"Flintlock or Percussion Muskets?" Topic

Am I correct in gleaning from various sources that the Mexican army was still mostly armed with flintlock muskets, while the US Army fought the war with percussion muskets?

You are correct. India Pattern and New Land Pattern Brown Bess muskets. The light infantry carried musket smaller in size and caliber.

Most of the American army is equiped with flintlocks as well.

Phil; as part of my research into the adoption and use of percussion firearms by various militaries in the 1830s and 40s I found a paper titled "Muskets And Rifles Of The Mexican War." The paper's conclusion, stated in its opening sentence, was that: "The American infantryman during the Mexican War was armed primarily with a flintlock musket, also referred to as a 'firelock.'" In a quick review of the paper I could not find any references to the arms carried by the Mexican army. Unfortunately the pdf copy I downloaded from the internet does not identify the author of the paper, the source from which I downloaded it, or any specific sources relied on by the unnamed author although it does have brief discussions of some of the various percussion and flintlock smallarms carried by American troops and refers to US Ordnance Dept records. I didn't care much about these defects as the Mexican-American War was not the subject of my research-I just kept the paper for some background information. Anyway, if you will provide me with your email I'd be happy to provide you with a pdf copy of the paper, albeit you might be better served by doing an internet search under the paper's title as you will possibly thereby find the source from which I got the paper and perhaps discover the name of the author.

As for your question…. according to my research, some militaries (including the East India Company and, I believe, the US) did limited research into military use of percussion smallarms in the 1820s. According to the paper, the US Army didn't adopt percussion smallarms until 1841, so the British adoption of percussion smallarms in the late 1830s was the earliest by any nation of which I am aware. France and other European nations followed the British, but replacement of flintlocks was slow and irregular-even the Brits were still buying military flintlocks well into the 1840s. Because the 1840s were a transition period from flintlocks to percussion arms for the various militaries (for various reasons, civilian percussion arms were mostly not suitable for military use), I doubt there was much of a surplus of military percussion arms available for the Mexican army to purchase before the war, even if it had the desire to do so. That lack of surplus production might also explain why (in the opinion of the paper I've referred to) the US army had not generally transitioned to percussion arms by 1846 and the Mexican war.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't reject the possibility that the Mexican army might have obtained some percussion smallarms before the war, but without credible sources saying otherwise I doubt they acquired them in large numbers-say 5,000 or more.

From what I understand, the Mexican army mostly used old Tower smoothnore muskets that were previously condemned. Their gunpowder was of inferior quality and often used musket balls made of metals other than lead (copper perhaps?).

The US was converting to percussion, I wouldn't be surprised if some regular and most militia units still had flintlock but I'd need to review my resources to confirm this.

I used Field of Battle and the US has a little more range and lethality to reflect the difference in these aspects of the two armies.

Here's a link to the article to which Dennis referred.

PDF link

As he stated, there is no author or sources indicated. This same document is carried on several other web sites but there is no attribution as to author and sources.

Jim

Very useful discussion. I would, however, wonder to what extent US volunteer regiments might be MORE likely than the regulars to have and use new technology? We certainly have examples from 1861-65 of volunteer units procuring the latest new hot thing, way ahead of the US Army bureaucracy. A dozen state governments doing things as they pleased . . .?

Thanks Jim; that is indeed the article which I mentioned.

If I were going to try to model the difference between percussion armed troops and flintlock armed troops, I would either increase the volume of fire for the percussion armed or reduce the volume of fire for the flintlock armed troops due to the much higher rate of misfires for flintlocks even under ideal conditions. In the early 19th century the East India Company arsenals (Madras Presidency for sure, and perhaps one or both of the other two, it's been years since I read the reports) conducted a series of tests for flintlock smallarms (reported in David Harding's "Smallarms of the East India Company, 1600-1856") and even when freshly loaded and in dry circumstances the flintlocks had a high rate of misfires.

doc; private purchases are certainly a possibility, and it's exactly the sort of thing US volunteers might do. Logistics might be a bit of a problem, though, as private purchase of muskets would seem to also require private purchase of percussion caps-maybe not a problem until the troops were deep into Mexico and needed resupply with no local source-I have no idea whether ammunition resupply was a regular army function for everyone or whether it was done differently for state troops. As for the weapons themselves, most militaries of the period converted some flintlocks to percussion ignition. I have an 1826 carbine that was converted to percussion ignition sometime in the 1840s or 50s.

doc, by all means check, but the only example I can think of was the Mississippi Volunteers who had 1841 rifles--percussion caps and minie balls. Scott was reluctant to issue them without more testing, so Jeff Davis was able to get Federal supplies not issued to the regulars. There wasn't the time and enthusiasm in 1846 there was 15 years later.

Generally, think regulars with percussion caps, and volunteers with flintlocks out of state armories, but often better weapons and ammo than the Mexicans.

So in a Mex War battle game, if we do not in fact know, it might be fun to introduce a random factor in what each regiment is carrying. Maybe 90% flint and 10% cap for Mexican, and 75% flint and 25% cap for US, or some such? What each regiment has would NOT be visible before it first fires. Either roll ahead of time, so each player knows what his own troops carry, OR roll at first fire.

Robert: are you sure the 1841 rifle as used in the Mexican war used the minie bullet? I thought the minie was invented in 1847, and the '41 rifle used a patched ball until the 1850s when it was rebored to .58 caliber so it could use the minie.

I could EASILY be wrong on that, Dennis. I was going from memory, and only did a quick search to be sure they were rifles as well as percussion.

Still the best longarm on either side, and I should have noted that the Utah Battalion also had some in their mix.

PLEASE, Gentlemen!

