|
|
Post by artificer on Jan 30, 2020 21:30:08 GMT -7
From: Small Arms of the British Forces in America, 1664-1815, by Dr. De Witt Bailey Chapter 18, Pages 260 – 261 One of the earliest specific references to a “ priming horn” occurs in the description written by George Scott, the ranger captain, concerning a unit which he wished to raise, cloth and arm according to his ideas. It is more intriguing because we do not know whether he was ever able to fully achieve his outfitting goals, thanks to the logistic limitations in America, although he certainly continued to lead ranger units. In writing to Lord Loudoun in 1758, Scott describes the priming horn: [Captain Scott wrote the following:] “The priming-horn is intended to be filled with Pistol Powder, and the Ranger always to prime from it in time of action, by which method he will not be near so subject to burn priming or miss fire as He would by priming from a Cartridge, as the grain of the powder will be small and a very great fault which Men are subject to in time of action will be prevented, Vizt. That of spilling one half of their Cartridge of powder and sometimes more in priming and shutting their Pans, and when they have loaded and discharg’d their Pieces after the common method, it often happens that the Ball is not sent with half the force it is intended or anything near the distance it ought to go, which mistake will (I imagine) be avoided by the handiness of the Priming-horn, as the Men will have nothing more to do with the Cartridge than bite off the top, put it in the barrel at once and ram it down, and if the Cartridge is fill’d with Cannon powder it will have just the same effect I conceive as if fill’d with Pistol powder which will get into the touch-hole and catch fire as quick as can be wished…..” 21 End Note 21 from page 366: HL, LO6927, 13 Feb. 1758 More on Captain/Major George Scott: www.biographi.ca/en/bio/scott_george_3E.htmlMore on his exploits: www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/early-america-review/volume-1/light-infantry-battalionGus |
|
Keith
Hunter
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 1,002 
|
Post by Keith on Jan 30, 2020 21:45:51 GMT -7
From: Small Arms of the British Forces in America, 1664-1815, by Dr. De Witt Bailey Chapter 18, Pages 260 – 261 One of the earliest specific references to a “ priming horn” occurs in the description written by George Scott, the ranger captain, concerning a unit which he wished to raise, cloth and arm according to his ideas. It is more intriguing because we do not know whether he was ever able to fully achieve his outfitting goals, thanks to the logistic limitations in America, although he certainly continued to lead ranger units. In writing to Lord Loudoun in 1758, Scott describes the priming horn: [Captain Scott wrote the following:] “The priming-horn is intended to be filled with Pistol Powder, and the Ranger always to prime from it in time of action, by which method he will not be near so subject to burn priming or miss fire as He would by priming from a Cartridge, as the grain of the powder will be small and a very great fault which Men are subject to in time of action will be prevented, Vizt. That of spilling one half of their Cartridge of powder and sometimes more in priming and shutting their Pans, and when they have loaded and discharg’d their Pieces after the common method, it often happens that the Ball is not sent with half the force it is intended or anything near the distance it ought to go, which mistake will (I imagine) be avoided by the handiness of the Priming-horn, as the Men will have nothing more to do with the Cartridge than bite off the top, put it in the barrel at once and ram it down, and if the Cartridge is fill’d with Cannon powder it will have just the same effect I conceive as if fill’d with Pistol powder which will get into the touch-hole and catch fire as quick as can be wished…..” 21 End Note 21 from page 366: HL, LO6927, 13 Feb. 1758 More on Captain/Major George Scott: www.biographi.ca/en/bio/scott_george_3E.htmlMore on his exploits: www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/early-america-review/volume-1/light-infantry-battalionGus Gus you are a treasure, well done & thank you. This is the first time I have seen any documentation on the use of a priming horn. Regards, Keith. |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jan 30, 2020 22:13:22 GMT -7
Keith,
You are very kind, Sir. I thought you might be especially interested in this information.
I ran across this a few days ago when gathering documentation on shot pouches, etc., but didn't have time to type it all out then, as I don't have a working page scanner.
At first it sort of threw me that it was from a British rather than a Provincial Officer, but it does make sense since he was a Ranger Officer.
