Post by: pathfinder on March 29, 2012, 01:14:40 AM
Post by: Roaddog on March 29, 2012, 06:26:21 AM
Post by: Capt. Jas. on March 29, 2012, 06:42:39 AM
Quote from: "pathfinder"
Over on Historicel Trekking,Mario stated that all that was ever issued for the Land pattern Brown Bess was a paper cartridge .690 ball. Thats it,just a .690 paper cartridge ball,nothing else. So does that mean I have to get rid of my .745 mould and get a .690 mould so I can participate in H/C,P/C event's? I am kinda down about that. I was getting used to winning with my .745 balls.
No. It means if you want to be H/C,P/C then you need to switch but no requirement was made of you.
I believe the context of what actually was said has been lost in dragging it over here.
In all fairness, nothing was said by Mario to you about participating in those events or not. Do you really want to participate n H/C,P/C events?
Mario just stated the historical so as not to blur an already dim view of the past for those actually seeking it. Nothing to require anyone to do anything other than their own thing. He then went on to share some great details of his research for those interested.
Post by: Ironhand on March 29, 2012, 09:15:10 AM
This is not to say that we should not follow the current best research, we should, and we should give those who do this slow and tedious work a proper amount of respect. However, researchers must be careful to acknowledge that their posts reflect the current best information from ongoing research and not immutable fact.
Historical research is essentially qualitative research. A review of the literature with an incomplete library. Even in quantitative studies results are stated as probabilities, surely historical researchers can do no less.
I do not know the specific of this case and there is no intent to criticize any individual. I have, however, seen other groups damaged by this type of behavior. We all need to respect each others opinions but we also need to recognize that what we post here are opinions, no matter how well informed.
Post by: Capt. Jas. on March 29, 2012, 09:55:05 AM
I agree about the definitive statements. In many other forms of research some things are not even more than theory and it is preached as fact. I also agree with the reasoning you give for same. Another reason I believe this happens is that somewhere in time an unspoken rule developed in academia that it was the correct way to present your conclusion for if you did not believe it how could someone else.
What you state though is understood and accepted by pretty much everyone at all levels of the hobby (INCLUDING MOST NEWBIES) except for a handful hanging on to the glory days as if it is being taken from them. I also believe in respecting opinions but sometimes BS has to be called on the play or we will have laser dot scopes on our muskets in no time : ) In the case above, nothing like that happened. An FYI statement was made of what the period load was. Who knows, maybe tomorrow research will reveal that the average bore size was .620 and all loads were shot with a .850 ball and all muskets were fired with nylon patching.
: )
Having to caveat every post on a historical board is a little much but your post above would make a good sticky atop a discussion board though.
Post by: pathfinder on March 29, 2012, 12:00:59 PM
Think back to when you were just starting and if you read that statement from someone with a great deal of knowledge and experiance,you would think that's a true statement.
If it is a true fact that ALL Bess's used the stated round,then I'll be the first to appologize. And sarcazim need's to be recognized when I commented on the H/C-P/C event's. I have in the past and will continue in the future to participate in those event's and alway's look forward to learning AND teaching at these event's. One thing that I learned in college is that all knowledge is evolving,the only thing constant is change.
We were told the fore stock of our beloved Bess's alway's tapered toward's the barrel,almost to a razor edge. Then along come an "Irish" Musket of the 1769 Short land pattern that has a definate flat profile on the top of the forestock.
Then the U.S. Militia act of 1792: that each and every free able-body white male citizen...who is or shall be of age of eighteen years,and under age of fourtyfive years...shall...be enrolled in the Militia[and] provide himself a good Musket or firelock,a sufficent bayonet and belt,two spare flints,and a knapsack,a pouch,with a box therein,to contain not less than twentyfour cartridges,SUITED TO THE BORE OF HIS MUSKET OR FIRELOCK,each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball.
That was from "The Brown Bess" by Eric Goldstein & Eric Mowbray. A great book on our beloved Bess.
Now,it doesnt specificly mention the Brown Bess,and it isnt refering the the British military either,but it is known that many "captured" musket's ended up in the hand's of colonials,and they would have to get a mould to make their round's.
I'm going to continue my study of bore sizes and try to determine how it affected the issued firearm's with the different unit's. Questions I have and will try to examine are,Did each unit have an armourer who took care of the firearm's,or did the individual soldier have to take responsabiliy for getting the proper size ball for his gun,ect.....
Post by: Capt. Jas. on March 29, 2012, 12:23:25 PM
Post by: pathfinder on March 29, 2012, 01:22:05 PM
Post by: Ironhand on March 29, 2012, 01:36:50 PM
Quote from: "Capt. Jas."
What you state though is understood and accepted by pretty much everyone at all levels of the hobby (INCLUDING MOST NEWBIES) except for a handful hanging on to the glory days as if it is being taken from them.
