What’s the fastest way to shoot a Brown Bess? No, it’s not Sharpe’s “spit loading” method.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2023
- Huzzah for the Paper Cartridges 10,000 Subscriber special! I love the 1990’s Sharpe TV series with Sean Bean, the plots are historically inspired and follow real events, but sometimes to beat the French, you need to blur the line between real historical methods and Hollywood fantasy.
One such fantasy is Sharpe’s “bite, pour, spit, tap” method of rapid-firing a Brown Bess. It’s great as a plot device that gets Sharpe’s plucky outnumbered British soldiers out of a tight spot, but it doesn’t work in real life, or as it turns out, in history as well.
And Brown Bess is quite capable of Sharpe-approved rates of rapid fire, simply by loading the way the boring old manual calls for. Imagine that!
![ตั๋วเมีย (ຕົວະເມຍ) - SOMBATH.97 Ft. YOUD SALAVAN [ Official music video ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GV6qHagpp50/mqdefault.jpg)
Sean Bean wouldn’t lie to me?!?!?!
Never trust anything where Sean Bean is alive at the end.
@@foxcm2000 😂 excellent point!
But what about the show writers?
Wait, were we able to just walk into Mordor then? I mean two short guys just kinda did just that…
Not the man who took the Eagle at Talavera, he wouldn't lie
Proving Richard Sharpe wrong? Now thats soldiering!
Cant go around proving Sharpie wrong. Sez so in the scriptures.
"Proving a fictional character wrong sir, now thats floundering !"
Good work! Yes, I think that if they did the spit-technique much, then we would read of soldiers shooting themselves in the head. When I was taught this, I was told to 'slam' down the musket to get the ball down, so I find 'tap' very odd. The main thing seems to be to get rid of the ramming stage. Watching you, it seems that you used a LOT of time unstowing and restowing the rod. I would be tempted to hold it in my hand the whole time, or perhaps sling it from a lanyard, or even stick/drop it on the ground. Yes, you want to keep it clean, but how many shots does it ever take to see off the French? Supposedly, this was part of the 'reverse sloping' that the British did, so that they were always shooting at close range uphill, which suits the ramless technique. I would be interested to see you repeat the experiment biting off the non-ball end, and feeding in the cartridge the usual way, then doing a hard slam. If the men ever loaded using separate balls, then would we not have evidence of their being issued ball-less cartridges?
Jonathan Ferguson from the Royal Armoury said that he did in fact find two historic accounts of “slam loading” I guess you could call it, of just putting in the ball with cartridge paper into the muzzle, and slamming the butt once or twice really hard to seat it. He suspects this might have been discovered by soldiers who were issued undersized bullets. Sometimes they were as small as .67. It was so unusual, that somebody noticed and wrote it down, so this must have been pretty rare.
Returning the ramrod was intensely drilled into soldiers. While a few seconds might have been saved by sticking it in the ground, if your unit suddenly gets and order to advance, and the line moves, which it would be constantly doing in a battle. and you forget to grab the ramrod in the excitement, you’re going to have a fun time explaining that to the sergeant later! So while a little slower, returning the rammer at least ensures it wasn’t lost.
Totally ignorant here. But I feel that sticking your ramrod into the ground is indeed a recipe for dirt and rust. But more importantly.. a recipe to lose them. Sure in calm drill you'd remember to pick it up, but under stress, sudden maneuvers (charge, flight), it would be often left behind I think.
The novels make more sense because it's the Riflemen that tap load at short range. The tighter fit of a wrapped ball and the extra force required to ram it home vs a loose ball tapped home would allow the rifle to go from 2 shots a minute to a similar to musket speed but losing much of the accuracy advantage.
@@papercartridges6705one thing noted in the books was that french bullets were slightly smaller, British could use french ammo with increased windage but the French would need British guns to use British ammo.
How many shots does it take to see off the French 😂
Brandon F did a TH-cam on Sharpe's spit loading method. He not only called it insane to put your month over a loaded gun, but as reenactors we know how hot a gun can get, and cooking off rounds is possible. Plus no armies's period manual used that method because it was insane. Brandon speculates that the scriptwriters wanted to show that Sharpe had some special insight on speed loading that 150 years of musket usage did not discover.
IIRC they seemed to abandon that method because later on in the series they don't use the spit technique.
I am pretty confident it was also in the books and Cornwell usually tries to stay somewhat believable.
@@Ugly_German_TruthsIt is, I’m reading through them now. It’s unfortunate and makes me chuckle every time it appears, which isn’t too often.
