Brown Bess Carbine

[Many Klatch]

Recently it was posted that a Brown Bess Carbine was a "fantasy weapon". I didn't reply to that because I didn't have my reference handy. Brown Bess Carbines did exist and they were more common than might be recognized today.

I have a copy of "British Military Firearms" 1650 to 1850 by Howard L. Blackmore printed in 1961. This has got to be the definitive book on British Military front loaders.

Originally the phrase carbine could just mean that the firearm was carbine bored or .66 caliber instead of the standard .76 bore of the musket.

On page 59 Blackmore states, quote - that the disastrous defeat of Braddock in 1755 brought matters to a head. The emphasis was on mobility. Carbines were carried by artillerymen, highlanders, light infantry, officers and certain cavalry. The difficulty is to decide what these carbines were. In the Tower Armouries there is a bewildering variety of 18th century carbines. The barrel varied from 42 inch to 28 inch. On page 63 he writes about General Elliots carbine with a 28" barrel. Henry Nock also furnished carbines with a 37 inch barrel. close quote - for brevity I only included the pertinent parts of the quote area here.

It appears after rereading this book that there were indeed Brown Bess Carbines. It also appears that they never did have a standard pattern. Interestingly enough there is a picture of a 17th century cavalry carbine on page 55 that is called a James II carbine with a 2 foot 7" barrel that is awfully similar to the Pedersoli Bess Carbine that I shoot. The Pedersoli Carbine has a 30" barrel and shoots a .715 ball.

In 1757 there were to be maintained in the Tower at any one time, 50,000 Long Land Muskets with steel rammers, 50,000 New pattern muskets, 50, 000 carbines with bayonets for Artillery and Highlanders and 2,000 carbines without bayonets for Horse among other weapons.

The British Army experimented and improved the Brown Bess continuously during its 100 year service life. There were some strange combinations due to the Governments practice of having barrels of locks, stocks and barrels on hand and only making them up into guns when conditions warranted. Thus an old pattern of lock or barrel could be issued on a new gun, 25 or 50 years after it had gone out of style.

Obviously, the common foot soldier carried the standard full sized Bess. However, something shorter called a Carbine was likely carried by almost everybody else.

I think that anyone making a definitive statement about a Brown Bess would be wrong. There are enough exceptions to the rules, that there were barely any rules. Remember, all of the Bess's were hand made, and they didn't really have interchangeable parts, so they are each unique but to a standard pattern.

As a reenactor I attempt to be as accurate as I can afford to be. In my opinion the Pedersoli Bess Carbine is an affordable option for anyone doing light infantry, Highlander, Artillery or Cavalry. As a shooter, I like the Bess Carbine because it is light enough to shoot offhand all day and it is accurate enough to keep them in one hole at 25 yards. :thumbsup:

Many Klatch

 

[Ivan]

Very usefull info. I really like short smoothbores and reasoned that my woods fighting Highland ancestors would too. IMHO if it is handier and more mobile today, it was most likely thought of then and put into use as their lives depended on it.

 

[JV Puleo]

I don't believe anyone has suggested that the British didn't have carbines...but that a Land Pattern musket cut down to carbine length is a fantasy weapon. Which isn't to say it didn't happen, just that carbines were just that...they were in carbine bore and were overall lighter and smaller. The sort of gun usually mis-identified as an "officers fusil". (another much used and poorly understood term) I've handled the Artillery & Highland pattern "carbine", a very nice gun but quite different from the Land Pattern musket and, as far as I know, one that has not been reproduced.
The Short Land Pattern began as the arm of Dragoons who, in the 18th century, were mounted Infantry. Mounted troops, usually referred to as "horse" carried arms that were similar to the Brown Bess (which, after all, was never an official designation) but quite different.

 

[Iron Jim Rackham]

I haven't seen any "carbines" from the 18th century, that were originally manufactured in musket caliber. The shortened musketsI've seen were abbreviated by a few inches because of bore wear, rather than cut down 12" or 16" inches to create a "carbine".

No one whose life depended on a musket, would choose to shorten it to 30" length. I do a lot of skrimishing with later period civil war muskets, and must say my rate of fire declines in carbine competition versus musket competition. To maintain a rate of fire of 3-4 rounds per minute, you need a musket barrel length of 33"-42" to facilitate loading. I could fire 3 rounds per minute with a 46" barreled Long Land musket with wooden rammer, when I shot in the BAR. I have known several individuals who could empty their cartridge box at a rate of 4 rounds per minute using a Short Land musket (Pedersoli replica Brown Bess) with an iron ramrod. I knew at least one person who could fire an original flintlock musket 5 times per minute.

