[Scott Bubar]

Gordon, was this implemented only on line-of-battle ships at the time, or more broadly (i.e. frigates, sloops of war)?

Specifically, any idea when the flintlock would have come into common use on frigates?

[Gordon Frye]

Scott;

As I understand it, the first Admiralty orders for such gunlocks to be fitted to naval guns were placed as early as 1755. This of course doesn't mean that they were universal at any time near that date, however. Captain Sir Charles Douglas was credited with having locks of his design fitted to the guns of his ship HMS Duke in 1778, and they seem to have become widespread within a decade after this. The Royal Navy's gun drill from the Napoleonic era certainly includes the actions of cocking and priming the lock, as well as the gun captain having to stand well behind the gun in order to aim and fire it, so one may conclude that if not universal, it was at least common practice.

The first orders were to equip the quarter deck guns, and I would gather that it was at least the deck guns which were the first on all ships to be so fitted. But they ALWAYS kept tubs of smouldering matchcord at hand "just in case"!

My belief is that such items were a standard item of issue to all Men-of-War, not just Ships-of-the-Line, at least in the British service, but I'm sure that there were plenty of exceptions. I know that in 1813 Shannon was fully outfitted with them when she met and defeated Chesapeak, but I can't quote any other particulars than that.

I hope that this was of some help,

Sincerely,

Gordon Frye

[Jean Thibodeau]

Gordon;

Yes this is exactly what I mean: ignition system not attached to the weapon.

I guess the reason that there is NO historical record of this being done, is that the obvious solution of fixing the ignition system to the firearm would have been almost immediatly implemented!(Otherwise one needs 3 hands. JOKE)

If used at all, it would have being for so short a time that we have no evidence of this being used.

There is the Monk's Gun that can be seen as an alternate but linear version of the wheelock that was never fully developed.
But even here, it is attached to the weapon. Anybody know if the Monk's gun predates the first known wheelock?

[Gordon Frye]

Jean;

Ah, you bring up a major can of worms! The Monk's Gun is rather hotly debated, from what I understand. It's been claimed to be rather early, perhaps even dating from the late 15th Century or at latest from the early 16th Century, but others claim that it's just a cheap-and-dirty straightened out version of the wheellock dating from no earlier than the 1540's, maybe even later.

Bottom line is, Lord Knows. I guess it's a good topic for deeper research!

Cheers!

Gordon

[Jean Thibodeau]

Gordon;

Monk's gun! Is it someone using the principle of the wheelock and trying to make an inexpensive version or does it represent an earlier more primitive attempt to do the same thing?
It obviously didn't become a standard weapon: It think there are no other known examples of the Monk's gun or even other unique mechanisms not in the mainstream of matchlock to wheelock to flintlock.

At some point we know of handgonnes ignited by match or heated wire, we know nothing certain about using handheld flint base fire starters to fire weapons directly.
At some point those handling black powder must have noticed that sparks & powder resulted in a BOOOOOM! (Joke)
I would guess this was learned the hard way by the first manufacturers of powder: So I assume that this was discovered centuries before it became applied in a mechanism.
I can see some occasionnal use by some stressed out gunner with no match or no time to light one making the connection.

I think that if this was used often, some mention of it would be in historical documents or artwork.

Or, could it be, that it was so common, so obvious that no one thought of writing it down. (Half joking but I think that with history the most everyday things are the things least likely to be mentionned in texts.
Example: Would someone today bother to mention how to open a can of soup in a history of the 20th century. Would a historian 5,000 years from now know exactly how we did it if he knew about cans but no can openers had survived or been found. Maybe there is a better example, but the point is that what we do everyday without thinking is below our threshold of perception & is least likely to be documented.)

Anyway, I think I have exausted this particular subject, and I am starting to repeat myself.

[Gordon Frye]

My wife just got for me a wonderful book entitled Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe by Bert S. Hall. It has a great chapter in it entitled Interlude: Smoothbore Ballistics, in which the author quotes heavily from a test that was done by the curators of the Museum of Graz using original weapons from 1500-1700. The results are absolutely astonishing! The tests were conducted at an Army range, using the most modern scientific methods, and a modern Austrian Assault Rifle and issue Pistol as controls (I assume them to be an AUG and a Glock). At any rate, here are some of the results.

First, the velocities were a LOT higher than I would have thought. The LOWEST velocity recorded was from a pistol manufactured ca. 1700, and it was 385m/sec (1,263 fps)! The highest was 533m/sec (1749fps), with the average being 454m/sec (1,490fps) These velocities are on par with late 19th Century rifles, and modern pistols! (For example, a .45-70 bullet from a US M1873 Springfield Rifle is in the 1400fps range, as is a modern .357 Magnum pistol.) Admittedly the higher range is with the muskets, but it shows just the sort of speeds at which that these projectiles were leaving the muzzle.