I feel like you're not understanding the point. The South Essex couldn't fire three rounds a minute conventionally because they were inexperienced. Sharpe taught them the spit method because it was the fastest way to increase their loading speed. They had an important battle to fight and very little time to prepare for it.
As the South Essex gained more experience, they could be taught safer methods of rapid reloading later on. The point of the scene certainly was _not_ to imply Sharpe knew some secret method that was _better_ than the manuals. This was a niche situation that called for a risky option.
Wouldn't you eliminate the danger by saving the priming for last? Not that this would spare your lips.
So sorry you had to demo a spit process, but thanks for clearing that up. As a firearms instructor, I have to fight Hollywood methods all the time. Great stuff.
You ever see Sharpe, sir? Hollywood, it ain't.
It would be interesting to hear what the top 5 crazy Hollywood techniques you have had to correct from the public. Including the number one stupid idea most likely to get you killed.
@@lawrence142002 clearly, since Sean Bean was neither the villain nor died. j/k
@@lawrence142002 Not enough black lbgtrstuvwxyz+- for hollywood.
As an experienced muzzle loader 40+ years, here in the uk I would like to repeat the warning’s that you gave as I’ve witnessed what can happen when it goes wrong, a mate of mine who makes his paper cartridges and was speed loading had one explode in his hand when it cooked off, I use to load from a flask up to that day, not now I only use measured charges and the ball must reach the charge if not it could damage the barrel and the shooter. Informative video thank you.
Curious to understand how a paper cartridge could "cook off" in someone's hand? To reach ignition temperature gunpowder needs to get to around 200 - 400 Degrees C. Difficult to understand how this could happen in something hand held! The issue with flasks is the quantity of powder present rather than the ignition risk. I cannot see any difference in risk between a paper cartridge and a measured charge in a plastic tube..?
I suspect what you mean is that a charge ignited from a burning ember in the barrel. Cook offs are more a breech loading phenomenon due to the speed of loading possible. BP muzzle loaders do get hot, but not usually enough to cause ignition. The mains source of burning embers used to come from the practice of using tow (teased out hemp rope fragments) for cleaning and wadding. Providing paper cartridge material is above the powder charge, the chances of burning embers remaining in the bore is low.
You should however never put any part of your body over the muzzle whilst loading.. (which I agree is difficult when using a shot starter or a Baker ramrod!)
@@felixthecat265 maybe cooked off was the wrong expression the charge exploded in his hand when he started to pour the power down the barrel we presumed there must’ve been a glowing ember down the barrel he was loading that quick, yes there’s no difference between a paper cartridge and a measured charge but there is between the above and a flask full of powder if that exploded it would take your hand off at least.
@@EggPottsKnock Thanks.. that clarifies things. I would hope that a proper double shutter Dickson type flask would stop a flashback, but better not to try..!
static?@@felixthecat265
I have been a muzzle loader for many years now too but I've never experienced any embers still being in the barrel after shooting? What did he put in the barrel? For me it always clears completely. And as for barrel temperatures, sure they go up to a point you can't comfortable hold the barrel with your bare hands but they never go glowing hot as some people say in other comments. Only times I saw someone have a cartridge blow in his hand was when he was so stupid to have one is his trigger hand when discharging another shot....
I spent five wonderful years (wish it was more) as a uniformed interpreter at Fort George National Historic Site in Niagara, Upper Canada. Every year, in the spirit of the traditional that existed in the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars, we did a soldiers’ field day complete with a speed-loading competition. The fastest Brown Bess load I saw was 9 seconds.
I’m still a War of 1812 re-enactor, and that drill muscle memory speaks to me. You never exactly lose it. It’s always a little weird for me to do tap loads at re-enactments since it throws off the cadence of ramming I’m so used to. Of course, for me, trying to load percussion cap weapons would feels incredibly unnatural to me!
Thanks to the 1812 reenactor who took time to chat with my son at the Waterloo 200 event in 2015
Gave us great memories
Well I asked the interpreter at Fort George in 2018 to do 4 rounds a minute and he did. I was impressed. I don't remember if he was using a ramrod or not, but he did 4 rounds a minute.
@@johnmoreno9636He definitely would have been. There have been some very skilled loaders that have (and do) work there.
9 seconds? With actual lead ball? Properly rammed? proper sized ball?
Frederick the Great's guard was allegedly getting off 6 rounds per minute. As a proud Canuck, I'm pleased to hear your compatriots approaching the same rate of fire in Niagara.