I can fire 2 rounds per minute with either a so called artillery carbine or musketoon. My point is simply that the rate of fire diminshes with a shorter arm. If my life depended on the musket I carried, I would prefer a longer barreled to shorter barreled arm, simply because the longer barrel practically insures a higher rate of fire.

As a competitive shooter, I will say that the prevelance of breechloaders in carbine compeition at N-SSA events is the direct result of short barreled carbines being so unwieldly and slow to load. Loading a muzzleloading carbine is a real nuissance compared to loading a musket, and most competitors turn to breechloaders from sheer aggravation.

18th century arms were generally long barrled. I'm on my own hook here, but I think the length of the American Longrifle barrels was a concession to established colonial arms preferences and aesthetics. The German gunsmiths who made rifles, were familar with and experienced in the construction of short barreled jaeger rifles. I think the extention of barrel lengths was an early sales pitch to colonial American prferences. The English colonists "liked" long barrel arms, and the longer barreled rifle was a concession to established preference rather than a ballistic innovation. If you make your money building arms, you must please your market, and the riflesmiths simply gave the buyer what they wanted.

My Celtic Catholic ancestors in colonial America were prohibited from bearing or keeping arms in the service of a king they detested. I doubt our Celtic Irish ancestors had much influence on the construction or modification of arms in the Colonial period. According to John Adams, a Catholic in New England during the colonial period was as rare as a comet.

In the mid-Atlantic and Southern colonies, they may have been somewhat more numerous, but they were still too few to have any real social impact.
The Protestant Scotch-Irish of the upper south, adopted rather than developed colonial weapons. The Scottish immigrants to the 18th century Carolina's used English or Colonial arms rather than Scottish arms.

The "celts" of the colonial period were the lowest social class, exempted from slavery purely on the basis of race, but otherwise excluded from
"decent" society. Until the start of the national period, no arms were being made on the "frontier" and suffice to say, the men making them were part of the established society, crafting their weapons for prevailing tastes.

By the time the Irish arrive in substantial numbers during the 19th century, the handcrafted firearm, was going the way of homespun clothes. By the late 1840's most Americans were buying factory produced shoes, clothes and firearms. The "celtic" influence on firearms is negligible.
Conceivabll some celtic ancestor could have cut down a musket, but such a field alteration would not have changed the arms designation from musket to carbine. It simply would have made a short musket.

 

[Craig]

I like my Bess carbine, too! I feel the long muskets were developed for three possible reasons: 1) to extend long enough in front of a line to make the back row of firing infantry less dangerous to their front row fellow soldiers, 2) to extend the reach of soldiers' bayonets to resemble (reasonably) the former pike protection, or 3) to enable the musket ball to establish a straight trajectory to increase accuracy.

I tend to believe the first 2 are the more likely, but it is conjecture on my part.

If it is written in official records as to the exact definition of "carbine", then I would have to agree with the expert who knew that a carbine was a specifically deined weapon. Otherwise, what a carbine started out as being and what the word was used commonly to mean after that, to me, means my Bess carbine is as historical as any flintlock around.

But when all the dust settles, have fun! Life is short.

 

[DanChamberlain]

Didn't Roger's Rangers favor a shortened musket, or is that a nasty rumor started by heathens?

Dan

 

[Mike Brooks]

Didn't Roger's Rangers favor a shortened musket, or is that a nasty rumor started by heathens?

Dan

nasty rumor started by heathens

There's your answer.

 

[Many Klatch]

Supposedly, archaeologists working on Rogers island have found a number of 7" long pieces of musket barrel. The theory is that the Rangers were shortening their Bess's 42" barrels by 7" to a more manageable 35" for use in the woods. The 36" range of barrel length seems to be pretty common for the carbines that I were mention in Blackmore's book, so they may have been working to a recognized standard instead of just whopping off whatever they felt like.

Many Klatch

 

[Many Klatch]

Your answer is exactly what Historical Reenacting is all about. No one looking in a book could ever come up with that kind of information. :hatsoff: Who knew, that the longer barrels load faster. It is counter intuitive.

Just one question. As I understand the average recruit in the British Army during the Rev War era was supposed to be around 5'4" tall. Would the shorter carbine barrels have been too short for a short man to load quickly?

