Brown Bess -Why

[FlinterNick]

Whoa, Nelly. Grin. I'm going to have to ask you to explain that more fully.

I agree the French were the first to really try to make interchangeable parts muskets in their national armories, but they did not succeed in the 18th century.

Gus

Hi Gus, I was reading through Didler Bianchi’s book, I think I’m a generation too late, according to Bicanchi the model 1777 muskets were fully interchangeable in 1777 (Bianchi, page 58-59).

Bodrouits prints I had to translate in french, he seems to specify that they were interchangeable between factories.

I would call it an advantage over the Bess, making the armor’s job in the field much more easier in terms of replacing broken parts.

Personally while the concepts that the 1777 brings to the table I think are great, however the musket itself I’ve always felt was a poor design. The band system was over engineered, with screws… screws are very easy to lose, Bianchi points this fact out. That screws were often lost for the front band’s retaining screw. The slanted brass pan’s intended use to tilt the flash away had minor success, however the tilted pan did have a beneficial purpose to the rank and file reloading systems. While priming the musket could be held at an angle where rank space was limited.

The cheek recess (a useless feature) I think was a way for the french to avoid the rail comb, a rather expensive feature on muskets, the Americans got it right with the 1816 musket when they simply made the comb and wrist join and the British adopted this feature on the New Land Pattern Infantry Musket.

The 1777 was also widely copied in Europe and America.

 

[FlinterNick]

I'm surprised that no-one to this point has mentioned the Calibre difference between the French Charleville .69cal, and British Bess .75cal.

Consider this, a Brit Soldier or Colonial Militiaman could use the French .69cal Balls in a pinch from Battlefield pick ups, but the French Troops, Partisan Militia and their Indian allies armed with Charlevilles couldnt use the Bess .75cal Balls.

French guns were .72 caliber, and could take a ball up to .69.

 

[Artificer]

Hi Gus, I was reading through Didler Bianchi’s book, I think I’m a generation too late, according to Bicanchi the model 1777 muskets were fully interchangeable in 1777 (Bianchi, page 58-59).

Bodrouits prints I had to translate in french, he seems to specify that they were interchangeable between factories.

I would call it an advantage over the Bess, making the armor’s job in the field much more easier in terms of replacing broken parts.

Personally while the concepts that the 1777 brings to the table I think are great, however the musket itself I’ve always felt was a poor design. The band system was over engineered, with screws… screws are very easy to lose, Bianchi points this fact out. That screws were often lost for the front band’s retaining screw. The slanted brass pan’s intended use to tilt the flash away had minor success, however the tilted pan did have a beneficial purpose to the rank and file reloading systems. While priming the musket could be held at an angle where rank space was limited.

The cheek recess (a useless feature) I think was a way for the french to avoid the rail comb, a rather expensive feature on muskets, the Americans got it right with the 1816 musket when they simply made the comb and wrist join and the British adopted this feature on the New Land Pattern Infantry Musket.

The 1777 was also widely copied in Europe and America.

I completely understand the concept of Interchangeable Parts, because I have studied it for years in ML and modern guns.

I also understand there were claims to it having been done many times including Eli Whitney, when he did that dog and pony show with loose fitting muskets, but it wasn't actually accomplished until John Hall did it in the 1820's at his Rifle Works and then taught Harpers Ferry Armory how to do it, thanks to all the machines Hall invented.

Does Didler Bianchi’s book explain how it was supposedly done?

Gus

 

[FlinterNick]

Point of order. The King’s Arm does not have a “bayonet lug.” She has a front sight that happens to help lock the bayonet in place. Every original reference I have seen in 30+ years working in museums has used the term “sight” and I haven’t seen a one call it a bayonet lug.
Now, that French poodle shooter has a bayonet lug in addition to the sight. My only problem with the Charlevilles and St. Étiennes is that the rearmost band is exactly where my left hand goes, and I have the devil of a time aiming one because every time I shoulder them, I grab the band and it slides forward.
Jay

Disagree with this, the purpose of the square lug on a Brown Bess is for the Bayonet not a front sight. The British didn’t have an aim command in their ranking systems, to add to this concept, the lug is a square, while it can be used a rudimentary front sight because its a square it will have little benefit to aiming. Many brown Bess’s repro’s have a small groove filed down the center of the front sight for aiming, I’ve never seen this on an original.

