Help With Some Alaska Mythbusting

[Cosmoline]

note--I'm not sure if this should be here or in smoothbores. Feel free to relocate mods

No, I'm not Jamie or Adam. But my older bro is a curator and has suggested something that might entail me buying a new thunder stick. Needless to say I was all ears :grin: There's an old myth/story about the Battle of Sitka and some of the first encounters between the Tlingit warriors and the late 18th / early 19th cnt Russian traders encroaching on their turf.

The Tlingits wore armor and war helms made from hardwoods and layers of other material. Legend has it that when the Russians fired their muskets the balls did not penetrate or were flattened and rendered less effective by this layered armor. This has been dismissed as nonsense, but the only way to be sure is test it. My bro has the armor front taken care of and can recreate test versions. Obviously we're not going to use any priceless antiques in this!

What I need to do is come up with a creditable recreation of a flintlock musket of the late 18th century period that would have been in use by the Russian trappers of Alaska. I doubt anyone makes a repro, but then again I know little about the pre-Mosin and Berdan days of Imperial Russian arms. The natives were mostly using war clubs and some trade muskets at that time. My best guess is the Russian troops would be outfitted with French-style muskets of Napoleonic vintage. But I haven't been able to confirm that. Anyone know?

I'm also wondering if the powder they were using would have been significantly inferior to modern goex ffg.

My own theory is that the Russians were aiming at the masks instead of the man. The war helms sat up high and were solid hardwood, so shooting them would not hurt the person underneath. The warrior's head and face were actually hidden behind a visor underneath the helm that formed the "neck" of the helmet head. But there's only one way to find out--load up and head to Birchwood.

"The Kolushans (Tlingits) wore their armor which consisted of wooden rods bound together with leather thongs. Their faces were protected with masks which represented the heads of bears, dogfish, and other animals and gave a frightening appearance. On their heads they wore large wooden hats which fastened to the rest of their armor with thongs. Their WEAPONS consisted of lances, bows and the two pointed daggers. The Russians aimed directly at their heads, but the bullets did not penetrate the thick head covering. The more intense the fire of the Russians became, the more vigorous was the storming of new hordes of attackers."

http://www.thelondonwarroom.com/Knights of Pacific Northwest by Chris Feree Page1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sitka

 

[Cosmoline]

FYI, this is about the only illustration I can find of a period Russian musket:
http://www.therifleshoppe.com/(894).htm

Is there anything similar repro-wise that could be bought?

 

[Le Grand]

Cosmo, The info you dug up on the Russian doglock musket was very interesting. However, for your shooting tests you could certainly use any of the .69 caliber muskets. A "Charleyville" would easily do the trick. And, the trade gun held in the hands of the Indian in the picture is clearly a Northwest Gun, probably from the Hudson's Bay Co. If an accurate copy of the Northwest Gun interests you, see North Star West at www.northstarwest.com.

 

[Zonie]

The only information I have about Russian arms of that period is from a book titled "Great Century of GUNS" by Branko Bogdanovic and Ivan Valencak cw 1986, Published by GALLERY BOOKS NY. NY.

"As early as the first years of the 18th century Russia was acquainted with the Swedish type of Snapphahn mechanism. Under Peter the Great, these archaic models were slowly replaced by Prussian flintlock types. The same ruler also founded the first state institution for the manufacture of guns, on February 15, 1712 in Tula. Soon after this, the Russians became obsessed with changing muskets; within the first two decades of the 18th century, certain infantry regiments were armed with muskets of four or five different calibres and the dragoons with eighteen!..."

The book does show a M. 1839 Carbine which was rifled with 8 grooves. It was a .65 caliber gun.

Elsewhere the book shows a Prussian M1723 musket. This was a .748-.787 caliber smoothbore with a 41 inch long barrel.

Based on the above, I would think that a fair test of the helmets could be made with any Flintlock smooth bore in the .69-.75 caliber range using a moderate powder charge of 65-70 grains of 2Fg powder.

 

[smokehouseman]

May I suggest the best source of information may come by contacting the curator at Sitka National Historical Park, the location of the battle.

 

[flintlock75]

Cosmoline,
The Anchorage Museum has a Russian musket and bayonet on display along with part of a block house and a cannon.
The musket is simalar to a french musket, the display says it is .77 cal. 3 bands on the barrel.
The helmets of the Tligkits were made of cedar, not exactly a hard wood. The wood and Bone armor of these warriors were designed to protect against the weapons of other tribes, firearms would make short work out of wood and bone armor.
Also the mass of the projectile hitting someone in the head would knock you down if not kill you just from the impact, even if it stopped in the wood. I conducted a test like yours years ago using 16th century steel armor. A .72cal lead ball with 70grs of 2F went through the breast plate a 30 yards, it left a jagged hole. A .45 cal lead ball from a pistol with 30grs of 3F only dented the metal.The armor was made from 16ga steel. The Russians were probably just bad shots.
Good luck with your test. it should be fun to do.

