Brown Bess or Charleville?

Also here from the Journal Militaire, how to make a French cartridge

Picard was repeatedly from a fixed rest at a target 1.75m x 3.00m Müller at a representation of a line of cavalry, volley fire by formed infantry. Greener from a rest at target 6 feet by 20 feet Scharnhorst was a company of Grenadiers against a canvas target representing an enemy company. Some analysis of this Prussian data is given by Nafziger “Imperial Bayonets”

And of course a hit on a target would not necessarily result in a hit on a man, straight edged targets are not the same as complex body shapes. Then there in the issue of aiming for the centre of mass. This would mean multiple hits on those mid-ranks, although they would still count as a single casualty, although more likely a fatality. Some of the hits on the target may be ricochets, so will be ‘spent’. Likewise the practice by some soldiers of spilling some of the charge to reduce recoil could also contribute to the ineffectual hits. So not all hits would produce a wound. Some of these will be edge hits. These may graze or be a glancing blow. These may be so minor as not to be recorded as a wound. These factors go some way to explain the differences between trials and real world volleys.

Regarding the accuracy of a Brown Bess musket, this subject is covered at length in Volume 3 of David Harding's Small Arms of the East India Company which is a most comprehensive study on weapons capabilities of this era.

The East India Company infantry were trained and armed in a similar manner to the Crown forces, so although the information mainly relates to East India Company regiments, it is also relevant for British infantry.

The soldiers in these recorded practice sessions stood on their own and fired individual aimed shots at a target six feet tall by two feet wide. The percentage hits at various ranges, which are an average taken from the records of many regiments' target practice over many years, represent the firing of many thousands of rounds:

· At 80 yards, the soldiers hit the target with 31% of the rounds fired.

· At 100 yards, the soldiers hit the target with 25% of the rounds fired.

· At 120 yards, the soldiers hit the target with 19% of the rounds fired.

· At 200 yards, the soldiers hit the target with 8% of the rounds fired.

It should be recognised that the musket and service ammunition is actually more accurate than these figures suggest. These soldiers fired from a standing position with no support, so human error (sighting errors, unsteadiness in holding a heavy musket still, extremely heavy trigger pull on some muskets and flinching after pulling the trigger) would be responsible for much of this inaccuracy. Firing from a fixed rest would produce better results, but these figures represent what the average infantryman was capable of on the practice range with nobody returning fire.

Mark, indeed, and our whole period saw a gradual drift towards mechanisation and standardisation. But the battlefields of the Peninsula or the sub-continent were a long way from the Tower or Whitehall. I suspect there were more local modifications and workarounds than we know about. It’s what makes the study of firearms from this period so fascinating. I particularly like those of the volunteers and yeomanry for example, for whom what rules there were seemed not to apply overly much. Even today, not everyone follows the rules. If anyone wants a spare gas plug or combi tool for an SLR, I know where to put my hands on one!

Hi David,

You make some interesting points regarding patterns and standardisation of firearms of this era.

When arms were in short supply in the 1790s many muskets were purchased from the gun trade which were not subject to the normal inspection process, so some strange variations can be found, although most bought from the trade were of standard form, usually of India Pattern, exactly the same as those bought from the East India Company and those made later for the Board of Ordnance.

Those made for the Board of Ordnance, either built by contractors or assembled in the Tower or at Lewisham would have been standard and no large variation would have been accepted. Therefore all "Type 1 India Patterns", for example, would have been superficially pretty much identical and collectors are correct to assign a pattern name. These muskets were subject to around 12 separate inspections at various stages of manufacture. This included gauging the bore and the lock. I agree that a soldier probably had little appreciation of the variations in pattern and they would all be "Brown Bess" to him, although John Green of the 68th did note the difference when his unit received the New Land Pattern Light Infantry musket (double-sighted muskets with japanned barrels in his terminology).

However, that standardisation did not mean that the parts were interchangeable between different muskets. Quite a bit of tolerance was allowed and the bore size, for example, was anywhere between 0.75" and 0.77". It would not normally be possible to exchange the barrels or locks on separate muskets, nor the components of locks, without some minor or even major modification. The regimental armourer would have been able to sort some of these difficulties in order to repair arms and keep them serviceable, but a common soldier would have been very lucky to find another lock, or even a lock component such as a spring that would fit his musket.

