Can it be the AR is today's Brown Bess?

[Still Learning]

Not in terms of range, power or accuracy of course. But the last few threads have reminded me of a quote by Turner Kirkland, of Dixie Gunworks fame. I no longer have the old Dixie catalog so I must paraphrase his words regarding the Brown Bess, "As it became more apparent that war with the British was imminent, every colonist worth his salt did everything he could to get a Brown Bess musket...."

In terms of accuracy there were certainly better long guns available during the period. But the Brown Bess was the standard or choice of the Contintental Army. Perhaps the same is true today of the AR. It's certainly not the best rifle but perhaps it's the best option for the majority of Americans to arm themselves with? I'm thinking in terms of ammo and parts availability, manual of arms for training, etc.

What are your thoughts.

 

[Airwolf]

You may be correct. The profile of the M-16/AR-15 has become synonymous with America much as the AK symbolized Russia (or more properly the Soviet Union).

As much as I desperately want one the State of California would imprison me as a felon if I were found in possession of such a symbol of American strength and resolve.

Says a lot, doesn't it?

In my case I'll have to rely on a more traditional weapon, my M1A Scout.

Strangely enough the M1A shooting .308 is arguably a more powerful weapon than the .223 AR.

This is after all California where appearances always win out over substance.

 

[Sir Galahad]

I wouldn't agree. The Brown Bess is a better weapon. Just kidding.

Seriously, though, the reasons that the colonists sought Besses is because they could use captured British paper cartridges and balls. Though a mold came with most firearms sold in the era anyway, so ammo was not the problem; acquiring lead, proper flints and powder was. Actually, the French Charleville was imported in great quantities as military aid, so colonists could lay hands on those just as easily. Both the Brown Bess and Charleville were large bore smoothbore muskets with bores the gauge of today's shotguns (the Charleville was .69 caliber and the Bess was .75 caliber.) For an average farmer, a smoothbore musket made a lot more sense. It fired a huge ball for men and big game BUT it could also be loaded with buckshot or birdshot for hunting. It could also use an early anti-personnel round called "buck-and-ball" which was the big round ball topped by several buckshot pellets. Recent tests in Muzzleloader magazine show buck-and-ball to be very effective within range. The musket was cheap, easy to clean, and could be loaded more times before swabbing the bore. A rifle fouled too heavy to load after a few shots and had to be swabbed more often. The musket had a larger lock and pan and was more reliable. It could mount a bayonet to defend the shooter when the weapon was empty. It was not as fragile as a rifle. This was also the favored weapon of choice for AmerIndians right up until cartridge firearms appeared. A variation called a "trade gun" was made on Bess and French fusil patterns. The musket was common enough to find parts for if needed, too.

The AR cannot fill the bill because it is not as versatile, not as reliable, not as common, and not as well-known as the modern Brown Bess: the pump shotgun. Why? It can load shot and slugs. It is totally reliable. It is easy to clean. It does not foul so much that it couldn't go a couple days between cleaning if you had to. Lots of people have one, even people who would never own an AR. The musket never meant to serve as a long-range weapon. It's range was equal to that of a shotgun with slugs. The shotgun can defend and feed. That is what sold colonists on the musket. The AR can't feed effectively. It can't take large game or small game in an efficient manner. The shotgun is the "peoples weapon". For all the reasons the musket was.

 

[Art Eatman]

I reckon that for "just folks", having a decent AR around would prove out to be a Good Thing. It's a reasonbly good all-around package.

As accurate as needs be; as generally reliable as one would want. The cartridge, for a skilled shooter, will do just fine for food or defense.

Still comes down to the skills of the user...

Art

 

[Sir Galahad]

An AR is not something available to all the citizens, though. For a rifle able to feed and defend, a bolt action .308 with both scope and iron sights would be better than an AR.

The way in which the AR can be likened to the Brown Bess is that the Bess had a higher rate of fire than a rifle because it was smoothbore. But an AK would be just as good as an AR for pouring lead. In many ways, the AK might be more of a Bess than the AR because the AK is more affordable. But, again, the AK is not available to all citizens.

We also should bear in mind that as military weapons, muskets were meant to be fired in volley, in tight formation, at other soldiers in a tight formation at very close range. Again, sounds more like shotgun work to me. The average British soldier was no marksman. The British relied on overwhelming, concentrated fire from superior numbers of highly trained and disciplined soldiers. Americans and French voyageurs learned to hit targets with the musket because they had to. They didn't have powder and ball to waste. That could be the AR. That could be the AK. But for a weapon the average American has, it would be a shotgun.

 

[Blain]

Sir Galahad said it all!

 

[Still Learning]

Concede the versatility of the shotgun, of course.

The more I think about it, though, the more I come to think of the AR as the standard in the same way the Brown Bess was. I'm thinking in terms of ammo avaialbility, parts availability, etc.

The shotgun has a lot going for it in terms of versatility, no doubt. It can't fit the bill in the terms I am speaking of, however. How many of our military units are armed with only pump shotguns? They play a part, but are not the standard.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Having a bit of experience with both, I'd like to make a couple of points here here -- rifles of the Revolutionary War era did not have as much fouling problems as smoothbores.