It's nice to see this revisted. I think I mentioned on the original video, there is reference to musketeers in the 1600s holding bullets in their mouths ready to load, but the mouth was in essence just a convenient pouch from which bullets could be withdrawn, no spitting involved. I'm pretty sure the danger of putting your mouth over the muzzle of a primed and essentially loaded musket was probably recognised, even back then!
I’d be so afraid of swallowing a bullet. Especially in the 1600s when there isn’t much you can do except hope it works it’s way out…
@@papercartridges6705 You could keep them in your cheeks and keep your teeth shut.
@@papercartridges6705 It sounds kind of like the old upholstering technique of spitting tacks, where they'll hold a bunch of tacks in their mouth and spit them one at a time onto the hammer. Given how sharp it is probably something you want to swallow even less than a bullet.
I suspect the ball-biting thing was probably a misconception by Cornwell formed by not understanding how the paper cartridge was constructed. I think he saw the process of manufacture as the empty paper cartridge being filled with powder first AND THEN the ball added and the paper twisted and closed. Knowing that the firer had to bite and prime he would be faced with the dilemma of how did he prime with a ball being in the way? So in the author's mind he had to have that ball out of the way to reach the powder. The rest, as they say...
To make matters worse, the author has a riflemen demonstrating this with a rifle. Hilarious!!
Good firing by the way.
You suffered for science. Well done, thanks for taking one for the team.
RAW RAW RAW! YoU'rE wRoNg!!!! my imaginary friend Richard Sharpes is the besterest solider EVER!!! him and Robin of Loxely and Sherlock Holmes are all totally reliable sources for historic information!!! jokes aside, great work and congratulations on hitting 10 grand, I hope to see you get many, many more.
Interesting. I remember reading in Spring's "With Zeal and With Bayonets Only" that the rebel troops of 1775-83 would tap load, and the result was the ball couldn't penetrate the coats of the government troops.
David Blackmore in "destructive & Formidable" mention that taploading was common in the early to mid 18th century.
He quote (British) Lt. Col La Fausille's manuscript (from 1750-52) telling us that the french used it and "this Preserved many of our men at the Battle of Laffelt".
So clearly ineffective in this case.
La Fausille advise that when the enemy retreat the battalion was to be put in order and the men was to "fresh prime, Load or ram down the charge of such as are loaded"
It indicate an expectation that some men had taploaded.. and it would be a good idea for them to ram the cartridge down
And Humphrey Bland's important "a treatise of military discipline" from 1727 also mention it... and argue against it...
But also write that if the men "are not press´d too close by the enemy, the ramming down of the cartridge should not be omitted in service"
So Both clearly knew that it was done by the British infantry and both disapprove of it... but seem to accept that in some cases it can be useful.
And Culloden is one example where it was done against charging highlanders...
Too long since reading it, but I remember it being among the sources listing instances of tap-loading, also mentioning how tit seems to always be mentioned as illustration for how dire someones situation was to use it, or how bad their training. rarely if ever someone described themselves as doing it.
Even Bernard Cornwell admits that a tap load doesn’t seat well on the powder. Thet affects pressure. That messes with velocity and velocity is needed to obtain penetration.
@@patrickdavies6514 Which is all true but still, desperate people tried desperate things :)
@@patrickdavies6514 so it is possible, if accuracy and penetration don't matter if your not shooting at the enemy
& the only purpose is just to fire the right amount to stop simmerson from flogging anyone who can't .
In that situation is it possible ( with a musket)
Re: percussion muscle memory. I recently attended a Second Seminole War reenactment with my mother and son. Pointed out to them exactly that. You can tell the guys who mainly do Civil War stuff because they immediately drop the butt to the ground instead of bringing it to the hip.
What is most amazing is how well the muscle memory works when you know and handle one gun rather often, in how insanely fast and surely you can stick that ramrod in that tiny pipe or barrel opening.
I have it bad. I think two or three times I went to drop the musket down and had to remember I missed a step! For this video, that kind of was useful, since I can honestly say I’m slow and clumsy with the flintlock, and the redcoats in 1812 would definitely be able to do it much faster and smoother.
@@papercartridges6705 still respectable work. And a competent musketeer :)
I was inveigled by my sister and my 89 year old Father into watching a Sharp's episode.
Having become somewhat knowledgeable about the subject of black powder firearms in the 20+ years I watched some of the things they did and my toes just curled.