Regards

Mark

Thank you Mark, very insightful. You illustrate that rather chaotic supply ‘system’ with different regiments having different patterns over time very well. I would add that there was some interchangeability between the major components, ie lock, stock and barrel. Some also received ‘upgrades’ being later fitted with percussion for example. These can produce some “oddities” sometimes dismissed as fakes. They often were not, manufacturers using components they had to hand. What we regard as “standard” might merely be the most common survivors, hardly the most forensic approach. I sometimes think modern collectors are like lepidopterists cataloging butterflies. The “Cambridge Blue” has no idea it’s called that, much less Pseudolycaena Marsyas. It just flies about and thinks about making little butterflies. To the soldier his musket was, well, a musket. The whole use of India Pattern was the adoption of existing items and a design that was already tooled for, even though it was for a private entity (The East India Company). Such was the nature of 18th and 19th century manufacture. Hence the need to have a “sealed pattern” against which the contract was let and the need that Ordnance have a Pattern Room, which is now part of the Royal Armouries in Leeds. The world armorers live in today, with universal documentation, set design specs, commonality of parts etc is largely a late Victorian invention. Even screw threads weren’t standardised until Whitworth. The idea the the Board of Ordnance was some kind of brains trust or sought to be a guiding hand in firearms design would be erroneous. They just wanted to put something that went bang in the hands of troops in the most economical, effective and timely fashion. In some ways, I’m sure that privately they regarded the firearm innovators and inventors as crackpots and the banes of their lives!

The size of a British musket ball during the Napoleonic Wars, according to Adye in "The Bombardier and Pocket Gunner", was 0.68" with a weight of 14.5 to the pound. According to the same work, the powder charge was 6 drams (165 grains) so De Witt Bailey and David Harding are about right.

The ammunition was made into a paper cartridge something like this with the ball at one end and the powder at the other:

It was loaded without taking the ball out of the paper, with the ball uppermost, so although the ball was very undersized compared to the bore of the musket, the paper filled the void to a large extent, centred the ball in the bore and stopped some of the gas escape that would have occurred if the ball had just been rolled down the barrel. After priming, the powder was shaken down the barrel and the rest went in like this (the position of the hand is wrong, but it shows how the cartridge was inserted:

As pointed out by Hans-Karl, the India Pattern musket was the main armament of British infantry during this era. The Long Land Pattern would no longer have been in service although some Short Land Patterns would still have been in use at the start of the era, although by the Peninsular War it is debatable whether any remained.

The New Land Pattern musket, made in limited numbers from the early 1800s, was issued to the Foot Guard Regiments and the 4th Regiment. The similar New Land Light Infantry musket was issued to the 43rd, 51st, 52nd, some battalions of the 60th, 68th, 71st and 85th regiments.

Here is a comparison of the some muskets of this era, which give a good indication of the different lengths, from top to bottom:

British India Pattern Type 1

British India Pattern Type 2

British New Land Pattern

British Short Land Pattern

French M1777 ANIX

There was another Pattern made during this era, referred to as the Duke of Richmond Musket. This had been designed just before the French Revolution and had a very advanced lock, with all the components enclosed inside. Several thousand were made but the complicated mechanism resulted in very slow production and this this pattern was soon dropped. This musket was a smaller calibre, around 0.73", but still used the same ammunition having a heavier ramrod to make loading a fouled barrel easier. This musket was issued to the 43rd and 52nd Regiments on their conversion to Light Infantry but was found to be "defective" (probably due to the smaller calibre making loading difficult) and they were re-issued with the New Land Pattern Light Infantry musket in 1806.

Duke of Richmond Musket:

I am not looking for a uniform introduction, more or less for a guideline, there all muskets were still hand made, variations are numerous, but for that reason, there must have been a sort of common diameter for a ball - it won't be of any use of the infantry when they had to find out that the ball would not fit into the barrel, that was one of the reasons that the French went from 18 to a pound to 20 to a poid de marc ball - which decreased diameter - made loading and fitting easier.

