Saw two Brown Besses today

[4v50 Gary]

Sorry no pics. I didn't have a camera or a cell phone on me today.

The conservation class started at TSJC NRA summer school today. Two Brown Besses were brought in by the instructor. One was Napoleonic era India pattern and the other a British East India Company Bess. Same barrel length but the British East India Bess had four loops for for pins and the Napoleonic era had only three loops. The stock was also thicker at the wrist and cylindrical grip was never carved out on it. It made for a sturdier musket. Interesting. I was also looking through Eric Goldstein's book on the Bess and noticed that he doesn't have an image of the disassembled Bess.

 

[Venom007]

They shoot a big shell !

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

I built a Pedersoli version of the Brown Bess from their kit several years ago as a winter project. Due to the lack of proper sight hardware, the large heavy projectile, and probably my lack of skill I have really had a hard time getting lead to hit where I believe it should. The rifling of barrels is probably the largest leap in firearms technology ever concerning accuracy. But, it is a heck of a lot of fun to shoot!

 

[MEHavey]

The Bess "can" be surprisingly accurate (Minute-of-Woodchuck) out to ~75 yards using a tight ball/patch combo.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=551324

But full military loads will rock you; and with the accompanying pan flash/unprotected eyes... it's little wonder that conscript troops just closed their eyes and yanked the trigger.

 

[AlexanderA]

The rifling of barrels is probably the largest leap in firearms technology ever concerning accuracy.

Rifled long arms did not come into general military use until the invention of the Minie ball. It just takes too long to load a rifle otherwise. With the Bess, the whole idea is to reload quickly and fire volleys in the general direction of the enemy. Speed trumps accuracy.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Yes, I understand that the philosophy at the time was for volley firing and not individual targets but I continually read stories about hitting individuals at ranges exceeding 100 yards with the large smooth bore muskets. I am still working on hitting a half gallon milk jug filled with water at 25 yards as I think that 3/4" ball should cause one heck of an explosion!

 

[Slamfire]

Sorry no pics. I didn't have a camera or a cell phone on me today.

The conservation class started at TSJC NRA summer school today. Two Brown Besses were brought in by the instructor. One was Napoleonic era India pattern and the other a British East India Company Bess. Same barrel length but the British East India Bess had four loops for for pins and the Napoleonic era had only three loops. The stock was also thicker at the wrist and cylindrical grip was never carved out on it. It made for a sturdier musket. Interesting. I was also looking through Eric Goldstein's book on the Bess and noticed that he doesn't have an image of the disassembled Bess.

I have read a number of articles and maybe a book on Brown Bess muskets. None of them were standardized, parts were not interchangeable. I don't know what dimensions were "fixed". From what I recall, the authors of these books tried to create "patterns"or models, from existing specimens, but I wonder just how real these patterns were. I don't know how much lee way the manufacturer had in making a musket.

I have a small collection of British swords, about the only thing that is common is length. Most of the patterns are of the correct, book length, plus or minus a quarter inch. Outside of that, weight, width, thickness of blade, handle length and thickness, guard thickness, guard size, all that varies. I am sure that on original Brown Besses, they had to look the same from 10 feet away, but up close, you would see the variations in dimensions due to the nature of manufacture, which required a lot of filing and fitting of parts.

 

[AlexanderA]

None of them were standardized, parts were not interchangeable.

Yes and no. Armsmaking in England was a "cottage industry." Contracts were let to small shops for the making of components, such as locks, barrels, fittings, etc. Then all these components were sent to the Tower for assembly. Yes, minor fitting was done during the process of assembly, but the components had to pass a certain standard in order to be accepted. This wasn't parts interchangeability as we know it today. Even in the U.S., the first truly interchangeable musket was the M1842. (The U.S. was ahead of England in this regard.)