Further tests, using a mechanical rest, were conducted with both long arms and pistols, the muskets at 100 meters, the pistols at 30 meters against a man-sized target. While the results using long arms were rather disappointing in performance with the loads chosen, the pistols were astonishing. Using two of the test pistols, one had an 83% hit rate, while the other scored a 99% hit ratio, which is consistent with modern pistols. Not Bad at ALL! Now, this of course doesn't take into effect a nervous trooper on a moving horse firing at another nervous trooper on a moving horse, but there is only so much that can be done with mechanical devices. At any rate, absolutely astonishing figures, even to a sympathetic researcher such as myself.

Yet another test was conducted against an original (!!!) breastplate from ca. 1570 (!!!!) I'll just quote!

"In what was perhaps the most dramatic of the Austrian tests a pistol shot was fired at a period breastplate from a distance of 8.5 meters. The breastplate, manufactured in Augsburg ca. 1570, was made of cold-worked mild steel 2.8-3.0 mm thick (harness, 290HB). It was mounted on a sandbag covered with two layers of linen (meant to simulate a normally clothed wearer). The pistol was one of those tested on the firing range (no.2895) with a shot weighing 9.54 gm. At the instant of impact the ball was traveling at a calculated speed of 436m/sec with a total kinetic enercy of 907 joules. The bullet completely penetrated the breastplate, but in doing so it expended all of it's kinetic energy. The highly deformed ball, missing 24 percent of it's initial mass, was found lodged in the linen."

I think that this rather neatly answeres the question as to whether a 16th Century pistol would or would not penetrate a 16th Century armour. As to its effect AFTER piercing the armour is, of course, another thing. (I recall reading long ago a mention that it was a poor idea to have a proof backplate, for if the bullet were to pierce the breastplate, you wanted it to continue on out, rather than bouncing off the backplate and causing you a second wound from the richocet).

Anyway, and absolutely fantastic resource, which I need to devour over and over to fully absorb. Amazing information!

Cheers,

Gordon

[Steve Fabert]

The ballistics you quote are fully consistent with other tests on black powder weapons of more modern manufacture. Lead balls fired from short barrels traveled at speeds high enough to penetrate comparatively lightweight armor from the very earliest days. It only takes about 1200-1300 feet per second to push a bullet through a stamped steel car fender, which is heavier than most wearable armor. When the bullet is sized to fit the bore tightly, accuracy is comparable to 18th Century weapons even if no rifling is used. Poor accuracy in muzzle loaders generally came from the use of comparatively loose fitting projectiles that allowed ease of reloading, not to any inherent inaccuracy in the firearm or its ignition system.

[Gordon Frye]

Steve;

You are absolutely correct in this. I had been well aware that arms such as Long Rifles could develop high velocities, upwards of 1800fps, but I was still quite surprised that 16th Century pistols could do velocities in the 1400fps range (the same as a modern .357 Magnum). No question they can pierce armour! The really surprising part though is the comparison with late-19th Century handguns, such as the British .450 calibre revolvers that were lobbing 235 grain bullets out at only about 600fps. I had been expecting velocities of more in the 900-1,000 fps range for wheellocks.

Indeed, 18th Century commentators were fairly universal in their condemnation that accuracy had been sacrificed in the quest for speed (they generally blamed the Prussians for this one). One French author claimed that you had to fire a man's weight in lead at him in order to kill him. This of course was due to the greater and greater discrepancy between ball size and bore diameter as the 18th Century continued (in the 19th Century the US Army discovered that by increasing the bullet diameter from .64" to .65" for their .69" calibre muskets the accuracy was increased dramatically).

My personal experience with shooting a matchlock bastard musket of 12-bore (.72") with 14-bore (.69) balls, as well as using .715" ball is fairly instructive. Although the larger size ball is definitely more difficult to ram home after a few shots, it is as accurate at 50 yards as any muzzle loading rifle. At 100 yards, it can easily hit a man-sized target every time. The smaller rounds are not quite as accurate, but certainly easier to load, especially with a dirty bore. With both sizes I use a charge of 100 grains of 2Fg black powder, which produced a noticeable, but not uncomfortable, recoil.

I have no question at all that a small bore (40-45) calibre pistol with a long barrel of say 18" will produce enough velocity to pierce most plate armour... which is pretty much what my original thesis was at the begining of the thread.

Cheers!

Gordon

[Steve Fabert]

Muzzle velocities of the late 19th Century revolvers firing black powder cartridges were comparatively low due to the combination of overweight bullets and the leakage of gas between the cylinder and forcing cone of the barrel. When round lead balls were used in the earlier Colt revolvers, loading through the front of the cylinder, they generated some really respectable muzzle energy. Dragoons and Walkers easily produced magnum velocities before the Civil War.

A good single shot pistol with a twelve inch barrel should have thrown a slug that could reliably take down an opponent wearing an armored breastplate, as long as the bullet closely matched the bore size. Whatever the bore size, muzzle velocity will allow you to pierce thin steel plate once you reach the minimum speed to breach its surface.

The best muzzle loading pistol velocity/accuracy combination for a given blackpowder charge would probably be produced by using a round lead ball that exactly matched the bore size. You might not be able to reload it without cleaning the bore first, but the ball would fly straight and fast. A horseman with a pistol or two that he did not intend to reload could rely on this sort of weapon to do the job. A single shot breechloading cartridge pistol might allow you to achieve equal or better results with a slightly oversized bullet, if you rifle the bore. Ordinary cartridge revolvers would perform more poorly due to the mismatch between bullet and bore and gas loss between cylinder and cone.