Capt.,
I have met some of those people but, having worked in academia, I can tell you that there are quite a few "learned individuals" who will unleash hell fire on any one who dares suggest alternative theories. I abandoned one list because of this type of behavior.
Either brand of "expert" can be very cruel but I do hold the serious researcher to a higher standard. I believe that it is incumbent upon a researcher to teach those willing to learn. If you treat questions as an attack or refuse to entertain alternative theories you can not teach. The only stupid question is the one you do not ask.
I agree that obvious and deliberate contradiction of the historical record can not be accepted and must be called out but there is a right way to do that. The goal should be to educate, not abuse.
Post by: mario on March 29, 2012, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: "Capt. Jas."
No. It means if you want to be H/C,P/C then you need to switch but no requirement was made of you.
I believe the context of what actually was said has been lost in dragging it over here.
In all fairness, nothing was said by Mario to you about participating in those events or not. Do you really want to participate n H/C,P/C events?
Mario just stated the historical so as not to blur an already dim view of the past for those actually seeking it. Nothing to require anyone to do anything other than their own thing. He then went on to share some great details of his research for those interested.
Bingo.
Quote from: "pathfinder"
If it was stated that "The 1730 Long Land Pattern was issued with .620 paper cartridge ammo",fine. ALL Bess's used the same ammo throughout it's service life? I have owned original Bess's that ranged from .712 bore size to .810,and doubt that the .810 would use a .620.
.690", not .620".
Experiment. Cut a piece of cartridge paper to period dimensions. Roll a cartridge with a .690" ball. Measure the OD of the ball in the cartridge. Bet it's mighty close to bore size. And in any case, it will fit any musket in the range of the bore sizes you mentioned.
They were not seeking pinpoint accuracy.
"To prime, load, fire and charge with the bayonet expeditiously were the chief points worthy of attention. It was our custom after loading and priming, instead of ramming down cartridge, to strike the breech of the firelock on the ground, and bring it to the present and fire."
Sgt Roger Lamb, 23rd RWF
Quote from: "pathfinder"
Then the U.S. Militia act of 1792: that each and every free able-body white male citizen...who is or shall be of age of eighteen years,and under age of fourtyfive years...shall...be enrolled in the Militia[and] provide himself a good Musket or firelock,a sufficent bayonet and belt,two spare flints,and a knapsack,a pouch,with a box therein,to contain not less than twentyfour cartridges,SUITED TO THE BORE OF HIS MUSKET OR FIRELOCK,each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball.
That was from "The Brown Bess" by Eric Goldstein & Eric Mowbray. A great book on our beloved Bess.
Now,it doesnt specificly mention the Brown Bess,and it isnt refering the the British military either,but it is known that many "captured" musket's ended up in the hand's of colonials,and they would have to get a mould to make their round's.
And it's also referring to people who would be providing their own ammunition rather than a gigantic military who issued it. The Brits expected about 12 years from a musket. This Act was passed 11 years after the main fighting was over.
Since it has nothing to do with the item discussed, I fail to see how it affects what the Brits issued.
I am merely a messenger. If you choose to ignore the message, that's your right. When I run shoots, we use period methods. If you go to someone else's shoots, you do what they allow.
If you have evidence to the contrary (period documents, artifacts, images), I'd love to check it out.
Mario
Post by: Bison Horn on March 29, 2012, 04:58:35 PM
Post by: Loyalist Dave on March 30, 2012, 08:09:22 AM
We found why the accuracy reports for muskets was bad, for when we tried .715 ball and cleaned between shots, much like a rifle, we could score some good hits out to 100 yards..., but with the ball sized for a full 24 shots..., the targets were pretty safe at 50 yards. Only that as we neared the end of our ammo, and the bores got "tighter" due to fouling..., the accuracy went up. Not a huge amount but noticeable.
LD
Post by: pathfinder on March 30, 2012, 09:03:18 AM
Although I only took 4 shot's with that powder,it cleaned a lot faster than 4 shot's with the "new" Goex.
Post by: Loyalist Dave on April 02, 2012, 10:10:31 AM
LD
Post by: Sir Michael on April 02, 2012, 02:23:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder
Another thing to consider is that they weren't nearly as obsessive about safety, cleaning, or accuracy as we are today and they used what they had mostly trying not to make things into something they are not. Like trying to make a Brown Bess into a fine target gun. Remember it was a mass area weapon not a sniper rifle. Also it was made to be used by men without much training that are scared silly.
With all this in mind, keep up the good work. It's always fun to see someone with gun that isn't supposed to be very good kick the rears of the experts with their custom made toys. :hey-hey
Post by: pathfinder on April 02, 2012, 02:54:05 PM
Post by: Sir Michael on April 04, 2012, 01:43:36 PM
Post by: No Rod on April 05, 2012, 12:50:06 AM
Post by: pathfinder on April 05, 2012, 09:53:57 AM
Post by: rickevans on April 05, 2012, 03:11:23 PM
Post by: No Rod on April 05, 2012, 11:56:07 PM