The Brown Bess

[getitdone1]

Just finished watching this video about the Brown Bess. A major gun during our Revolutionary War.

You like a big bore? How about .75 caliber?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz56I4n9O4U

I enjoyed this video and know many here will also enjoy it.

Am I gonna have to buy one of these too? It never ends----------and that ain't all bad.

Don

[Old Ironsights]

My Howda is a 6" double barrel .72 ... I shoot patched .690 (1oz) round balls out of it...

[MrMurphy]

They're not cheap.


Our first US armory production muskets were actually copies of the French-supplied Charlevilles. .69 caliber, a bit lighter, and both were good, solid weapons.

Both of them saw service for around a century. The Bess wasn't the most accurate, but out to 70-90m or so you had a fairly good chance of hitting the guy you aimed at under good conditions.

In large-unit battles with all the smoke and stuff exploding, more like 50m.

[getitdone1]

Been doing a little more reading about the guns used in the Revolutionary War.

I wonder what percentage of each major gun was used?

Colonists used the Brown Bess as well as the British.

The major guns appear to be:

Brown Bess--my understanding is it was used by a high percentage of the British soldiers but many American colonists also used it.

Charlieville Muskets supplied by the French

Copies of the Charlieville Muskets made at our U.S. Amory.

Kentucky rifle that had rifling and was, therefore, by far the most accurate.

Is it correct to say that without the considerable help of the French we would have lost that war?

Don

[MrMurphy]

Remember that the Revolutionary War, to us, was a major war. The Brits were fighting all over the world (for centuries) so while we were a major campaign, they were primarily worried about getting jumped by the French (rightly so) closer to home. Which is why the French supported our revolution (to cause trouble for the Brits) as Campaign #2 of the French-Indian War they'd already fought over here. Our revolution inspired the French one, which led to World War 0.5 (French and British units were engaged all over Europe as well as fighting in the various colonies, and at sea all over the world, with the fighting lasting nearly 20 years on and off).


As we were originally British, the majority of the early fighting was done with Brown Besses or some variant on both sides. The French came in later on in the fighting in large numbers. French muskets really started showing up when the French fleet did. Our armory muskets copied the Charleville because it worked, and we had bunches of them, but we just as easily could have copied the Bess.


Rifles on the Revolutionary/Napoleonic war battlefield were specialist weapons. The fighting was decided at close range, firing in section (20-25 man) volleys. The idea being to act like a human machine gun, putting out a volley every few seconds across a battalion so the enemy unit was getting hit with 20-25 shots every five or ten seconds.......continuously. When the enemy unit couldn't take it anymore and broke, the cavalry would come in and hit the enemy running away, since a formed infantry unit in square with bayonets was fairly cavalry-proof. Cavalry would threaten infantry to make them form square so the artillery (at this point in warfare, a close range proposition) could hit them. Rifles could snipe enemy commanders, cause long range casualties and kill gun crews, but due to the long reloading time, they were not battle-deciders. Losing your commander might affect morale and possibly change the course of the battle, but the basic plan would already be known.

Skirmishing with rifles was definitely effective, but close range volleys and assault was what decided the majority of battles here and in Europe, and this would remain so until the 1850s with the invention of the Minie bullet where you could rapidly reload rifles.

Modern drill and ceremony in the military comes from this time period, being able to rapidly move platoons, companies and battalions in column in an organized manner, suddenly shift direction, shift formation, etc meant you could get troops where they needed to be, change direction into a firing formation, fire like mad, then march away before you could get hit by artillery.

[Martini450]

For such an inaccurate gun, they sure are a lot of fun to shoot. I've shot plenty of five shot groups at 50 yards with my Pedersoli, and from the bench it can usually be depended on to keep four of them in about 8" or so, but there is always a flyer out of the five. You have to keep in mind that for aiming you have a bayonet lug at the muzzle for a front site, and nothing for a rear site. I tried an experiment at 100 yards a few years ago, again from the bench, and it was revealing. If memory serves, of five rounds fired, three of them made it on the cardboard target backing (2' X 3'), and the other two chewed up the dirt off to the side. One nice surprise has been that, as long as it's properly loaded, the thing is very reliable about going off, and the lock time isn't nearly so slow as you'd imagine.

[Sixgun]

When I was in my twenties, these guns were regularly seen at local auctions in my area, right down the street from the Brandywine Battlefield. Going prices at the time was around $400.---6.

[MrMurphy]

Considering they were meant to fire fast, with no more than "that big group of guys over there" 50-75 yards away level accuracy, they can still do pretty well. At 50 yards, you're most likely going to hit the guy you aimed at. At 90-100, if you miss your guy, you'll probably hit all the other guys around him...... which was the point of 'buck and ball' loads, to improve hit likelihood on a large formation.

[6pt-sika]

Never wanted a Brown Bess , but did want a Charleville for awhile . Now with my recently found distaste for the French I'll just wait until I can get a decent 1795 Springfield .

[guido4198]

Don,
No one can say if we would have lost the war without the French involvement on our side. I believe it is fair to say that it was the appearance of the French fleet at Yorktown that effectively bottled up Cornwallis and forced his surrender. That action for all intents and purposes ended serious British efforts to destroy the new nation that was forming.
Had Cornwallis been able to evacuate Yorktown by crossing the York river, escaping with his army intact...serious large unit combat could (reasonably) have been expected to continue with the outcome very much still in doubt.

[MrMurphy]

The British have always fought best when near the sea. As long as they controlled the coast British units could retreat and be covered or evacuated. Our navy was tiny at the time, and while we could fight the Brits were not a huge factor. Our victories tended to occur when we could get the Brits away from the water and make them maneuver.

The French fleet brought supplies, reinforcements, and a significant naval threat that the Brits had to honor and cut off the army from their support.