|
|
Post by shotdeer on Aug 2, 2019 18:58:10 GMT -7
...no info on who designed the Brown Bess? I've searched, but come up with a blank.
|
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Aug 2, 2019 19:21:13 GMT -7
Interesting question. I guess I've always assumed that, unlike modern military arms, with no one individual manufacturing company with a stake in being the contract builder, there was no one designer either. A set of criteria was decided upon (by the tower of London, or some proof house maybe?) and they set about building it. I don't know.
Do we know who designed other military arms of the same time?
|
|
|
|
Post by shotdeer on Aug 2, 2019 19:25:09 GMT -7
There's no known designer for the Charlville either. It's baffled me for quite some time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Aug 2, 2019 19:30:10 GMT -7
The same could probably be said for most guns of the era - we have a good idea who built a particular style of gun, but they all evolved from previous versions that were a collection of previous versions. Just a thought from the peanut gallery...
|
|
|
|
Post by straekat on Aug 3, 2019 4:15:00 GMT -7
The Bess is probably a reflection of what was military thinking of the period. It shares very similar design differences with the Prussian Potsdam musket (introduced into Prussian service within a year of the Bess in the UK), contemporaneous Dutch muskets, etc. When you compare it to other military arms of the same period, the similarities rather than differences are apparent. Militaries are often influenced by, "borrow" or copy from other nations.
The Bess and Potsdam muskets (among others) were probably introduced after years/decades of testing/development and experimentation before the designs were adopted for widespread use. Whether they are entirely the design of the nation that adopted the pattern, or heavily influenced by other nations might depend on how nationalistic your mindset might be.
|
|
|
|
Post by shotdeer on Aug 3, 2019 7:05:12 GMT -7
Thanks for the responses guys, very informative.
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Aug 4, 2019 5:17:25 GMT -7
In the 1690's, the British still had both matchlock and early flintlock (dog lock) muskets. They did away with matchlocks with the P (always short for "Pattern") muskets with the P 1703 Muskets and one is shown in the link below: www.skinnerinc.com/auctions/2946M/lots/372In 1715, it was decided that the British needed an Ordnance Bureau/Department to supply the British Military, rather than relying solely on arms submitted to them for review by civilian contractors. The idea was different ideas/features would be incorporated into the new Patterns and they would be tested and try to come up with the best muskets they could get and afford. This resulted in the first "regular" Flint Lock P1719 or "Pattern of 10,000" muskets" that were the first muskets most people would recognize as a "Brown Bess." However, these muskets had Iron furniture, rather than the steel furniture we think of as "normal" for the Brown Bess. (All future Brown Bess Muskets were stocked in Brass Furniture.) Establishing the British Ordnance Department was a GIGANTIC undertaking at the time, because they were responsible for all Small Arms and cannon used by the British Army (later the Navy as well). It took until the P1728 Lock, along with enough money and resources to come up with P 1730 Land Pattern Muskets that British Ordnance first replaced all other Muskets in the British Army between then and 1739. This was the first British Ordnance Pattern Land Muskets seen in North America when Governor Oglethorpe of Georgia was given an exception that only Army units would receive them, in the early/mid 1730's. Thanks to the fact Governor Oglethorpe was a friend of the King and because Georgia was a "buffer colony" next to Spanish Florida, he received a large number of the then brand new P1730 Muskets and cutlasses, because British Ordnance had no Infantry Hangers to supply Georgia with. This was the only major exception to the rule that all P1730's were supposed to go to the British Army. British Ordnance figured the average service life of a "King's Pattern" or Land Musket was about 10-12 years before enough wore out that they had to re-supply the British Army world wide with a replacement Musket. That plus all the Wars in the 18th century required many more new Muskets with each new war. So just about the time in 1739 when British Ordnance finally got all the old muskets replaced with P 1730 muskets for the "Peace Time" Army strength, the first ones were aging and the War of Jenkin's Ear broke out that morphed into the War of the Austrian Succession. This required an emergency number of additional muskets be made and supplied to British Forces. You may enjoy looking at this link that shows some of the modifications and upgrades to the "Land Pattern" Muskets in the early to late 18th century. www.ladybemused.com/jaeger/NRA/The%20Redcoat%27s%20Brown%20Bess.htmIf you have more or specific questions, please ask them. Gus. |
|
Keith
City-dweller
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 990 
|
Post by Keith on Aug 4, 2019 15:21:32 GMT -7
