• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

The Brown Bess in combat- how effective was it ?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
And Arnold would be a hero of the revolution today. Maybe ending his public career as President Arnold.

Arnold would have been much much more. In Government he would have likely held high positions, possibly secretary of war (but not the treasury lol). He most certainly would have had a hand in drafting the constitution.

The major problem I see with Arnold is that deep within him (his personality) there was always a side that was corruptable, that corruption would have most certainly followed him in his later days.
 
I've heard somewhere, maybe the History Channel, the Brown Bess was the AK-47 of its day. Not a rapid fire weapon, but the assault rifle of the 18th century.

Troops of the day walked to battle, or by ship. Either way you had plenty of time to drill. By the time you got to the battlefield you were proficient in everything except shooting.

The French model 1777 was referred to as the AK47 of its day, I think I saw that on a Pedersoli webpage.

But the 1777 and earlier Charleville muskets were copied almost everywhere around the world. Italy, Spain, Austria, Prussia and even Russia and the Ottomans would develop military muskets along the lines of the Charleville pattern. Each country had its own specifications, one of which was increasing the caliber from .68 to .75 in Prussia, and Austria. the US armories first arm was patterned after the 1766 Charleville and French designs were followed pretty closely in America.

Brown Bess. Vs. Charleville.... I’ve always seen the Charleville as the more versatile weapon in the field. It was lighter, easier to clean, pretty accurate and sturdy. Its main drawback was the smaller caliber often lent it at a disadvantage when battles carried on and on, a .69 bore fouls out much quicker than a .78 bore.
 
IMHO first and second model bess was the most beautiful military gun and among the most beautiful guns ever made.
Beauty don’t win battles. But them redcoat boys did do pretty well around the world.
The revolution was an anomaly. It was a long way away, it wasn’t a real popular war on the home front, the ‘enemy’ was their own people, they had a big theater, there was no real capital to target, the ground was a nightmare.
Nearly two centuries later, America with steam-and diesel powered ships, radio and instant communication, and air travel was hard pressed to fight in WW2.
The Brits were at the limit of their technological abilities.
In the F and I France was the enemy and so in America both sides were equally stretched.
 
IMHO first and second model bess was the most beautiful military gun and among the most beautiful guns ever made.
Beauty don’t win battles. But them redcoat boys did do pretty well around the world.
The revolution was an anomaly. It was a long way away, it wasn’t a real popular war on the home front, the ‘enemy’ was their own people, they had a big theater, there was no real capital to target, the ground was a nightmare.
Nearly two centuries later, America with steam-and diesel powered ships, radio and instant communication, and air travel was hard pressed to fight in WW2.
The Brits were at the limit of their technological abilities.
In the F and I France was the enemy and so in America both sides were equally stretched.

I’m a huge of the Brown Bess, just not as a military arm. I was recently having someone work on a 1756 long land Kit by the Rifleshoppe, things didn’t workout so well unfortunately.

The 1756 musket is my favorite, its a monster of a weapon.
 
Not familiar with it, 'monster' in terms of actual size, or caliber ?
Of the Bess' the carbine makes the most sense to me from a handling standpoint. Am still trying to wrap my mind around volley fire, small wonder the Native Americans who encountered it didn't respect it. I guess no one told them the rules.

I’m a huge of the Brown Bess, just not as a military arm. I was recently having someone work on a 1756 long land Kit by the Rifleshoppe, things didn’t workout so well unfortunately.

The 1756 musket is my favorite, its a monster of a weapon.
 
Not familiar with it, 'monster' in terms of actual size, or caliber ?
Of the Bess' the carbine makes the most sense to me from a handling standpoint. Am still trying to wrap my mind around volley fire, small wonder the Native Americans who encountered it didn't respect it. I guess no one told them the rules.

A 46 inch barrel musket with a .78 bore, weighing around 12 lbs is a monster.
 
Its very possible that irregular troops and militia did use patched round balls in muskets, simply because it was what was available to them.
Based on that idea,

It's also possible that militia units used cubed projectiles, instead of a lead ball. A lot easier to make when one does not have a mold but only bars of lead.
and so, it's more likely they loaded some sort of wad between the bare ball and the powder, with something on top to hold it in place. A lot easier, and cheaper.