One of my main sources is an article by

De Witt Bailey and David Harding : From India to Waterloo : The "India Pattern"Musket pp. 48 - 57

in

The Road to Waterloo - The British Army and the Struggle against Revolutionary and Napoleonic Franc, 1793 - 1815, a National Army Museum Publication Edited by Alan J Guy, London 1990

In all cases the calibre was nominally .76 inch, the seize of the ball .693 inch and weight of the powder charge 6 dram Avoirdupois,

in case I converted correctly (sorry Imperial measurements are of no use to me) it is a barrel diameter of 19.3 mm - the diameter of the ball 17.6 mm - the powder charge 6 drams - 10.62 g.

What I could find out and published was that 14 balls were cast from one pound of lead and the weight was 32.4 g per ball.

My other main source - Darling, A.D. : Red Coat and Brown Bess, Museum Restoration Service Series, 8th edition, Bloomfield, Canada 1987 - states 6 - 8 drams for the powder charge.

Haythornthwaite , P : Weapons & Equipment of the Napoleonic Wars, Poole, 1979 gives 18 mm diameter for the ball, which I find not that plausible and I would agree with Baily & Harding.

Thanks again, any information on the ball, weight, diameter - powder charge on the Brown Bess as well, there I have conflicting information about this?

This is more or less a re print of

Regulations for the Rifleman and Light Infantry and Instruction for their Conduct in the Field - London 1798, printed for the War Office, written by "a German officer of distinction".

The reality of the Napoleonic Wars soon overtook some of the conclusions.

Thanks for the information about the ball to pound ratio and ball weight.

Rounds (balls) that were to be patched (forced balls) were 22 to the  pound (approximately .596-inch) and those for the paper cartridges were  20 to the pound as already stated above (approximately .615-inch).

This is for the Baker Rifle???

That information is in Chapter 12, pages 151-154.

The rounds (ball) were twenty to a pound. Baker himself gave 118 grains of powder per round, but that was later reduced to 96 grains by the Ordnance Department. After the wars, it was increased to 110 grains.

Rounds (balls) that were to be patched (forced balls) were 22 to the pound (approximately .596-inch) and those for the paper cartridges were 20 to the pound as already stated above (approximately .615-inch).

Baker himself commented on the amount of powder:

'In apportioning the quantity of powder for a rifle, one charge for all distances should be carefully attended to; and if the powder be good, I have ascertained that nearly one-third of the weight of the ball, priming included, is the best estimate.'

For the use of cartridges instead of the patched ball, the Regulations for the Exercise of Riflemen of 1798 stated:

'The above regulations for firing with cartridges, will only be applicable when a corps of riflemen is required to act in close order, an instance which will very seldom occur, provided this arm is put to its proper use, and officers will observe in all cases, where riflemen act as such, and whenever it is practicable, their men to load with the powder measure and loose ball; the principle instructions therefore for recruits will be how to load the loose ball, and to fire at the target; the loading with cartridge is a secondary object...'

Appendix 10 of the reference contains an extract for the Regulations and it can be found in its entirely (107 pages) here and downloaded:

https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QacuDfgHJZS6QYh59M64C2DdKvB12_B7zXvUA4-5YV1nLQHQLjh8JO3JhtI0dJE8cLGU2ImFsk4-W4kxKJ9Q3b7KsRAkwn5bOqse3Ny9uUVAM6lBMS7_AIjyUng6-Xqmpo8GUqznGUfW2cHq0Gkogj69R9Xlyf4g0FYYulPzssI2Zoz4BOm7Gh5kZGfgiVmtH5zEpEg4oCJghFkXZ7VxIxegXjvkLzrAvw-qqXgTN2-MjkTuZLyqnRy0HM08KNuV5_dJiA-ewSpbWEElGTbgtshlGuLZ7N0VM67DXB5Fb1V1ptFZPOQ

Is Bailey providing any information about the diameter of the ball, weight to a pound and powder charge??

Two more monographs by DW Bailey, British Military Longarms 1715-1815 and ditto 1815-1865, by Arms and Armour Press might also be useful

Agree completely-excellent posting Zach and thanks for contributing here.