The reason is lubrication. Rifles used a lubricated patch, and as the old German gunsmith said, "Ven you puts der next von down, you vipes der last von out."

Muskets of the period (and much later) had no lubrication in their ammo. In the Civil war many units were armed with smoothbores, often flintlock muskets converted to percussion.

Units so armed found the smoothbores fouled rapidly. The 57th Illinois included in one battle after-action report " . . . the old altered flintlock muskets of the regiment became fouled after a few rounds rendering it impossible to get a load down, though many of the men, in their efforts to drive the charges home, after getting them started drove the rammers against the trunks of trees."

The Brown Bess, although made of good materials, and with good craftsmanship, was inferior to the Charelville. The Brown Bess, for example, has a pinned barrel. The barrel is attached to the stock with dove-tailed tabs on the underside of the barrel. A hole is drilled through stock and tab, and a pin inserted to hold the barrel and stock together. Obviously this is a weakness -- especially in a weapon often used for bayonet fighting.

The Charleville had a banded barrel -- the barrel was held by iron bands that encircled both barrel and stock. Much stronger.

Similarly, the Brown Bess had a single-throated or "gooseneck" cock, while the Chareville had a much stronger double-throated cock. This meant that the Brown Bess' cock (which holds the flint) was more likely to be broken off in a fight.

 

[Triad]

I think you're making a mistake in looking to the military as a standard. The weapons used in the Revolutionary War were very similar to the weapons people used to protect their homes, feed their families, etc.. In modern times what people use for those purposes and what the military uses are two very different things.

 

[bad_dad_brad]

It was the spirit of the militia of old (The Minutemen) that lead me to buy my AR. After that Maryland sniper thing, I figured I better get one while the getting is good. My dealer says he can't sell the ARs fast enough.

I love mine. Bushy 16" shorty A2 type.

 

[Kaylee]

for all the nitpicking on weapons then and now, I think Still Learning is right on in his analysis of the motivations involved. Buying a copy of The King's Arm when you don't trust The King seems to be a solid American tradition.

Heck, were another revolt to take place now, you'ld see the same pathwork of arms as was used then (and in the 1860's).. the "official" gov't arm, the imported "foreign aid" gun, and the "alreday had it around" hunting gun... Bess, Charleville, and longrifle then, AR, AK(I'd guess), scoped deer rifle now....

History has such beautiful symmetry, really.

-K

 

[Triad]

It's not symmetry, it's repetition. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[cheygriz]

Galahad,

Your experiences with the AR-15, if you indeed have any, are totally different from mine!

Over the last thirty plus years, I have found the AR to be nearly totally reliable, easy to maintain, powerful enough for anything in North America with proper bullet placement, easy to shoot well, easy to find parts for, universally available, cheap ammo, light weight ammo. In fact, I have found no down side to the AR.

The pump shotgun is a fairly good, although obsolete, home defense gun/LE. Modern semi-auto shotguns are far better, and law enforcement agencies are abandoning the pump.

No shotgun, or handgun is a militia weapon however. Rifles are militia weapons.

If you have a problem with the AR-15, there's always the various AK clones, the HK-91, Fal etc.

A bolt action could, if properly set up, be a good sniper weapon. but no soldier in his right mind would take one to an infantry fight if he had a choice.

The answer is yes. The AR-15 truly is the Brown Bess of the 21st century.

 

[Still Learning]

Let me amend that, cheygriz:

I believe the AR fits the description for THIS part of the 21st century. Things can and do change. I probably won't live to see it but my kids probably will.

And to Triad: I think you are correct in terms of not looking to the the military for a standard. However, in terms of looking for a "standard" as far as ammo and spare parts availability goes, the AR is "it" in this country today.

 

[seeker_two]

The current "Brown Bess" of our time would be:

Remington 700 series
Savage 110 series
Winchester/Marlin .30-30 lever actions.

While the military will have better equipment, the versatility & manual of arms of the aforementioned longarms will find them more often in the hands of civilians....

 

[Sir Galahad]

Cheygriz, yeah my experiences with the AR-15 are indeed limited. I only repaired a few thousand M-16A1s in the army as a MOS 45B small arms repair. Qualified as expert with one. As far as the AK, got one of those.

I challenge your assertion that the AR-15 is capable of taking any North American game. I, for one, would pay good money to see you take on a grizzly, polar, or kodiak bear with one. There is a reason why .223 is not legal to hunt big game with in most states. And that reason is because it is not effective on large game such as elk. Bullet placement, you say? So, a charging grizzly you'll score a head shot on his thick skull? You cannot say the AR-15 can take any North American game. You might get lucky a time of two, but if you were hunting griz, you'd not survive long with the AR.

 

[cheygriz]

Never said that .223 is ideal for grizzlies. I said that if you had to, you could make it work.

And since many poachers take elk with the .22 Magnum, I think a 5.56 can do anything a .22 magnum can do, and better.

However, the AR-15 is the standard hunting arm of about 95 percent of Eskimos. And they eat one helluva lot of polar bear meat.

 

[Gewehr98]

I agree.