Which may be why there are no references to either practice. ;)

LD
 
. Am still trying to wrap my mind around volley fire, small wonder the Native Americans who encountered it didn't respect it. I guess no one told them the rules.
I think it was Napoleon who said God is on the side with the most guns. That’s not fully correct. There are lots of examples of the smaller army winning.
Victory doesn’t go to the side with the most guns as much as the side that can keep the most projectiles in the air at one time.
Robert Heinlein said to get the first shot off fast, this gives you time to make your second shot count. Volley fire put a lot of lead in the area. A company of eighty men could discharge the equivalent of a six pounder load of canister no less then twice a minute. Volley fire just made a lot of sense.
 
Based on that idea,

It's also possible that militia units used cubed projectiles, instead of a lead ball. A lot easier to make when one does not have a mold but only bars of lead.
and so, it's more likely they loaded some sort of wad between the bare ball and the powder, with something on top to hold it in place. A lot easier, and cheaper.

Which may be why there are no references to either practice. ;)

LD

At a black powder gun fair in PA, one guy had explained they loved using wasp nests, termite wood, and bark fungus. I would imagine something like dried corn husks could work too, I mean if they wiped their Arses with it, why not.
 
IMG_20200702_183711.jpg

My son just bought a Pedersoli Brown bess musket. He has wanted one since a little boy. He's 22 years old and works hard and saved his nickels to buy one. These are his first shots with the bess. Benched at 50 yards using 70 grains of 2f ole eyensford powder and a .735 ball. Bee nest for wads.
His goal is to take a buck with his bess this year, I believe he Will. Why? Because last year he took a buck with my original Lorenz musket and the year before he shot a buck with his original 1842 Springfield musket.
Needless to say I'm proud of that young man!
 
Yes, Volley Firing could be done in an entire Regiment by "rolling" or having each platoon fire by volley and going right down the line and even stopping when some new threat like cavalry or artillery came forward, then changing the aiming point of the rest of the Regiment.

I had no documentation for this, but one aspect of my "bag of tricks" when I did UnCivil War reenacting was having the front and rear ranks fire "by the numbers." I would have my unit dress ranks and "count off" by ones and twos. Then I had the front rank volley fire by ones and reload. Then the rear rank fire by ones and reload. Then the front rank fire by two's and reload and the same for the rear rank. While it LOOKED like we had unloaded our muskets firing each time by rank, we kept up a continuous rate of firing. Commanders on both our side and the other could not believe how fast we reloaded and thus kept them at bay. Grin.

I used that tactic when we were the first to arrive on the field and had to give covering fire for units coming up and other times when our firing created quite the diversion for other units maneuvering.

My Corps Commander was often surprised by what could be done when thinking outside the box.

Gus
Shooting by file pairs (essentially your ones-and-twos) is a period technique.
Jay
 
Read “On Killing” by David Grossman.

Lots of evidence to suggest that (at least some) men shot high during the ACW (and many other wars throughout history) not just because of smoke etc., but in at least a fair number of cases, they did it on purpose.

The psychological technique of training soldiers to see the enemy not as a human being, but as a target, is relatively new. In other words, in past times many soldiers had a harder time killing one another due to a number of factors not the least of which was empathy.

Fascinating read and very enlightening. There’s also a theory to explain why so many muskets have been found loaded multiple times as well. Soldiers, at least some, would simply keep loading cartridges into their gun rather than shoot at the enemy. They’d seem like they were doing their job during all the noise and confusion but just did not want to fire at other people.

These are the authors (and others) opinion but the work is extremely well regarded and is considered standard reading on many military reading lists.
 
Shooting by file pairs (essentially your ones-and-twos) is a period technique.
Jay

If you mean "firing by files" as set forth in Hardee's Manual, indeed, I used that as a basis for some of the things I came up with. I also used "companions in battle" for the four man skirmish teams, as another inspiration.

On my second event as a Unit Commander in 1982, I only had 8 enlisted soldiers, so we were attached to one end of a Confederate line at a reenactment of 1st Manassas. I still retained mostly independent command, though. As we were beginning to gather just before the event began, two more soldiers came up and requested permission to join us and they did so in a most professional way. Now, by the cut of their jib, or rather their hips, I knew they were women, though they otherwise concealed their gender well. But something seemed familiar. As I got closer, the shorter one with mud on her face looked somewhat familiar. In surprise as I got close, I said, "Charlie, is that you?!" I knew her from local UnCivil War roundtable and other functions in Fredericksburg, but had never seen her in uniform. She smiled and said, "Yes, but don't tell anyone." (She preferred Charlie to her real name of Charlene.) Then I asked, "Charlie, do you and your companion know the manual of arms and basic marching?" She swore they did, so I invited them to join us. I don't think anyone else knew they were women outside a couple other members in my unit, though, so that was not totally incorrect for the period either.

