JSTOR is a good source, esp. for older articles. I'd suggest recommending it to your local library, if they don't have it (though I understand the UK govt is really cutting library funding).
When I worked in the UK - 30 years ago - it was excellent, we had a small hospital library and a librarian - who would even visit once a week Bristol to photocopy on our request articles from medical journals, didn't encounter such a thing here in Germany.
This paper describes the efforts of Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond, Master General of the Ordnance from 1782 until 1795, and the very talented gunsmith Henry Nock to give the British army a much-improved flintlock musket during the 1780s and early 1790s. New evidence from surviving prototypes illustrates the development of the rare musket that has become known as the ‘Duke of Richmond’s Musket’. The need for large quantities of arms to fight the wars with France resulted in the abandonment of this excellent gun in favour of the lower quality but much faster to make India Pattern Musket, and afterwards many Duke of Richmond Muskets were converted to conventional locks and then lost in the Tower of London fire of 1841. Only a handful of examples exist today.
This paper introduces the Duke of Richmond’s Muskets and their precursors as made by Henry Nock and others. It particularly explores the development pathway for Nock’s Screwless locks by examining the production variants, the known prototype and experimental versions and in particular the prototype breech loading muskets. There are now known to be three breech loading prototypes, two very similar guns with locks marked by Henry Nock and a similar gun that appears by comparison to locks known to be by Walter Dick to have a lock made by Dick. This examination indicates that Nock was likely to have been instructed to make the production lock smaller than the prototype and that a key design step that enabled this was the use of a small double-ended mainspring linked to the cock and actuating the steel (frizzen) via a lever as developed by Dick.
@Hans - Karl WeißI suppose it charts the transition from true Dragoons ie Mounted Infantry through Dragoon Guards and back to heavy cavalry.By the end of our period I wonder on the utility of carbines outside of outpost duty. Instances of pistol use in the melee following a charge are relatively common. It seems likely for example that Ewart took the eagle from another officer other than the Porte-Aigle. He was wounded in the thigh by a pistol shot, likely from the trumpeter.
In all nations, even on the ultra conservative French side, carbines got shorter and shorter, carbines were needed in light cavalry for skirmishing - before the Napoleonic time and indeed still in the French Revolution quite a lot of heavy cavalry regiments had long carbines, ones has to ask why?
This is a Nock screwless lock originally designed for Duke of Riichmond's muskets, but surplus locks were used on some 1796 Carbines. Very clever arrangement.
With the risk of paraphrasing and generalising notwithstanding!Main types:From Mid-18C until 1780-85ishShort Land Pattern with wooden ramrod 0.75 calibre and 42” barrelPattern 1770 Heavy Dragoon Carbine, phased out from1800, Lifeguards were still using in 18120.65 calibre and 42” barrelPattern 1796 Heavy Dragoon Carbine still in use 30 years later with some reported as having been converted to percussion.0.76 calibre 26” barrel There are numerous regimental patterns noted in the early part of the period, and rifled carbines, such as Baker Carbine for Life Guards. There were two models, the early one with a 0.625 calibre and the later one 0.75 but both using 7 grooves.This book concentrates on the firearms themselves, and is lavishly illustrated with glossy full colour shots, so is almost silent on cartridges.Doesn’t really give a 218 large format book justice, but I hope this helps?
In this case, the reenactor load was very close to the original charge. As I noted above, I fired my original Nock lock 1796 with 80 grains and it was quite mild. Twenty grains more would up reoil somewhat but it still would not come close to being prohibitive. Ball size used was .715. Used paper cartridge. Loading was relatively easy, even after 10 or so rounds had been fired.
Charges for re-enacting don't (often) have to account for actually firing a ball. It usually depends more on how loud a bang you want to make versus how much you want to spend on powder. Within safety limits of course. The guns are proofed with a lot of powder, plus ball. So they will take far more than we usually load.
I agree, in re - enactment due to safety polices those charges are sometime quite low - giving just a pif without recoil, especially then when you are not allowed to used a ramrod to charge home the paper and just have loose powder in the barrel and then only a tiny amount.
Those units I was a member - used the identical amount of powder as it was laid down for blanks used for drill, but even this amount was less than the regular powder charge with ball, for a musket it was usually half the ball weight, for cavalry it seemed to be less for the shorter carbines and pistols, but a heavy cavalry carbine could well still be loaded with the same charge as for an infantry musket in case they were of identical calibre.
No, I don't believe so. Subsequent to my original post I have been doing a bit more research and I'm inclined to believe it was in the 125-150-grain range. I shot mine the other day with 80 grains and it was a very light load--virtually no recoil at all. According to DeWitt Baily the standard Brown Bess load of the time was in the 200+-grain range. The 55-grain load would have been appropriate for a later .577 Minie cartridge for something like an Pattern 1856 Enfield Carbine. Thanks for your interest.
Hi Garry,Those original cartridges in the article I read must have been later then.I always thought that one of the advantages of the 1796 pattern was it’s calibre commonality with the Land and India Pattern Muskets. Would there have been .75 carbine cartridges at all or would normal Infantry natures be common to both? It certainly would ease an already complex ammunition supply problem.I would have thought the full Infantry load from the shorter weapon would have been a bit fierce. Of course, in extremis you didn’t have to put it all in I suppose.Perhaps the only way to be certain would be if we had an intact cartridge we could measure, but I would have thought them rare survivors?
@david Tomlinson Voila! Just this morning, in re-reading DeWitt Bailey's "Small Arms of the British in America 1664-1815" I found he states that a .75-caliber carbine cartridge load was 4 drams (110 grains). Allow 5 grains or so for priming and that means the propellant charge would have been just north of 100 grains. The musket load was 6 1/2 drams (178 3/4 grains.