Many Klatch

 

[Mike Brooks]

Supposedly, archaeologists working on Rogers island have found a number of 7" long pieces of musket barrel. The theory is that the Rangers were shortening their Bess's 42" barrels by 7" to a more manageable 35" for use in the woods. The 36" range of barrel length seems to be pretty common for the carbines that I were mention in Blackmore's book, so they may have been working to a recognized standard instead of just whopping off whatever they felt like.

Many Klatch

Assuming They were using 1st model bess's that have 46" barrels, that would have put them at 39" after sawing off a 7" hunk. One thing us "modern folks" have to keep in mind is the woods were much differen't back then. No under brush to speak of, nothing to get tangled around a 46" barrel in those days. Even if they were "lightening up" their muskets, you have to keep in mind those barrel walls out on the muzzle end are 1/6" or less. That 7" hunk of barrel and wood would be weighed in ounces, not pounds.
I fing it interesting that the inians of the same time period and area prefered trade guns with 46" to 48" barrels yet Roger's fellows couldn't handle a musket with a 46" barrel...doesn't make sense to me.
I carried a gun with a 48" barrel for years in todays overgrown timber and never got hung up in the brush. Never did get the urge to whack off a 1 foot hunk of barrel.... All the information I have read indicates they were digging up 1" to 2" barrel bits at that site.

 

[JV Puleo]

I don't know where, but I've read the same reference to 1" and 2" pieces...suggesting they were getting the sharp edges off a worn barrel. The original barrels were very thin at the muzzle - much more so than the usual reproduction is. I've had originals that could cut you and I wouldn't want to have to load and re-load them under fire...you'd be liable to getting a bad cut (which was a much worse proposition in the 18th century than it is today and I suspect they understood that). Rogers's Rangers probably had issue, 46" barrel muskets so we're talking about 44" & 45" here. Also, I suspect that if it was common to cut down Long Land pattern muskets some would have survived in that configuration. The shortened ones I've seen are usually combined with a cut-off stock and conversion to percussion and are still rarely as short as 35" or 36". Two that recently came to my attention had the stock shortened and were converted but the barrel was still full length.
Keep in mind that most people in the 18th century believed that a long barrel gave you greater range and velocity. That there was plenty of proof to the contrary even then made little difference. It was part of the "common lore" and usuallly accepted without question. (Much as we accept all sorts of things about modern life that would have perplexed them)
I think that one of the pitfalls of re-enacting is that its impossible not be effected by our more recent views of a situation...no matter how hard we try (and I think that trying is laudable) there will always be limits to our ability to see things from the perspective of the past. I believe Mike is right about the woods in those days too...I live in an 18th century house (1703) in New England. The woods around me are full of thickets but also the stone walls that show they were once clear. Every description of the primeval northern New England forrest mentions the lack of undergrowth. On landing, the Pilgrims likened it to a well maintained English forrest with huge trees blocking the sunlight that would encourage undergrowth. it must have been beautiful but it wasn't what most of us know today.

 

[Iron Jim Rackham]

I've often wondered about the height difference between contempory Americans and their 18th century forebears. I don't know if the height difference is historical fact or not. I know that Edward IV (died 1483 I think) was 6'4". A few centuries later Washington grew to be 6'3" and I believe Rochembeau called him "Mon Petite General" because the Frenchman towered over him. Grenadiers were originally selected for their height, and the Potsdam Gaurds were all over 6 feet. Napoleon was considered small at 5'2". I doubt if he was 2" shorter than average his stature would have been much remarked upon, thus I'm guessing he was considerably smaller than his peers, who must on average have been taller than 5'4".

That said, I don't know the heights of the ancestors. I've often wondered if the heights were averaged to 5'4" by reckoning everyone, much the way mortality tables are calculated. For instance, the avergae life expectancy of an 18th century European was calculated at 50 years because of high infant mortality and epidemic disease. The 50 years is accurate but misleading because by the time you factor in all the people born in the 18th century to the attrition of infant mortality, childbirth, and epidemics like smallpox, the lifesapn for everyone is abbreviated. I've walked a lot of old cemetaries and the biblical 3 score and 10 is not uncommonly encountered. "Ezra Bodwitch" might have passed away at 81, and buried beside him are 3 wives. One dying at 17 in childbirth. 1 dying at 38 in childbirth, and one tough old hen who survived him. All about him are interred a parcel of children, aged a few days to several years. Take a single family in residence at the old cemetery and average their lifespans, and you might perhaps come up with 50 years.

Likewise, take your 18th century 6 footer and compare his height with the heights of his children who pre-deceased him, and that 6 footer will shrink "on average."