Anyway, as I still had independent command of my troops on the end of the line, as the Federals approached; I had my troops spread out a bit further to the left and get down into the prone position. My reasoning was in that early of a battle, it was a good thing to do at first, because they would not as yet have "seen the elephant" and a better way to steady them. We fired some volleys, but also quite a few shots I yelled to individual soldiers to shoot at.

There was a "narrator" who did a running commentary on the actual battle over a loud loudspeaker system for the spectators. As I was ordering individual soldiers to fire at targets, the narrator got to a point in the written text of his narration explaining that most soldiers in the period fought standing up in ranks. He no more than got that out of his mouth and one of my soldiers rather loudly, shall we say, passed wind. I had to stuff my leather gauntlet into my mouth to keep from laughing and the rest my soldiers got a good chuckle; but at least it was covered from the spectators by other battle sounds of musketry and artillery. I was in the middle of giving an order, so I couldn't tell who had done it and knew better than to say anything at the time.

Charlie and her companion did everything asked of them very well and proper. She even did a pretty fair job of disguising her voice. When the battle was over, they came up to thank me for allowing them to join in. I told them they both did splendidly and they were welcome to join with us anytime, but I had not known Charlie had a male uniform and knew what she did. She then informed me she and her companion were usually with different artillery batteries, but they never allowed them to take to the field with them. They wanted to show them they could do the job. I looked at her and said, "Charlie, you know it is well documented that women disguised themselves as soldiers and fought and some did so for quite some time in the War." She said, "That's the point we made to them several times, but they wouldn't listen. Maybe now they will." I told them I would be happy to speak for their abilities on the field and told them, "If they don't want you, you are MORE than welcome to join us anytime!" They both thanked me again and we began to part.

However, Charlie turned around and asked in a smiling but conspiratory tone, "Hey Gus, what did you think of my answer to the Narrator on us not standing up?" It took me a second and when she smiled a Pixie Grin, it dawned on me and I said, "Was that YOU who did.....well....that?" She laughed and said, "I took advantage of a natural body function and just decided it was a good time to let it rip. " Now, I had never known Charlie not to be a feminine Lady, though with a slightly earthy humor, but she really surprised me. I blushed beet red and did not know what to say. They both beamed and Charlie said, "Gus, you are really cute when you blush." Of course that got me to blushing like a stop light and they both laughed. She told me she would have to tell the Ladies in my unit, so they could join in the fun as well. Let's just say after she informed the Ladies of my unit, they had a field day looking for ways to make me blush in the upcoming years.

Anyway, I did not learn for about three years that we had done almost exactly what Colonel Thomas Johnathan Jackson did at 1st Manassas at the start of the battle. He had his boys lay down in a long depression on the military crest of the hill, while waiting for orders to advance. That got them used to the sights and sounds of the battle before actually joining in. When I learned that, I was pleased I had done something similar to what Stonewall had done, even if I had not known he had done it.

Gus
 
Undoubtedly. The question wasn't whether or not that ball can do damage, but rather hitting that hunting shirt with unaimed fire.
Think of this way; a .50 BMG projectile does terrible damage, devestating. If you hit the target. Utterly harmless if you miss.

You don’t think a .65 caliber lead ball traveling at nearly the speed of sounds wouldn’t do a lot of damage to people in frock coats and hunting shirts?
 
Read “On Killing” by David Grossman.

Lots of evidence to suggest that (at least some) men shot high during the ACW (and many other wars throughout history) not just because of smoke etc., but in at least a fair number of cases, they did it on purpose.

The psychological technique of training soldiers to see the enemy not as a human being, but as a target, is relatively new. In other words, in past times many soldiers had a harder time killing one another due to a number of factors not the least of which was empathy.

Fascinating read and very enlightening. There’s also a theory to explain why so many muskets have been found loaded multiple times as well. Soldiers, at least some, would simply keep loading cartridges into their gun rather than shoot at the enemy. They’d seem like they were doing their job during all the noise and confusion but just did not want to fire at other people.

These are the authors (and others) opinion but the work is extremely well regarded and is considered standard reading on many military reading lists.
I think a lot of guys that kept loading their muskets without them going off was because of all the noise smoke and terror they forgot to prime the pan and when they pulled the trigger with all the smoke and rifles firing they thought theirs fired. they found rifles at Gettysburg filled almost to the muzzle with loads
 
Back
Top