In the 1690's, the British still had both matchlock and early flintlock (dog lock) muskets. They did away with matchlocks with the P (always short for "Pattern") muskets with the P 1703 Muskets and one is shown in the link below: www.skinnerinc.com/auctions/2946M/lots/372In 1715, it was decided that the British needed an Ordnance Bureau/Department to supply the British Military, rather than relying solely on arms submitted to them for review by civilian contractors. The idea was different ideas/features would be incorporated into the new Patterns and they would be tested and try to come up with the best muskets they could get and afford. This resulted in the first "regular" Flint Lock P1719 or "Pattern of 10,000" muskets" that were the first muskets most people would recognize as a "Brown Bess." However, these muskets had Iron furniture, rather than the steel furniture we think of as "normal" for the Brown Bess. (All future Brown Bess Muskets were stocked in Brass Furniture.) Establishing the British Ordnance Department was a GIGANTIC undertaking at the time, because they were responsible for all Small Arms and cannon used by the British Army (later the Navy as well). It took until the P1728 Lock, along with enough money and resources to come up with P 1730 Land Pattern Muskets that British Ordnance first replaced all other Muskets in the British Army between then and 1739. This was the first British Ordnance Pattern Land Muskets seen in North America when Governor Oglethorpe of Georgia was given an exception that only Army units would receive them, in the early/mid 1730's. Thanks to the fact Governor Oglethorpe was a friend of the King and because Georgia was a "buffer colony" next to Spanish Florida, he received a large number of the then brand new P1730 Muskets and cutlasses, because British Ordnance had no Infantry Hangers to supply Georgia with. This was the only major exception to the rule that all P1730's were supposed to go to the British Army. British Ordnance figured the average service life of a "King's Pattern" or Land Musket was about 10-12 years before enough wore out that they had to re-supply the British Army world wide with a replacement Musket. That plus all the Wars in the 18th century required many more new Muskets with each new war. So just about the time in 1739 when British Ordnance finally got all the old muskets replaced with P 1730 muskets for the "Peace Time" Army strength, the first ones were aging and the War of Jenkin's Ear broke out that morphed into the War of the Austrian Succession. This required an emergency number of additional muskets be made and supplied to British Forces. You may enjoy looking at this link that shows some of the modifications and upgrades to the "Land Pattern" Muskets in the early to late 18th century. www.ladybemused.com/jaeger/NRA/The%20Redcoat%27s%20Brown%20Bess.htmIf you have more or specific questions, please ask them. Gus. Well done Gus, thank you. Very informative. Keith. |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Aug 5, 2019 14:25:27 GMT -7
Keith,
From you I consider that high praise, indeed. Thank you for the kind words and you are most welcome.
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Aug 6, 2019 5:50:12 GMT -7
OOPS, Sorry I missed this and to correct the following from my post above:
"This resulted in the first "regular" Flint Lock P1719 or "Pattern of 10,000" muskets" that were the first muskets most people would recognize as a "Brown Bess." However, these muskets had Iron furniture, rather than the steel furniture we think of as "normal" for the Brown Bess. (All future Brown Bess Muskets were stocked in Brass Furniture.)"
I have no idea why I typed steel there rather than Brass, as I intended.
OK a little more on the subject.
Forum members might be surprised as I was when I found out that British Ordnance only authorized Wood Rammer Land Pattern Muskets for Regulars who came over here in the FIW. They even ordered any Regiment who were to come here and already had the new Steel Rammer Muskets, to turn in their Steel Rammer Muskets and receive Wood Rammer Muskets in their place. This meant the majority of British Regulars sent here in the FIW were armed with the then older P1742 Muskets and they did bring some really outdated P1730 Muskets with them to arm American Volunteer Militia.
British Ordnance didn't do that to snub the Regiments sent to America, but rather to keep their most up to date P1756 Steel Rammer Muskets for service in Europe, to use against the greater threat from the "Old Enemy" France and her allies. Though that made good sense strategically, it meant only a very few of the newer P1756 Muskets made it over here as replacement weapons near the end of the War, but not many. Basically, the British Regulars and American Militia fought the FIW here with P1742's, as their most "up to date" muskets.
Now that turned around 180 degrees when the British Regiments were sent here during the AWI. This time, they were not fighting a holding action here in America as they did in the FIW, but rather to put down the rebellion and retain their colonies here. So any British Regiment still armed w/older pattern Wood Ramrod Muskets turned them in and received newer Steel Rammer muskets and most of them came from the Irish Ordnance Board at Dublin Castle for the first Regiments sent here. That meant most of the British Regulars were first armed with P1756 "Long" Land Pattern Muskets, though the British Marines used the Steel Rammer "Marine and Militia" Short Land Pattern muskets at Boston. As the AWI went on, British Ordnance sent more of the latter Short Land Pattern Muskets and the new P1777 Muskets for Troops coming here later and as replacement muskets. What is also interesting is the British brought Wood Rammer P1742 Muskets with them for use by the American Loyalists, though they supplied Steel Rammer Muskets to those troops later on in the War.