I don't think it was an accident that the era of fat slow bullets coincided with the near total absence of body armor. Big slow slugs work reasonably well on fabric and skin, probably better than fast small bullets traveling at pistol speeds. The fact that these later pistols might have had limited usefulness against the armor of earlier centuries is no indication that the single shot pistols of the 16th and 17th Century were less than adequately effective against armored targets.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Gordon & Steve;

I am really impressed by the velocities and accuracy mentionned in these test.

If I had my own Renaissance or later army to supply: I would supply each soldier with the standard loadout of paper cartriges using the LOOSE fitting ball for close range high volume fire, and a small supply of TIGHTLY fitting ball & loose powder etc...that you need to load.

I can see some logistics problems and problems using the tight ball at the end of a battle in dirty muskets.

But it would be good for skimishers, for a couple of Long range volleys at the beginning of the battle, or in a siege situation were speed of loading is not important plus time out to clean the musket every fiew shots.

I would supplement this by a small number of snipers with rifles. ( For those 600 yard shots, the reason for not arming everybody with rifles would be cost & to maintain speed of fire.)

(If I want to cheat: Minie Ball!) (If I don't know when to stop: Thompson submachine gun for everybody! JOKE)

[Scott Bubar]

[Gordon Frye]

Scott;

One thing you can say for Patrick O'Brien, he was a great hand at interweaving the realities of Naval Warfare with fiction. The battle he describes between Chesapeak and Shannon in Fortune of War is almost word-for-word out of the Admiralty reports on it. Broke was indeed quite an innovator in Naval Gunnery, and though he had a slightly smaller frigate than Lawrence, and fewer men as well, Broke's crew was wonderfully drilled and thoroughly familiar with his demanding style. It has often been held up as the "classic frigate action" due to the chivalrous behaviour of both captains, but I believe the fight lasted all of 15 minutes. Maybe it was 11.

Broke was indeed one of the new breed of scientific sailors, and his rapid victory over Chesapeak was one of the major pushes toward reform. Broke really wasn't able to take advantage of it though, for although he was promoted to Admiral for this action, he never really recovered from the blow to the head he received from an American cutlass after he boarded his soon-to-be prize. I am under the impression that he was driving hard to modernize the Royal Navy, and had locks of his own design fitted to most of the upper-deck guns at least, but I don't know how they differed from the issue versions. Per Aubrey, a very cool character indeed! But I must say, some of the stunts O'Brien has him pulling viz firing cannons would quickly loose him an eye or at least scorch the absolute bejeazuz out of hisforehead! Leaning over from the side of a recoiling 18-pounder after touching the match to the touch-hole will send a jet of plasma blasting it's way right through you. Lower deck guns often left scorch marks on the timbers above them... not a good spot to be!

One set of books that I HEARTILY recommend to anyone with even a passing interest in the Age of Fighting Sail is Boarders Away, volumes I and II by William Gilkerson. Volume one deals with edged weapons, from pikes to cutlasses and boarding axes, dirks and other edged "weapons at hand", while volume II focuses on "weapons of fire", from swivel guns and hand grenadoes to muskets, blunderbusses and pistols, even the very cool "Chambers Repeating Swivel Gun" which you get to read the book to find out about. At any rate, the books go into incredible detail on the weapons and warfare of the Age of Fighting Sail, from the late 17th through the early 19th Centuries, and is worth every penny of it's cost. One of the sponsors of the book is the USS Constitution Museum, and many of the photographs are from examples in their extensive collection. Needless to say, I highly recommend it.

Hope this helps some,

Sincerely,

Gordon

[Steve Fabert]

[Gordon Frye]

Scott, as Steve suggests, the formulas for gunpowder were fairly well established by the late 16th Century, so the powder used in the tests of modern manufacture wouldn't be significantly different from the original. One thing that has been noted when testing 19th Century firearms, however, is that if anything, modern-manufactured black powder is LESS powerful, and MORE dirty than 19th Century standards would allow. With the less refined manufacturing techniques of the 16th Century, I would make the guess that the powder quality of then is roughly on par with that manufactured today.

(The reason for this has to do with Lawyers and Liability, rather than production ability. Modern black powder contains a great deal of graphite, which is added to prevent a build-up of static electricity in the grains of powder, which makes it statistically safer to store for long periods of time... I guess I'm willing to make that trade-off).

Steve, your comment about the "Fat Slow moving bullets coinciding with the near absence of body armour" is, to my mind, dead on the money. Excellent point. It also coincides with the return to the "Armes Blanche" by both Cavalry and Infantry. Without body armour to defeat, you don't need to use firearms to the extent you did anymore. Bayonets and Swords work just fine. But if the other guy DOES issue out armour, you still have that pistol, and that musket, to defeat him once more. Thus the gradual rise of the Cult of the Sword, and the Cult of the Bayonet. No armour, no NEED for firearms. But you still have them, even though the use actually tends to go down in the 18th Century.

Gordon