 

[FlinterNick]

I completely understand the concept of Interchangeable Parts, because I have studied it for years in ML and modern guns.

I also understand there were claims to it having been done many times including Eli Whitney, when he did that dog and pony show with loose fitting muskets, but it wasn't actually accomplished until John Hall did it in the 1820's at his Rifle Works and then taught Harpers Ferry Armory how to do it, thanks to all the machines Hall invented.

Does Didler Bianchi’s book explain how it was supposedly done?

Gus

Bianchi does not , however Boudroit and I’m hesitant to quote him because I’ve had to translate the books, says parts were interchangeable between factories, Charleville, St.Entinne, and Maugbege and some that were manufactured at the Paris armories. So this would lend me to think interchangeable parts would still need to be sorted between factories, not totally interchangeable in concept.

 

[Joemolf]

I have a dozen ... all different makers and models. I love shooting them and using them for competition as well as for reenactments. ...

Why so many? They are for anytime in the 60 years war, not just the Rev war or War of 1812, and for different units and individual persons.

The more the better no need to explain yourself

 

[Artificer]

Jay Templin said:
Point of order. The King’s Arm does not have a “bayonet lug.” She has a front sight that happens to help lock the bayonet in place. Every original reference I have seen in 30+ years working in museums has used the term “sight” and I haven’t seen a one call it a bayonet lug.
Now, that French poodle shooter has a bayonet lug in addition to the sight. My only problem with the Charlevilles and St. Étiennes is that the rearmost band is exactly where my left hand goes, and I have the devil of a time aiming one because every time I shoulder them, I grab the band and it slides forward.
Jay

Disagree with this, the purpose of the square lug on a Brown Bess is for the Bayonet not a front sight. The British didn’t have an aim command in their ranking systems, to add to this concept, the lug is a square, while it can be used a rudimentary front sight because its a square it will have little benefit to aiming. Many brown Bess’s repro’s have a small groove filed down the center of the front sight for aiming, I’ve never seen this on an original.

Hi Nick,

British Ordnance during the 18th century indeed did call it "the sight." Bailey notes this in at least two of his works, if not more.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Bianchi does not , however Boudroit and I’m hesitant to quote him because I’ve had to translate the books, says parts were interchangeable between factories, Charleville, St.Entinne, and Maugbege and some that were manufactured at the Paris armories. So this would lend me to think interchangeable parts would still need to be sorted between factories, not totally interchangeable in concept.

Thank you. Some rough interchangeability was accomplished when each French Government Armory forged their parts in their own dies and perhaps even using drilling jigs, though I have never heard of or read documentation the French did that, that early. However, the parts were not a "drop in fit" that denotes the true interchangeable parts system that Hall perfected here before anyone else in the world.

What the French DID excel at was their bore gauges that made their musket bores much more uniform in the 18th century than anyone else in the world and with more precise standards.

Gus

 

[springfield art]

I see a lot of you folks use Brown Bess's , nothing wrong with that ,They are fine Muskets. The question is why ? I know the Bess was used in by some American troops in the Revolution .
The Charleville's are more authentically American as they were used by the French allies and are the firearm which was copied/ evolved into US 1816 flintlock musket and on to the the Springfield smoothbore and rifle muskets . Surely the Committee of Safety musket would be more HC for Revolutionary war or 1812 war reenactors . I have sold 2 different COS muskets , both were well made, both were different enough to be easily differentiated from a Bess . Me? I'll keep shooting my 1777 Charleville . Just wondering .View attachment 121124

Well, golly, I have both Bess & Charly repros; people just love them. The Bess was surely used lots by the Americans during the Rev War, before France jumped in; the Frenchies wanted to make sure it was a good bet before committing. Plus the Bess went everywhere the British Empire went, all over the globe in many versions. I'm no expert, but your questioning is good, showing an inquiring mind and desire to learn history.

