nor source(s) listed on the website

It does not have to be something posted in a peer reviewed journal to be a good source. The information found in some reenactor sites can reflect good research only presented in a less formal way. My issue is assuming the attitude of the U.S. Marines during the War of 1812 reflected Continental Marine thinking during the AWI. However the Major did say "The US Marines".