It is today's Brown Bess. Dirty-firing gun, fouls itself fairly quickly!

 

[bad_dad_brad]

cheygriz,

Interesting about that Eskimo thing. Where did you get your information? I did read about Eskimo's taking large seals with .223 rounds. Since Eskimos/Aluets are one of the few Native Americans living off the land, their choice of AR-15 says something. However, I wonder if this not so much a choice as government supplied firearms. The Canadian government employs Eskimos as National Guard types to patrol the northern territories. And the Canadian army uses the M-16.

But I agree. I think the .223 is a most versatile round, and I think the AR-15 is the platform that makes this bullet shine, and I believe, with all the various uppers, it is today's everyman rifle. Just my two cents.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Cheygriz, what you said was that the AR was powerful enough for anything in North America with proper bullet placement. I said that it is not. You might get lucky and kill a grizzly with one if you had no choice and the AR is all you had. But your chances for surviving the encounter are slim if that bear is closer than 50 yards to you. You might cause the bear to die of wounds, but he might kill you before he dies, too. Yes, poachers do use .22 rimfires to fell large game. But you forgot the other end of that old saw. They get real close to the animal and shoot it in the head. And they often use a jacklight at night to blind the animal. And for every animal they kill, lots get away carrying .22 bullets embedded in the skull but not penetrated. Also, a lot of poachers use crossbows because those are silent and can be fitted with scopes to include night vision scopes.

I'd have to see your sources for your comment that 95% of Eskimos use Ar-15s before I'll believe that. An Eskimo I met in AIT said his people used high-powered bolt action rifles; usually a 30'06, sometimes a magnum caliber. Probably a fair number of lever action .45/70s, too. Native peoples don't have a lot of money; particularly those who are subsistance hunters as are some Inuit. On the Navaho and Hopi Reservations here, most of those folks in mind for a rifle buy a Saiga or an SKS because the weapon is cheap, the ammo is cheap, and the caliber will drop everything that lives on the Rez. Before that, the Winchester .30-30 lever action was THE rifle. Still is among the older folks there. Being that a Marlin Guide Gun or a Savage 30'06 costs one half the price of an AR-15, I doubt 95% of the Eskimo Nation is using the AR. They might use ARs for shooting seals, but I doubt they're hunting polar bears with them. But I'll await your sources to see where you read this.

 

[Still Learning]

When I started this thread I must admit I wasn't thinking about killing bears.

Or Cape Buffalo or even fur seals. I was thinking more in terms of an everyman's rifle/carbine to have handy.

I have lived in grizzly country (Montana) and the closest I got to a grizzly was finding tracks where we fished. We kept rifles handy but the only time we ever used them was in target practice or to shoot deer.

The only Eskimos I ever knew served on the fire crews during the Montana fires in 2000. The only rifles they talked about were .22s and they seemed particularly enamored by the old Remington Nylon 66.

 

[Atticus]

"Also, a lot of poachers use crossbows because those are silent and can be fitted with scopes to include night vision scopes. "

Speaking of data....I'd be interested to see some data backing up that statement.

 

[fallingblock]

Sir Galahad.....

Hey! I've been there too!

45B20 trained at APG in 1967, just as the changeover from M14 to M16 was in full swing. Before the Army amended the bayonet drill they were breaking those M16's faster than we could get buttstocks and tubes for 'em

I had to draw up charges against a poor cannoneer who leaned his M16A1 against the front of a 5-ton just before it moved off...talk about a 'banana-rifle'

Then there was the Dupont contract IMR powder and those bolt carriers caked in the most durable black fouling I've ever seen....
Those forward-assist handles came along for a very good reason

I guess they got 'em sorted-out by now, but I'd go with the Charleville-equivalent myself

 

[Bostonterrier97]

Most people will ignore what the facts say as to what is the best rifle and caliber and will instead opt for whatever the US Military is using.

I suspect that if the DOD dropped the M4 and M16 in favor of the Ruger 10/22..most of the folks on AR15.com will follow suite.

The Military makes enormous compromises on infantry rifles.

As far as being a Civilian in a SHTF scenario..it really doesn't matter if you have a rifle that is NOT chambered for 5.56 NATO. Because for one thing you are NOT going to be in firefights, instead you are mostly going to be expending few shots and mostly avoiding situations.

You should feel adequately armed with a M1 Garand or Lee Enfield.

You can find 30-06 just about anywhere in North America. The Lee Enfield is incredibly rugged and simple and works well in Mud, Ice, Snow and Sand. (The Rifle is also dirt cheap - about $140, so you can buy a LOT of ammo for it..) If you buy the CAD Teknik Scope Mount then you can scope it and not have to remove the iron sights which you can use as Backup. And you can find ammo in most places and definately lots of ammo for it up in Canada. (Canada still issues No.4 Mk1 Lee Enfields to their Rangers in the Far North)

Or..you can always rebarrel it, and modify the extractor and have a new 10 round Mag built for it..and rechamber the rifle for .308.
The No.4 Mk.1 Action is strong enough for .308

 

[Sir Galahad]

Fallingblock, wow! Go Ordnance! We should compare notes.