 

[FlinterNick]

Jay Templin said:
Point of order. The King’s Arm does not have a “bayonet lug.” She has a front sight that happens to help lock the bayonet in place. Every original reference I have seen in 30+ years working in museums has used the term “sight” and I haven’t seen a one call it a bayonet lug.
Now, that French poodle shooter has a bayonet lug in addition to the sight. My only problem with the Charlevilles and St. Étiennes is that the rearmost band is exactly where my left hand goes, and I have the devil of a time aiming one because every time I shoulder them, I grab the band and it slides forward.
Jay




Hi Nick,

British Ordnance during the 18th century indeed did call it "the sight." Bailey notes this in at least two of his works, if not more.

Gus

Hi Gus

We can agree to disagree on this concept of lug vs. front sight.

The square is a lug, and ‘respectfully’ had the British intended on it being a true front sight it would not have been a square, they would have adopted the Prussian and French and Dutch method of a semi/circle oblong brass sight with a bayonet lug beneath the muzzle.

It was a way to cut production costs for the British, we dont’ often realize it but brass was expensive and the work to add the front sight was an added expense. A lug that fixes the more important part of the gun, the bayonet can be used as front sight. Moller and Bailey both interchanges the terms I believe because of this.

Bailey interchanges the term stud / sight in his book(s).

From my perspective on the research from Goldstein, Neumann, Moller(interchanges the terminology), and prints by Ravensheer and edited by Bailey show me that its more often considered a bayonet lug that was used as a rudimentary front sight and various conversations with Jess Melot and Paul Ackerman.

Moller specifies that the bayonet lug was used as a front sight.

The 1764 commands does not include any intent to aim the musket. Present and fire.

From Goldstein’s book,

You’ll also notice the Dutch musket with a brass front sight and lower bayonet stud. Now consider that the British Brown Bess was more or less a musket that was heavily influenced by the Dutch, why exclude the brass front sight? Only conclusion I came with the assistance of others is that the British ranking system of present and fire, did not include aiming, the British didn’t intend for the musket to be aimed and Bailey.

With great respect, Nick.

 

[OhioHawkeye]

.... why they are so popular. ........ If you lived in the thirteen colonies then you were a British subject and you likely had limited access to french arms - if at all. Thus we have a prevalence of Brown Bess both then and now. ....

Well, aside from my previous post. I'll point out that they are the most common gun in the 60 years war time . period. (1754-1815) It was the beginning of the creation of two great countries on the North American continent.

As for a British subject.. if you were caught with even a haversack marked with the kings arms let alone a weapon, you'd have been tried and shot as a traitor, or thief. Same result. British subjects in the Colonies of North America were required to provide their own weapon and be part of a standing militia. Granted, there were instances where a citizen was issued a Bess, but that was always an extraordinary circumstance and though I've read mention of it, I can't recall who or where except sometime around 1770-pre rev war.

 

[Artificer]

Hi Gus

We can agree to disagree on this concept of lug vs. front sight.

The square is a lug, and ‘respectfully’ had the British intended on it being a true front sight it would not have been a square, they would have adopted the Prussian and French and Dutch method of a semi/circle oblong brass sight with a bayonet lug beneath the muzzle.

It was a way to cut production costs for the British, we dont’ often realize it but brass was expensive and the work to add the front sight was an added expense. A lug that fixes the more important part of the gun, the bayonet can be used as front sight. Moller and Bailey both interchanges the terms I believe because of this.

Bailey interchanges the term stud / sight in his book(s).

From my perspective on the research from Goldstein, Neumann, Moller(interchanges the terminology), and prints by Ravensheer and edited by Bailey show me that its more often considered a bayonet lug that was used as a rudimentary front sight and various conversations with Jess Melot and Paul Ackerman.

Moller specifies that the bayonet lug was used as a front sight.

The 1764 commands does not include any intent to aim the musket. Present and fire.

From Goldstein’s book,

You’ll also notice the Dutch musket with a brass front sight and lower bayonet stud. Now consider that the British Brown Bess was more or less a musket that was heavily influenced by the Dutch, why exclude the brass front sight? Only conclusion I came with the assistance of others is that the British ranking system of present and fire, did not include aiming, the British didn’t intend for the musket to be aimed and Bailey.

With great respect, Nick.

"If we see a platoon fire with ball at a mark, it is certain that many ball will fall short, and many go over, yet sufficient numbers will hit to do horrid execution. Suppose the same platoon in action, and it will undoubtedly fire with less justness."

