cannot find a post

[tiger13]

I have looked and used the search feature, and I cannot for the life of me find a post where it said that the British army sometime in 1774 had issued an order to reduce the powder charge used in muskets from something like 30 something loads per pound to 40 something loads per pound, and it figured to 218 or so grains per charge down to 160 or so grains if I remember correctly, even if I don't have it exact, I am not far off. I read it on this forum somewhere, but I'll be dammed if I can find it, anyone here remember seeing this I know I read it here!

 

[BrownBear]

Whoooeee! It would be interesting to read, but I'm sure not firing my Bess with either charge. Egad. Recoil is getting stiffish for my tastes up around 100 grains, and I'm not recoil shy. No wonder we won the war! Redcoats were shooting with their eyes closed and their arms in splints.

 

[tiger13]

The powder must have been so much lower in quality than now, I have been to other forums where they had said the British had again readjusted the loads in the early 1800's down from the time period that I was trying to find in 1774, by about 4/5th for the use in there newer percussion muskets because the powder was improving in quality. I believe the 1774 load was something close to 218 grains! then they dropped it to I think 166. I thought it was ordered 32 rounds per pound, dropped to 42 rounds per pound. It you were to do that today that would not be a pleasant day at the range!

 

[BrownBear]

That makes me really wonder about the small powder measures surviving from that era that were used by civilians. Proportionally at least, a 50 grain charge of that powder would be the equivalent of less than a 25 grain charge of today's.

 

[matt denison]

quote:

I believe the 1774 load was something close to 218 grains! then they dropped it to I think 166.

I'm not buying that. It wouldn't fit in the paper cartridge belly box holes. 218 gr. is a lot of powder.

 

[Celt5494]

I have read that they did change their early regulation load. The reasoning was because powder was being wasted. Due to the heavy recoil of the larger powder charge. The soldiers would dump out some of the powder onto the ground while loading. It was said the charge was quite heavy and they wanted to minimize the recoil. The acutal issued charge and type escapes me though unfortunately.

 

[George]

... I know I read it here!

Yep. Don't remember the thread, but I posted that info some time back. Sorry, I can't give a precise citation as to the source. I collected it many years ago when I was mostly interested in the info.

From a member of the Revlist:

Shortly before the beginning of the war, orders were given that cartridges should be made using less powder than previously for Brown Bess in the British army:

"General after orders 21st Novr. [1774]

The Regiments will observe in firing at marks that the quantity of powder necessary for each cartridge (as it has been found upon many trials) that forty or forty- two Cartridges to a pound of powder will carry a ball truer than thirty two Cartridges, which is the number usualy made up with a pound of powder."

The reasoning seems sound, but some officers were skeptical of the decision:

"Yesterday was given out an Order to the Corps in Garrison, that when they fire with Ball they are to use Cartridges 42 in the pound, as they are found to throw a Ball with more justness and to do equal execution with those of 32 to the pound. By whose experiment has this been proved?"

That's all I have.

Spence

42/lb. = 167 gr.
40/lb. = 175 gr.
32/lb. = 219 gr.

 

[tiger13]

Thanks George I knew I had seen it before :hatsoff:

 

[ericb]

With loads like that, all I can think of is that without a reasonable amount of care, between biting off the end of the Cartridge and dumping powder in the Pan (especially in a Firefight) they might have been spilling a bunch on the ground. It's just a thought...

Eric