This is all guess work on my part, but I don't think a 6 foot male was qualified to be an 18th century circus freak.

I don't know how tall Daniel Boone was, but he is reputed to have preferred a barrel length that came up to his chin. I'm 6 feet and my 42" barreled fowler has an overall height of 60" My chin is 5'4" above the ground. I would have to add 4" to the barrel to bring the barrel to my chin, and that would require a 46" barrel.

If Daniel Boone stood 5'8" a 42" barrel would come to his chin. At 5'6" a 40" barrel would come to his chin. Unless we're dealing with an 18th century denizen of Swift's Lilliputia I would think the average sized 18th century man, would find a 30" barrel too short to load quickly.

 

[48mauser]

Could you explain how the barrel length relates to loading ease and speed? Thanks Paul P.

 

[Iron Jim Rackham]

The problem with a muzzleloading carbine is that when loading prepared cartridges, you have to squat down to load a carbine. If you're shooting is confined to loading loose powder and ball, you may not notice the extra time, but it becomes immediately apparent when using pre-loaded ammo.

I used foil cartridges when loading flintlock smoothbores, and plastic loading tubes whjen shooting rifled carbines in the N-SSA. It will take you a few seconds more to squat to seat the projectile in the muzzle.

With longer barreled muskets or rifles, you don't have to squat, since with the butt of the musket on your left foot, the muzzle is chest height, and you can load much more readily.

Civil War musketoons and carbines tend to be even shorter than flintlock "carbines". An Enfield musketoon has a 24" barrel, an Enfield cavalry carbine has a 21" barrel. Resting the butt on your foot, means the barrel will be about as high as your navel. You have to bend or squat to load them.

I like the sight picture of an Enfield musketoon, and prefer it to the sights on a Sharps, or Smith. I also like being able to shoot the same ammo in a carbine as I do in a rifle or musket. However, I am at a real time disadvantage with a muzzleloader versus a breehloader. Carbine competition is restricted to any single shot arm whether it loads from the front or back. Needless to say, a backloader has a higher rate of fire than a front loader. I find Enfield musketoons to be very accurate, so I believe what I loose in loading time, I compensate for with accuracy. If I can only break 2 clays with 6 shots from a Smith, versus 2 clays for 2 shots with a musketoon, I'm competitive. The problem of course is when your shooting against guys who can break 5 or 6 out of 6 shots with a Smith. They are then just as accurate as I am with the musketoon and a heck of a lot faster.

 

[paulvallandigham]

I am willing to be convinced that there is some delay in loading a 30 or 36 inch barrel, or even a 24 inch barrel, but you have failed so far. I don't now where you carry your spare loads, but mine are either in a separate box on my belt, or in my possible's bag, which is also carried at belt height.

If a barrel comes up to my navel, it is above my belt, but lower than my chest, ( where my 39 inch barrel reaches). I find it very easy, and actually a savings in gross motor motion of my hands and arms, if the distance to my belt is small, rather than larger, causing me to have to take more time to load the muzzle. I have to look down at the muzzle, anyway, no matter how long the barrel is, so that I get the powder patch( or paper) and ball( or bullet) started straight, so bending my head over causes no additional delay in loading. The ramrod is below my eye level for both guns, which actually save me time in reaching for it with my hand. I can remove it, and center it in the barrel to run the ball home without looking, regardless of barrel length, although with really long barrels, where the muzzle may be at shoulder height or higher, Lifting the rod out and up may be a delay. I tend to kick the butt out on my guns so that the muzzle is at the center of my chest. I don't know if British troops in close order ranks had such a luxury loading long barreled Besses. With the shorter barrel, I don't have to worry about needed some space on the ground away from me to set the butt of the gunstock while I busy myself at the muzzle of the gun.

So, I am at a loss to understand how shooting a shorter barreled gun is somehow a disadvantage in loading time. If anything, it would speed things up, particularly when using paper cartridges.

Inquiring minds ask dumb questions. Humor me, please.

 

[mikee51848]

I think that anyone making a definitive statement about a Brown Bess would be wrong. There are enough exceptions to the rules, that there were barely any rules.

You got that right. :applause:
I was told, by "experts" on this board, that the lock on the Pedersoli Bess is incorrect, that Grice 1762 is incorrect. Then I look in Neumann's book and guess what I see, a Grice 1762 lock. :hmm:

 

[Iron Jim Rackham]

Well, I can only speak from experience. Definitive proof would require you to load both arms from the cartridge box, and see which you can load faster over the duration of several volleys.