I hope those doing FIW and AWI reenacting will find this information useful.
Gus.
|
|
|
|
Post by davecarlson on Sept 29, 2019 6:48:18 GMT -7
Stuart Reid, The Flintlock Musket: Brown Bess and Charleville, 1715-1865 (Osprey, 2016), 12: "A similar process [to that of the French] was followed in England, where the Board of Ordnance based at the Tower of London was primariy a receiver rather than a manufacturer of muskets other than by the setting up of components. For the most part the manufacture of muskets was contracted out to independent gunmakers in London and latterly in Birmingham as well, who in turn subcontracted or pieced out the individual components all the way down to screws and sidenails. The completed arms, or sometimes just the components, were then delivered to the Board of Ordnance at the Tower of London, which was responsible for placing the orders and for carrying out proof-testing and other quality-control checks upon delivery.
Both systems [French and English] ensured a basic level of commonality--at least in terms of calibre and barrel length--but there was still scope for variation between manufacturers. However, after half a century of near-continuous warfare ended with the Peace of Utrecht in 1713, the French and British governments in 1717 and 1722 respectively, took the opportunity to introduce a greater degree of standardization by laying down sealed or official patterns."
Jonathan Ferguson (2017): " 'Trusty Bess': the Definitive Origins and History of the term 'Brown Bess', Arms & Armour, 1-21. E. Goldstein & S. Mowbray, The Brown Bess: An Identification Guide and Illustrated Study of Britain's Most Famous Musket (Lincoln, RI: Andrew Mowbray Publishers, Inc., 2010.
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Sept 29, 2019 8:44:36 GMT -7
Stuart Reid, The Flintlock Musket: Brown Bess and Charleville, 1715-1865 (Osprey, 2016), 12: "A similar process [to that of the French] was followed in England, where the Board of Ordnance based at the Tower of London was primariy a receiver rather than a manufacturer of muskets other than by the setting up of components. For the most part the manufacture of muskets was contracted out to independent gunmakers in London and latterly in Birmingham as well, who in turn subcontracted or pieced out the individual components all the way down to screws and sidenails. The completed arms, or sometimes just the components, were then delivered to the Board of Ordnance at the Tower of London, which was responsible for placing the orders and for carrying out proof-testing and other quality-control checks upon delivery.
Both systems [French and English] ensured a basic level of commonality--at least in terms of calibre and barrel length--but there was still scope for variation between manufacturers. However, after half a century of near-continuous warfare ended with the Peace of Utrecht in 1713, the French and British governments in 1717 and 1722 respectively, took the opportunity to introduce a greater degree of standardization by laying down sealed or official patterns."
Jonathan Ferguson (2017): " 'Trusty Bess': the Definitive Origins and History of the term 'Brown Bess', Arms & Armour, 1-21. E. Goldstein & S. Mowbray, The Brown Bess: An Identification Guide and Illustrated Study of Britain's Most Famous Musket (Lincoln, RI: Andrew Mowbray Publishers, Inc., 2010.
Good info Dave, welcome as well. Glad you made it upon the vessel! |
|
|
|
Post by davecarlson on Sept 30, 2019 8:06:23 GMT -7
Thank you!  |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Oct 2, 2019 14:17:36 GMT -7
Something that as far as I know about the Muskets SENT to the colonies by the British Government and kept in colonial armories, is we don't know what kind of muskets they had when the FIW broke out, other than the P1730 Muskets sent to Georgia. For example, neither the lists of Maryland nor Virginia list the Patterns nor descriptions.. Possibly, if not probably, the newest Pattern Muskets they had were the P1703 dog lock muskets from England.
However, some colonies like the Carolina's and New York ordered Civilian Contractor Muskets from firms like Richard Wilson. Generally, the locks, barrels and stocks looked like a Brown Bess, but the brass pipes, brass trigger guards and butt plates were not as large/robust as King's Pattern Muskets. They were wood ramrod muskets. They may have been in the Government Caliber of .76, though some are known to have been in approximately .69 caliber.
Hope this helps,
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Oct 5, 2019 8:04:28 GMT -7
Here is a link to such a Civilian Contractor made, Richard Wilson "Para-Military" or Militia Musket used during the FIW. Those these resembled a "King's Musket," they were made with cheaper and less robust brass furniture and not quite to the overall quality of a British Ordnance approved musket. BTW, you can click on the photo in the link and the picture will enlarge to better view the detail of it. Many people today and perhaps some in the period may even have thought this was a "Brown Bess." www.adirondackbasecamp.com/2013/04/rare-french-indian/Gus |
|