Having seen how things can escalate between you both, Kevin and Hans-Karl, be mindful of the forum rules. I very much doubt anyone has a particularly great desire to see the two of you engage in a lengthy debate (again) about the merits, or otherwise, of the use of Elting. You have covered that at length elsewhere. Having established that the two of you have differing opinions on the values of Elting's research, let's see where else this interesting discussion can take us, and develop our collective understanding.

See engineering the Revolution by Ken Alder.  If you don't care to read or use references in English that is entirely up to you, 

So you know what is in my library? In case please re read my post - I said that you used only English sources, and that I feel that without consulting French sources you will miss a lot - I cannot find not even one title in French -in your recommended reading list and there are many French key sources - as that of 1806 in the Journal Militaire.

If you read further, you would find that the Directory worked to sort that out between 1796-1799, and again put weapons manufacture under the artillery.

That did not change the quality of manufacture - they had to produce a huge amount to equip the armies of the Republic and the Comité de Salut Public did it - the artillery couldn't cope with such an demand.

The situation changed only with the introduction of the new models, which could be produced in the numbers needed - indeed very much post Directoire, the first muskets as the number say in the year 9.

This wasn't sorted out by the artillery, nor the Directoire, the M Républican was still in production and still all kind of parts of old models were used to produce a musket either under the CdS or the artillery.

New arsenals for arms production were opened at Mutzig, Versailles, Liege, and Turin 

I see this is from Elting as well, he is not fully informed - we have following production of the corrigé 1777 an 9 or an 13

Roanne

Culembourg

Liège

Versailles

Turin

Saint - Étienne

Tulle

Maubeuge

Charleville

Mutzig

As you are well aware they continued to use 20 balle per poid de marc in the Boney times.

The poor state of many muskets is reflected that large quantities of Austrian muskets were used, especially in 1805, see Elting on the use of Austrian muskets.

In case the artillery in the Directoire would have solved the quality control, why use Austrian muskets?

Bertrand has to say about the poor quality of his musket in his memoires

un fusil fabriqué à Charleville en 1771, dont les bassinet, en fer, laissait perdre la moitié de la poudre d'amorce. La baionnette seule était irréprochable.

This is what he received in 1805

Capitaine Bertrand - Memoires  Grande Armée 1805 - 1815, Paris - à la Librairie des Deux Empires 1998, re - print, originally published in 1909, page 13

Your comment below refers to the problems with weapons manufacture during the Revolution, not those produced during the Consulate and Empire.

Infantry weapons manufacture prior to the Revolution was conducted under the control of the artillery. The Revolution stopped that which produced the situation you quoted below from Swords. If you read further, you would find that the Directory worked to sort that out between 1796-1799, and again put weapons manufacture under the artillery.

What you posted and the idea I presume you were trying to get across is taken out of context from page 476 and represents a situation that was before the time of Napoleon as head of state.

See engineering the Revolution by Ken Alder. If you don't care to read or use references in English that is entirely up to you, but because you don't care for them does not negate their historical value for study and comparison.

Also, most of the workmanship was poor; (...)which forced a reduction in the size of the musket ball to twenty balls to a pound., p. 476

One infantryman from the 14th Legere was noted as hitting his target, a partisan, at 300 yards.  The unit was caught in a Calabrian ambush, and the partisan had 'mooned' the French unit and apparently the sergeant who made the shot took umbrage at the partisans 'bravado' and shot him.  This exemplifies the term 'lucky shot.'  Previously, the sergeant had missed an Austrian at fifteen yards.


Flintlock weapons would misfire on an average of once every nine rounds.  The flint might no spark or only the priming powder would ignite (perhaps the origin of the term 'flash in the pan').  Further, around once in every eighteen rounds the musket would hang fire-where the firing process is proceeding slowly and 'took its time' exploding.  That could be dangerous if the firer did not understand what was going on.  The same thing would happen with artillery and still does.

I see Elting , p. 480 and 483 - unfortunately Elting is not providing any foot notes on this.

Your data is far from being precise, and I see that you miss key sources in French and that you rely again only on English material - concerning a French musket.

Charleville, though this terminology was used in 1812 in an American document, was invented by re - enactors using the Navy Arms re production - which had Charleville on its battery engraved, instead of speaking of Charleville it would be better to speak about the fusil d'infanterie - the French used this expression.