BRITISH MILITARY SMOOTHBORE FIREARMS (Continued)
R. Scurfield
Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research Vol. 33, No. 135 (AUTUMN, 1955), pp. 110-113 (4 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44226274
BRITISH MILITARY SMOOTHBORE FIREARMS (Concluded)
R. Scurfield
Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research Vol. 33, No. 136 (WINTER, 1955), pp. 147-161 (17 pages)
BRITISH MILITARY SMOOTHBORE FIREARMS (Concluded) on JSTOR
The Rise and Fall of the Duke of Richmond’s Musket: Britain’s Finest but Least Known Flintlock Musket
Gregory W. Pedlow
Arms & Armour, Volume 13, 2016 - Issue 2
Abstract
This paper describes the efforts of Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond, Master General of the Ordnance from 1782 until 1795, and the very talented gunsmith Henry Nock to give the British army a much-improved flintlock musket during the 1780s and early 1790s. New evidence from surviving prototypes illustrates the development of the rare musket that has become known as the ‘Duke of Richmond’s Musket’. The need for large quantities of arms to fight the wars with France resulted in the abandonment of this excellent gun in favour of the lower quality but much faster to make India Pattern Musket, and afterwards many Duke of Richmond Muskets were converted to conventional locks and then lost in the Tower of London fire of 1841. Only a handful of examples exist today.
The Rise and Fall of the Duke of Richmond’s Musket: Britain’s Finest but Least Known Flintlock Musket: Arms & Armour: Vol 13, No 2 (tandfonline.com)
Henry Nock, Walter Dick and Charles Lennox, The Duke of Richmond, and the Journey to the Final Designs of the Nock screwless lock
David Williams
Arms & Armour, Volume 13, 2016 - Issue 1
Abstract
This paper introduces the Duke of Richmond’s Muskets and their precursors as made by Henry Nock and others. It particularly explores the development pathway for Nock’s Screwless locks by examining the production variants, the known prototype and experimental versions and in particular the prototype breech loading muskets. There are now known to be three breech loading prototypes, two very similar guns with locks marked by Henry Nock and a similar gun that appears by comparison to locks known to be by Walter Dick to have a lock made by Dick. This examination indicates that Nock was likely to have been instructed to make the production lock smaller than the prototype and that a key design step that enabled this was the use of a small double-ended mainspring linked to the cock and actuating the steel (frizzen) via a lever as developed by Dick.
Henry Nock, Walter Dick and Charles Lennox, The Duke of Richmond, and the Journey to the Final Designs of the Nock screwless lock: Arms & Armour: Vol 13, No 1 (tandfonline.com)
Military Arms of Canada
military-arms-of-canada.pdf (ashtonarmourymuseum.com)
May I draw your attention to this work
Let me know if that is of any use
@Hans - Karl Weiß I suppose it charts the transition from true Dragoons ie Mounted Infantry through Dragoon Guards and back to heavy cavalry. By the end of our period I wonder on the utility of carbines outside of outpost duty. Instances of pistol use in the melee following a charge are relatively common. It seems likely for example that Ewart took the eagle from another officer other than the Porte-Aigle. He was wounded in the thigh by a pistol shot, likely from the trumpeter.
This is a Nock screwless lock originally designed for Duke of Riichmond's muskets, but surplus locks were used on some 1796 Carbines. Very clever arrangement.
Nope.
Thanks. I do have that book and it has been of much assistance in my research. FYI, here's my 1796 Carbine.
With the risk of paraphrasing and generalising notwithstanding! Main types: From Mid-18C until 1780-85ish Short Land Pattern with wooden ramrod 0.75 calibre and 42” barrel Pattern 1770 Heavy Dragoon Carbine, phased out from1800, Lifeguards were still using in 1812 0.65 calibre and 42” barrel Pattern 1796 Heavy Dragoon Carbine still in use 30 years later with some reported as having been converted to percussion. 0.76 calibre 26” barrel There are numerous regimental patterns noted in the early part of the period, and rifled carbines, such as Baker Carbine for Life Guards. There were two models, the early one with a 0.625 calibre and the later one 0.75 but both using 7 grooves. This book concentrates on the firearms themselves, and is lavishly illustrated with glossy full colour shots, so is almost silent on cartridges. Doesn’t really give a 218 large format book justice, but I hope this helps?
This book may be of interest (I don't own it): https://www.napoleon-series.org/reviews/reference/c_BritishCarbines.html
In this case, the reenactor load was very close to the original charge. As I noted above, I fired my original Nock lock 1796 with 80 grains and it was quite mild. Twenty grains more would up reoil somewhat but it still would not come close to being prohibitive. Ball size used was .715. Used paper cartridge. Loading was relatively easy, even after 10 or so rounds had been fired.
Charges for re-enacting don't (often) have to account for actually firing a ball. It usually depends more on how loud a bang you want to make versus how much you want to spend on powder. Within safety limits of course. The guns are proofed with a lot of powder, plus ball. So they will take far more than we usually load.
These reenactors say a charge of "no more than 100 grains", for what it's worth. See p. 16
http://www.19th-light-dragoons.ca/uploads/1/3/3/8/13380368/xix_19th_light_dragoons_handbook.pdf
No, I don't believe so. Subsequent to my original post I have been doing a bit more research and I'm inclined to believe it was in the 125-150-grain range. I shot mine the other day with 80 grains and it was a very light load--virtually no recoil at all. According to DeWitt Baily the standard Brown Bess load of the time was in the 200+-grain range. The 55-grain load would have been appropriate for a later .577 Minie cartridge for something like an Pattern 1856 Enfield Carbine. Thanks for your interest.
Wasn't the standard carbine cartridge around 55 grains?