Theoritcally, a pistol should be reloaded in less time than a long gun. I don't know anyone, (nor did I possess the ability )to actually load a pistol in less time than a long gun.

Try it. See how many rounds you can get off in 5 minutes with a carbine or 5 minutes with a musket. My bet is that you'll get off more with the musket. Timing 2 reloads with either arm isn't a fair test. Try five minutes. In 5 minutes with a smoothbore musket, you should empty a 20 round cartridge box. In five minutes with a rifled musket, you should have fired not less than a dozen times, and you should be able to achieve 15 rounds with practice.

 

[Many Klatch]

According to Blackmore, on June 1764, the Clerk of the Small Gun Office reported that in the late war, many Gentlemen of the Army complained about guns with locks with old dates on them that had just been made into new guns. Apparently the troops were not happy with a new gun with an old dated lock. Therefore all new locks will only say Tower and all old locks to be repaired shall be altered in the same manner.

So again, everybody is right and wrong at the same time. Up to 1764 the Bess's may have had dates on the locks. After 1764 they did not. :thumbsup:

 

[Iron Jim Rackham]

I'm sure others can go into more detail on the subject, but the regimental structure of the British army in the 18th century required the Colonel to purchase arms for his regiment. Very often Colonels remained behind, while the Majors actually led the troops in the field. The Colonel might be seen as a military jobber, supplying the King with armed troops. Because some Colonels earlier in the century, had purposefully purchased the cheapest arms available, the Board of Ordinance established guideline for the purchase and issue of arms.

Bascially the Board stipulated that the arms had to be .75 caliber. This was felt necessary since during Marlborough's campaigns the army was faced with a logistical nightmare of supplying troops with ammunition in a varity of calibers.

The Board also, established the sealed patterns the arms adopted had to conform to. In practice the board approved arms, and components and applied their wax seals to the arms indicating board approval. The various English gunmakers, then fabricated arms to this pattern.

Since the English lockmaking trade was well established by the early 18th century, the various lockmakers had their names and date of production cast in the plates. These locks and components remained in storage until needed for fabrication.

This system made possible the appearance of a 1728 Jordan lock on a musket that wasn't fabricated until the following decade. Because the colonels were required to arm the troops, and replace any damaged arms that had not withstood a dozen years in service, these lock dates became a source of argument between the colonel, commissary and ordinance. The Colonel would deny his liability for the replacement of an arm, on the basis of the musket being a dozn years old when received. The commissary would argue that the arm was new, as issued despite the older lock date, since the arm was recently manufactured.

After the 7 years war, the Board got tired of these arguments, and prohibited the casting of the locks with the makers name and date. Prior to the American Revolution newly manufactured muskets bore only the Royal cipher, arrow and Tower marks.

With the outbreak of the American Revolution, the shortage of sufficient King's muskets required the British to issue older arms as well. I believe the highlanders in Burgoyne's army were issued Long Land Muskets with wooden rammers. Theoritically these arms should have been superceded by Long Land Muskets with barrels cut down to 42" and issued with iron rammers during the 7 years war, but apparently the arsenals never got around to it.

It would be possible to encounter amongst the British forces serving in North America virtually every approved musket from the 1720's through the 1770's. This would not have revived Marlboroughs logistical nightmare since these arms would have been of the same bore, and thus used the same ammunition. Presumably, their was uniformity of arms by regiment, or at least by company.

 

[Wes/Tex]

The musket in Neumann's book has been cussed and discussed from time to time in the past. Final consensous seems to be that the gun has been re-fitted with an earlier lock made for either a Sea Service or Marine & Militia model which were the forrunners of the Short Land, New Model musket that usually gets called the Second Model Brown Bess. It's also possible that the gun was originally made with this lock as old locks were used up from stores, especially during wartime. The Board of Ordnance ruled the end of maker-marked locks in 1764 and the Short Land, New Model infantry musket was ordered in June 1768, with production starting in 1769, five years after the new lock markings should have commensed.

As for surviving cut-down muskets, it's true older guns were shortened during use by trimming 2 to 4 inches off the muzzle as wear required. Actual surviving guns seem to be mostly Sea Service muskets (one with 37" barrel) which were probably done to make them easier to use aboard ship...this is speculation now since written orders have never been located, but few gun do exist. Even shorter length guns exist but every one I've seen illustrated are guns remade from parts for cavalry use. It's definitely a tough topic to make definite statements about.