There you rely on English sources only you miss the Modèlle républican - which was introduced in the French Revolution to suit the high demand of fire arms for the French Army and for that a lot of old material of the M 1766, M 1769, M 1774 and M 1777 were used.

You are not entirely correct about the weight of the lead ball, from the 18. January 1748 to 1792 it was a you stated 18 balls to one poid du marc - which is 489 g and different to an English pound; but then this increased to 20 balls to a poid du marc, which reduced to diameter from 16.58 mm to 16 mm, so the windige was increased to facilitate loading.

Just don't stop reading Elting at page 476 to p section

The British musket ball weighed slightly over 1 ounce; eighteen French balls equaled 1 pound.
page 476, Chapter Haut les Armes

a bit further down

Also, most of the workmanship was poor; (...)which forced a reduction in the size of the musket ball to twenty balls to a pound., p. 476

I am surprised that you don't mention the India Pattern musket, which was replacing most of the of the Short Land Service Musket (New Pattern) form 1794 onward and finally from 1797 onward only the India pattern was produced, between 1795 and 1815 at least 2,834,485 muskets of the India Pattern was produced, some other models albeit in small numbers were also produced during the Boney time, the New Land Service Musket and the Light Infantry Model of the New Land Service Musket.

About the weight of the ball and diameter I found different dimensions, according to my information - 14 balls to one British Pound, according to Haythornthwaite the diameter of the ball was 18 mm, according to the "Road to Waterloo" edited by Guy, London 1990, it was 17.6 mm, the barrel had a diameter of 19.3 mm.

Hopefully specialists of the British Army can add more details on this.

The French Modells an 9 or an 13 were no improvement to the M 1777 (which was only produced compared to those in small numbers and therefore due to better quality control in better quality) - especially the shape of the frizzen was a retrograde step compared to the M 1777.

But they could be produced in huge numbers and gradually the French Army could be equipped with a more standard model than the M républicaine, still captured Austrian muskets were used due to the fact of being of good quality and almost identical caliber.

What was better or worse ? I found such discussions moot, both muskets served their armies well. In my view the ring system of the French model made field stripping easier, but there were other problems like finding the right size of flints (and here again French flints were different to British ones)

For those who like to read about in a synoptic and easy way, including black and white illustrations, I refer to a series of articles I did myself ages ago in the "Circulaire" - downloads available on Markus Stein's web site.

Weiß, H-K : Französische Musketen 1777 - 1815, Circulaire 1/94, pp. 8 - 14

derselbe : Brown Bess, Circulaire 2/94, pp 23 - 27

derselbe: Feuersteine - Flintsteine, Circulaire 2/94, pages 28 - 34.

Otherwise - without consulting French sources and relying on British ones you are missing a lot of information.

Boudriot, J : Armes à Feu Françaises, Modèles d'Ordonnance, cahier Nr 3, Systmème an 9 & an 13, Paris 1961

Boudriot, J : Armes à Feu Françaises, Modèles d'Ordonnance, cahier Nr. 5, Système 1777, Paris 1961

Boudriot, J : Armes à Feu Françaises, Modèles d'Ordonnance, cahier Nr. 13, Armament Revolutionaire, Paris 1965

(alas seemingly completely ignored)

Boudriot, J : L'Armament de l'Infanterie Impériale, Gazettes des Armes, Nr. 6, pp. 32 - 42

Boudriot, J : La "clarinette" des cinq pieds, Gazettes des Armes, Nr. 46, pp. 20 - 28

Coppens, B. : À propos du fusil d'infanterie francais, La Patience - Bulletin d'Information sur les Planches "Waterloo 1815" et series "Grande Tenue" Nr. 3, Beauvechain, 1991

Instruction sur les armes à feu et armes blanches portatives, à l'usage des troupes francaises, redigée et imprimée par ordre de son Altesse le Maréchal Prince Alexandre, Ministre de la guerre, Journal Militaire Nr. 8 Juin 1806, pp 197 - 240

I spare those for the British Musket, you can see them listed in my article, certainly there are better ones available.

As for hitting or non hitting a good start would be the trials conducted by Scharnhorst

Gerhard von Scharnhorst - Über die Wirkung des Feuergewehrs, 1813, re - print Osnabrück 1973