 

[Cosmoline]

I suspect you're correct. The Russian troops would have been a little disconcerted at the sight of their enemies and their marksmanship was probably not the best. There are a lot of Tlingit hats and helms that are not true war helmets. IIRC there are only a tiny handful of true battle helmets in existence now. One recently sold for over two million dollars. We will not be using that one for target practice :grin:

The real ones were apparently not made of cedar but of specially chosen and prepared Sitka spruce burls. We will be using a variety of materials though.
http://www.fairfieldauction.com/links/news.htm

 

[AaronT]

Another factor to consider is the powder they had. Russian troops were almost always poorly supplied. I wonder if there are any diaries or reports at the time that might mention bad or faulty powder being issued to them?

 

[dave_person]

Cosmoline,
My wife and I work with Sitka spruce root wads and burl frequently. It is very tough and heavy. So much so that cutting it with a bandsaw is very slow. Also, folks need to remember the cedar and spruce were old-growth not the weak, knotty, fast-grown softwood manure you are used to in the lower 48. Old-growth yellow cedar is as hard as birch, which is why I used it to make my benchtop. It may have as many as 50-75 growth rings per inch.

dave

 

[tg]

The Russians did a number on many of the locals, at various times, theywere rather katecommers as far as European explores went I think their first expidition was in the 1740's by Baranoff? and a German or Dutch Dr, named Stellar and they pretty much were limited to the Aleutians of a bit farther befoe they headed back and wreaked and had to rebuild a boat to return to the port from which the launched which may have been built for that particular expidition? Kamchaka? It has been a while since I reda up on and Russky stuff.

 

[Cosmoline]

My understanding is they were strictly interested in fur, not colonizing. The only permanent mark, apart from killing off the last of the sea cows, was the Orthodox church. A number of monks and priests converted locals and did what they could to protect them from abuse by the company.

 

[Cap'n ted]

You might also try contacting the Sheldon Jackson museum in Sitka. As I recall, they had a collection of firearms that may include some from the Russian period.

I do recall seeing the short military carbines there and was told they were used during the russian fur harvests to kill sea otters from kayaks. It appeared to me they would have been well suited to the task!

Good luck on your testing.

 

[Cosmoline]

Thanks for the tip! I know my bro is in contact with them. At this point I'm probably going to just get a 20 ga. or thereabouts smoothbore flitlock and use that for the equivalent. I'm actually curious to see if there's anything magical about spruce burl that would stop a slug.

 

[Doc Arroyo]

Sounds like a very interesting experiment. :hmm:

One thing. If you can get reliable accuracy from your Charleville, try shooting the "edges" or angles of the armor. Nearly every time a production does a test like this for bow or gun against armor they show a direct center mass hit. Very little surprise that the armor fails that test.

I would be interested if the armor was effective when hit with a glancing blow. Or if the ball passed through on victim, and then bounced off of the armor. I think that these types of events are what legends are made of!

 

[benvenuto]

are you sure it was military muskets they were using, not hunting fusils?
From what I recall the russian-siberian hunting smoothbores and rifles were pretty small calibre .40-.62 for the same reason american hunters chose small bores - economy of lead.
Heres a siberian rifle from 1915- prettier than most but you can just see the baltic snaphance lock. Shape has not changed in 300 years
Siberian rifle- Folk art collection, State Russian Museum ,St Petersburg

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

How about that! Flint ignition alive and well in 1915!!! :hatsoff:

 

[Cosmoline]

I've seen a picture of an Eklutna man carrying a flintlock from around the turn of the last century. I've been trying to track it down.

The conflict in question was the Battle of Sitka, but I'm not sure what Baranov's men were armed with. That's one question that needs to be answered. I believe they were armed as a quasi-military force, more than for simply trapping and hunting. They also had a large number of Aleut allies, but I don't know if they had firearms. The Tlingits did have some trade guns at least.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

As has been mentioned, Russian muskets of the period would have resembled the French model. The hardest ingredient in the mix to duplicate is the powder. Some will say it was stronger than what we have today and others say the opposite. And a significant difference in velocity between what the old Russians had and what we have would skew the results badly. I'm not sure there is anything to be done about this either.

 

[Cosmoline]

What I mean is I don't know for a fact what Baranov's men were actually armed with. I have assumed it was Russian military muskets, but then again I don't know for sure. I'm tracking down some books on the subject of that expedition which should help.

The question of powder is also a big one, and I'm looking into books about the Russian military during the Napoleonic conflict for more info.

 

[Tinker2]

I do recall seeing the short military carbines there and was told they were used during the russian fur harvests to kill sea otters from kayaks.

Kayak guns? :stir:


Tinker2