There were NO caplock firearms in the Mexican Army.

Period.

Only Tower and India Pattern "Brown Bess," largely from condemned stocks, some with missing pieces to be carried more for looks than combat effect.

Further, most Mexican Soldados were lucky to fire their weapons more than a few times a year, and new recruits commonly had fired them only once or twice before being marched out.

The idea that the US caplock weapons have greater range boggles the mind. A smoothbore musket--whatever the ignition system--is still just that. The Yanquis could be argued to have a somewhat faster rate of fire, but in practice this would be inconsequential as independent firing was not practiced by companies/battalions (though skirmishers could do so).

While misfires would be greatly reduced via caps, the misfire rate among flintlocks was commonly figured between 10 and 25 (sic) percent. This should be calculated into the practical fire effects of the Mexican soldiers.

And, for Heaven's Sake, smoothbores would NEVER use a Minie round! That's strictly a rifled weapon's load, and though the Mexican Light Infantry battalions carried Baker Rifles, there was no special ball for them.

Brother Piepenbrink said it best--go with him on this.

Also, Dennis is right in what he says, but once in Mexico, the Volunteer units (certainly those with Scott) all quickly wound up being issued Regular uniforms and weapons as it was impractical to do otherwise, so except for specific early battles of the war, worrying about US flintlocks for some units is really unnecessary.

So there!

TVAG

Ah, reminiscent of the decades-ago debates in SLINGSHOT on whether hoplites wielded spears overhand or underhand!

However, TVAG's point about volley fire is well-made. Maybe for Mexicans have a nearly-full-effect opening volley, and a tapering off of fire effect after that. (Good old JOHNNNY REB rules!) Of course fouling etc would gradually diminish caplock fire too.

In Regtl F&F this is nicely bundled into "out-of-ammo" roils, but perhaps the Mex should have a higher odds of getting that effect?

Doc, as TVAG noted, there would be a 0% chance of a Mexican unit being armed with percussion cap weapons.

Unless you can document that a US unit had percussion weapons, the automatic default is flintlocks.

Boo, you're no fun!

Btw, when I was researching Alamo rules, I came across a stat that, iirc, Texans in 1836 stood 5' 9" while the average soldado was 5' 3". (Can't recall where i saw that, maybe the ALAMO SOURCEBOOK.) Might make a difference in melee or even in march distance; I assume the larger men have a larger stride?

"Most of the (Mexican) soldiers were from five foot to five foot six inches in height."

Todish, Timothy J.; Todish, Terry. Alamo Sourcebook 1836: A Comprehensive Guide to the Alamo and the Texas Revolution (p. 54). Eakin Press. Kindle Edition.

Sherlock Holmes assures me taller men have a longer stride, doc mcb--but they won't have a longer pace marching in a formation. Drill sergeants tend to be fussy about that sort of thing.

Robert; I thought '46-'48 would be a tad early for minie bullets-albeit if any troops were armed with percussion rifles and minie bullets they should have a significant advantage in misfire rate, range and accuracy over troops armed with similar caliber flintlock smoothbores. Although, IIRC, more than one author has opined that the advantages of the rifled musket were pretty much wasted in the ACW.

Patrick; I will, of course, defer to your much superior knowledge of the MAW. My knowledge of the war is pretty much limited to the books I got from you, the article I mentioned, and some general information about the US military putzing around with percussion arms somewhat earlier than most militaries in Europe. BTW, it's a bit before the MAW, but I have an interesting 2017 article titled "Colonial Era Firearm Bullet Performance: A Live Fire Experimental Study for Archaeological Interpretation" that I can send you; if you're interested you can reply here or email me directly.

Ah, but does a Mexican drill sergeant have the same standard as a US drill?

I never know what post will lie dead in the water with no responses, and what post will garner twenty replies. I'm not writing rules, and painting 18mm longarms doesn't reach the detail of flintlocks or percussion caps, so it was mainly a question having seen a uniform and weapon site that stated the US Army had 1842 smoothbores with percussion caps. Having been a Civil War reenactor who loved my 1842 Springfield smoothbore Italian-made reproduction, I was interested in when the US Army did make mass conversions to priming caps. It seems clear now, that happened after 1848.

Great discussion on this topic found here:

link

Extrabio; great find!

Yes, an excellent link.

Dennis!

Any reason for contacting you is a good one, and your offer is definitely accepted!

And, just to muddy the waters, though hardly intentionally, here is another link that details US weaponry, as well as uniform and other data for the MAW.

TVAG

doc, I'm finding it difficult to take a 7-8% difference in pace/stride seriously as a tactical consideration. But please feel free to find and translate manuals and keep us informed. Watch out for any differences between Mexican--more likely Spanish?--and American inches, and in the number of paces per minute.

My guess is that the Mexican infantry drill manual, like ours, is a lightly modified translation of the French 1791 and lists exactly the same pace. Nothing I've read on the MAW suggests either side had an edge in actual marching speed on the battlefield. Training, formation and terrain were much more important.

Where it really gets interesting is much earlier--French Revolution/Glory Years Napoleonic--where that 1791 manual made for next to no improvement in actual marching pace over SYW/AWI, but substantially faster changes of formation.

robert, my suggestion was, in fact, a little tongue-in-cheek. I've always tried to avoid, as a rules writer, getting too "granular" and trying to factor in differences that are minor at best, and which often tend to cancel out anyway. (Do larger taller men get fatigued quicker?)

The OP is my brother and we are buying and painting armies for 1846-47. We are also in the "research phase" which includes, for me at least, deciding what to IGNORE.

I assume, btw, that everyone on this board is familiar with the Chamberlain paintings at the San Jacinto Museum website?