"The companies being thus perfected in their duty, should begin to fire with ball, and practice it, as much as their allowance of ammunition and opportunity will permit, till they become good marksmen."
A Military Essay Containing Reflections on The Raising, Arming, Clothing, and Discipline of the British Infantry and Cavalry, by Campbell Dalyrymple 1761

Leaping, running, climbing precipices, swimming, skirmishing through woods, loading and firing in different attitudes at marks, [different firing positions used to shoot targets] and marching with remarkable rapidity, are the particular Exercises, to which these [Light Infantry] Companies should be trained…,
Cuthbertson, System, for the Complete Interior Management and Oeconomy of a Battalion of Infantry 1776

More:
The Aim of British Soldiers - Journal of the American Revolution (allthingsliberty.com)

Gus

 

[Flintlock Whiskey]

Since there are so many knowledgeable people on this thread regarding the Brown Bess, is it true that many of the muskets used by the Mexican army to take the Alamo were Besses? If so, were they sold/given to the Mexicans by England to poke us in the eye?

 

[Artificer]

More on Aiming and firing at marks in the British Army, these even earlier:

When ammunition was plentiful, the soldiers practiced firing several times a week. Occasionally prizes were offered to encourage the men to do well, as in the 43rd Regt in April of 1759:

"...the men are employed at firing at targets in which they are encouraged by presents from their Officers, according to their several performances."

Colonel Bouquet wrote the following request in the fall of 1764:

"Please pay to the above Men the premiums fixed in the public orders of the 20 Instant, viz; Three Dollars for the best shot, the next best Two Dollars, and four dollars for the two next best shotts in Each Battn...."

Both quotes from the book, A Soldier Like Way by Gale on page 25

Gus

 

[stephenprops1]

Hi,
American troops carried a lot of Besses over the course of the 18th century so they are just as important to Americans as the French muskets. As Gus wrote, they are the class act of the 18th century. COS muskets were not very common because few were made and they were often issued as a stop gap until better guns were available. I realize some folks use them for hunting, however, having experienced the handling and shooting of nice British fowlers, I much prefer those lighter and faster firing guns.
dave

What is a COS musket? I hate it when people use abbreviations like this and assume everybody knows what they are referring to.

 

[stephenprops1]

I see a lot of you folks use Brown Bess's , nothing wrong with that ,They are fine Muskets. The question is why ? I know the Bess was used in by some American troops in the Revolution .
The Charleville's are more authentically American as they were used by the French allies and are the firearm which was copied/ evolved into US 1816 flintlock musket and on to the the Springfield smoothbore and rifle muskets . Surely the Committee of Safety musket would be more HC for Revolutionary war or 1812 war reenactors . I have sold 2 different COS muskets , both were well made, both were different enough to be easily differentiated from a Bess . Me? I'll keep shooting my 1777 Charleville . Just wondering .View attachment 121124

France loaned the Colonies the money to purchase the Charleville muskets from French manufacturers. I read the cost then was $5.00 per gun. Also, I am sure many Brown Bess muskets made their way into American hands due to battlefield pickups, captured guns and private ownership before the war.

 

[FlinterNick]

What is a COS musket? I hate it when people use abbreviations like this and assume everybody knows what they are referring to.

committee of safety

 

[Grenadier1758]

Commitee of Safety (COS)

These were muskets ordered by various colonies to put serviceable muskets into the armories for the militia units. Often the specification for the musket was to be of the pattern of the King's Musket to have muskets in the armory that were compatible with the muskets in use by the Regular Army which at that time would have been the British Army.

 

[stephenprops1]

committee of safety

Thank you.

 

[FlinterNick]

France loaned the Colonies the money to purchase the Charleville muskets from French manufacturers. I read the cost then was $5.00 per gun. Also, I am sure many Brown Bess muskets made their way into American hands due to battlefield pickups, captured guns and private ownership before the war.

the french initially sent over french musket parts, locks, barrels, rammers and bayonets etc a lot of the parts shipped in were model 1728, 54, and early 63 patterns that were considered obsolete. Subsequent shipments in 76 and 77 contained the 1766-1774 patterns.