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Jan 30, 2020 22:25:13 GMT -7
Hmmm...maybe we have an 18th-century game of telephone here. For a long time i've had what is claimed to be a direct quotation from a letter from Major George Scott, 40th Foot, CO of the Light Infantry Battalion on the February, 1758, Louisbourg expedition, to Lord Loudoun, CIC in America. He clearly describes priming from a horn in a quotation a close variation of that posted by Gus, but the actual term priming horn isn't used.
“The powder horn recommended carrying pistol powder with its more combustible grain. Easily ready to hand and slung off the left shoulder under the right arm pit, the horn is a quicker and more convenient way of priming one’s musket, and is not subject to burn powder [flash in the pan] or miss fire. It also prevents the most common fault which men are subject to in time of action Vis, that of spilling 1/2 of their cartridge of powder and at times more in priming and shutting their pans. The result of such nervousness or sloppiness on the part of a soldier in action means that the ball will not be sent with 1/2 the force it is intended or anything near the distance it aught to go.”
Also significant in that he describes using finer grained powder for priming than for the main charge.
An interesting tidbit, in Destructive and Formidable: British Infantry Firepower, 1642–1756, by David Blackmore, the statement is made that Maj. Scott was recommending a return to the use of priming horns which had been abandoned in 1740.
BTW, this is apparently the same Maj. George Scott who described making the famous "surtout against the rain" from a linen shirt with linseed oil. He apparently liked to think outside the box.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jan 31, 2020 21:34:29 GMT -7
Spence,
Interesting point on Captain Scott suggesting the return to priming horns. British Ordnance was still receiving brand new Matchlock Muskets in the 1690's and did not stop until the P1703 Dog Lock Muskets and then common flintlock from that point onward. Gunsmiths in Williamsburg, VA were still modifying matchlock arms to flintlock in the 1720's.
Considering the type of warfare that Rangers were involved in, carrying a priming horn seems to have made good sense.
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Jan 31, 2020 23:56:03 GMT -7
Great topic Gus. And, an excellent series of responses thus far.
I note that this is clearly written with the idea of the main charge still coming from a cartridge, not a powder horn. So, I am still not taking it to be referring to the miniature horns and such that we currently see described as priming horns and used in conjunction with the full size horn.
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Feb 1, 2020 8:06:18 GMT -7
Brokennock,
I honestly don't know how small the priming horns were, though I imagine they were a small enough horn to fit in a coat or waist coat pocket. Otherwise the Rangers mentioned, or earlier Soldiers when it was more common to carry priming horns, would not have been able to access them readily when needed.
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Feb 1, 2020 8:38:05 GMT -7
In the quotation I posted, Scott describes the horn as being slung from the shoulder. I would think that would be a full sized one.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Feb 1, 2020 22:39:24 GMT -7
In the quotation I posted, Scott describes the horn as being slung from the shoulder. I would think that would be a full sized one. Spence I tried to track down Bailey's End Note 21 from page 366: HL, LO6927, 13 Feb. 1758, before I posted this thread to see if there was a copy or transcript on the internet of the actual letter, but so far I have hit a temporary dead end. Is it possible Scott wrote to Lord Loudon more than once on the subject and that would explain the difference in the quotes? It seems to me that if the horn was indeed a full size horn, then the logistics of keeping them in supply with Pistol powder would have been extremely difficult in the FIW, though perhaps not? However, there is an original period drawing of the back of a Light Infantry Soldier during the AWI that shows a full size powder horn. It can be seen in the following link by scrolling down to: Detail of a sketch of the back of a light infantry private in the 69th Regiment, 1778 by Philippe Jacques de Loutherbourg, R.A. (1740-1812) © Anne S. K. Brown Military Collection, Brown University Library 62ndregiment.org/soldier_arms.htm Gus |
|
|
|
Post by spence on Feb 1, 2020 23:30:06 GMT -7
Gus said: "Is it possible Scott wrote to Lord Loudon more than once on the subject and that would explain the difference in the quotes?"
It's something like that, I think. He was obviously making the same points, but the letters aren't duplicates. Maybe the attribution of one is incorrect, and he was writing to two different people.
That confusion seems a small problem to me. It's a good reference, and in both he advocates carrying a separate horn with finer grain powder for priming, which seems the important thing, to me. He not only said it would minimize powder spillage and weak loads, but gave more reliable ignition because of the finer grain. That idea was accepted as true long before Maj. Scott, back in the very early 17th century with their "tutch-box" and "tutch-pouder".
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Feb 2, 2020 5:42:07 GMT -7
There is no question that British LI carried a full sized horn during the AWI, as it was specified in the 1771 regulations for Light Infantry. It's purpose was for loading running ball, however, in addition to priming, so doubtful it carried a finer powder specifically for better ignition, which, as Spence notes, was a part of Scott's argument.
My take is that for military usage, the "priming horn" fell out of favor in the 17th or early 18th c. and Scott seems to be wishing to revisit that issue. It does not appear to me from the paucity of other documentation that many found the argument convincing at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Feb 3, 2020 0:32:52 GMT -7
There is no question that British LI carried a full sized horn during the AWI, as it was specified in the 1771 regulations for Light Infantry. It's purpose was for loading running ball, however, in addition to priming, so doubtful it carried a finer powder specifically for better ignition, which, as Spence notes, was a part of Scott's argument. My take is that for military usage, the "priming horn" fell out of favor in the 17th or early 18th c. and Scott seems to be wishing to revisit that issue. It does not appear to me from the paucity of other documentation that many found the argument convincing at the time. Could you explain what "running ball firing" was? I've read of it before, but not sure I understand what it means. Thank you, Gus |
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Feb 3, 2020 6:22:41 GMT -7
There is no question that British LI carried a full sized horn during the AWI, as it was specified in the 1771 regulations for Light Infantry. It's purpose was for loading running ball, however, in addition to priming, so doubtful it carried a finer powder specifically for better ignition, which, as Spence notes, was a part of Scott's argument. My take is that for military usage, the "priming horn" fell out of favor in the 17th or early 18th c. and Scott seems to be wishing to revisit that issue. It does not appear to me from the paucity of other documentation that many found the argument convincing at the time. Could you explain what "running ball firing" was? I've read of it before, but not sure I understand what it means. Thank you, Gus Running ball is essentially loading without a wad. When loading from a cartridge, the cartridge paper becomes the wad. In this case, the ball is simply rammed down on top of the powder charge loaded from the horn and/or powder measure. As a side note, sentries were often directed to load this way, so that charges could be easily removed without firing at the end of a watch. The obvious downside is that an undersized ball without a wad can become unseated (or even roll out the barrel) if inverted. |
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Feb 3, 2020 7:17:05 GMT -7
There is no question that British LI carried a full sized horn during the AWI, as it was specified in the 1771 regulations for Light Infantry. It's purpose was for loading running ball, however, in addition to priming, so doubtful it carried a finer powder specifically for better ignition, which, as Spence notes, was a part of Scott's argument. My take is that for military usage, the "priming horn" fell out of favor in the 17th or early 18th c. and Scott seems to be wishing to revisit that issue. It does not appear to me from the paucity of other documentation that many found the argument convincing at the time. One correction / addendum to this post: In consulting my copy of Bailey's excellent book cited elsewhere here as well, it seems that while the 4 Mar 1771 committee report on the patterns of LI clothing and accoutrements did not specifically mention the powder horn, it was contained in William Howe's pattern accoutrements, which were apparently adopted wholesale with any exceptions noted in the report. Bailey also notes Howe's recommendation of a 9 round belly box, which further suggests an alternative supplemental source of ammunition. (Bailey, ch.6, 148). |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Feb 3, 2020 9:47:25 GMT -7
Could you explain what "running ball firing" was? I've read of it before, but not sure I understand what it means. Thank you, Gus Running ball is essentially loading without a wad. When loading from a cartridge, the cartridge paper becomes the wad. In this case, the ball is simply rammed down on top of the powder charge loaded from the horn and/or powder measure. As a side note, sentries were often directed to load this way, so that charges could be easily removed without firing at the end of a watch. The obvious downside is that an undersized ball without a wad can become unseated (or even roll out the barrel) if inverted. Thank you! I thought that was what it meant, but wasn't sure. OK, that also explains the LI and some other troops carrying "Ball Bags" on their waist belts and of course that means they had to have a source of powder besides cartridges, I.E. carrying a powder horn. At least in the AWI references, I think it is a safe bet the LI used normal musket powder in their powder horns. Gus |
|