This made me go back and find my copy of Sharpe’s Eagle and find the relevant chapter. In the book it’s not portrayed as any kind of secret technique, but rather as the normal reloading drill, performed by Sharpe as muscle memory. I think we can probably blame the fact that Cornwell was writing in 1980 or so and doing so as a means of making some money when he was in America as his wife’s spouse on a non-work visa at a time when writing wasn’t considered an official “job” by the government as far as visas were concerned. He was probably going off of incomplete information about how black powder reloading worked. I’ll have to check his nonfiction book about Waterloo and see if he has correct information in that.
Excuse me nonfiction book of Waterloo ? He wrote about the Dutch as cowards and were running away because he took his story material of Siborne who wrote about Waterloo and wrote it like the British forces where the winners and the Dutch didn't do anything There are better historians than those two
@@Woodcutter1964 Have you confused "Sharpe's Waterloo", a fiction book, with "Waterloo" which is a non-fiction book? I haven't read the latter and am unaware if the calumny is repeated.
COGENT .
@@Woodcutter1964 That doesnt mean it's non-fiction. Authors, historians, philosphers, they all have their own opinions and perspectives of past events. That doesn't mean it's made up and fiction. Wrong perhaps at worst? Sure.
@@Woodcutter1964 You need to read the non fiction Waterloo, he goes into detail about all the soldiers and their portrayal being dependent on eye witnesses and biases of the historians. He attempts to correct those misconceptions and does not show the Dutch being cowards in fact he comments on a number of soldiers fleeing the contact line including Rifles. Sharpe's Waterloo is fictional from Sharpe's perspective.
impatient Brown-Bess lover here... 3-4 Shots for well drilled infantry is not only found as reference in several perio sources, but also checks out on the range.
What slows me down (besides low ceilings of the indoor range) most, is searching for a cartridge in a rapidly emptying pouch. And It was weirdly difficult to train the body to continue loading right after biting off the cartridges top, instead of waiting until after I spat out the paper sticking to my tongue.
I may now look like an idiot, with paper sticking out my mouth half way down the loading, but it works.
I never trusted Sharpe on the spit loading. The few documented ways to make cartridges for the brits all make the paper rather inclined to stay with the ball, and it takes some doing with teeth and tongue to undress the ball.
There is, however, written evidence for tap-loading (With your fingers you -can- get the ball out reasonably easy.) but it tends to show up in references to and as illustrations of how dire a situation was, that the soldiers were resorting to tap-loading, or how green some troops were, that they resorted to it.
[EDIT]
I suppose, the spitloading is the equivalent to so many other film and fantasy heros having that special heart explosion kung fu move, the one-shot-kill-guaranteed sword move and secretive spell etc...
Mere plot device.
David Blackmore in "destructive & Formidable" mention that taploading was common in the early to mid 18th century.
He quote (British) Lt. Col La Fausille's manuscript (from 1750-52) telling us that the french used it and "this Preserved many of our men at the Battle of Laffelt".
So clearly ineffective in this case.
La Fausille advise that when the enemy retreat the battalion was to be put in order and the men was to "fresh prime, Load or ram down the charge of such as are loaded"
It indicate an expectation that some men had taploaded.. and it would be a good idea for them to ram the cartridge down
And Humphrey Bland's important "a treatise of military discipline" from 1727 also mention it... and argue against it...
But also write that if the men "are not press´d too close by the enemy, the ramming down of the cartridge should not be omitted in service"
So Both clearly knew that it was done by the British infantry and both disapprove of it... but seem to accept that in some cases it can be useful.
And Culloden is one example where it was done against charging highlanders...
You are a brave man to defarb Sharp, and ingest BP. Even a tiny bit of BP is an excellent laxative. Thanks for another great video.
This takes me back to my re-enacting days. Doing public displays etc, you would always get someone mentioning 'Sharpe' at some point. We would always have to debunk and explain why Bite, Prime, Pour and tap didn't work. But one thing that is not mentioned in this video and others is the fact that the Infantryman would be in a Line formation and so would have other soldiers either side of you as well as behind, all trying to spit their balls done a hot barrel. One other point to note is you see Sjt Harper demonstrating how to load with a Rifle {Infantry Rifle aka Baker}. The ball still wrapped in paper won't plop down the barrel like that. LOL. At the end of the day it all looks good on the telly. Sjt D. Gower 2nd Battalion 95th Regiment of Foot {Rifles}.
Four shots in a minute?
Said it before and I say it again: you're a faster shot than I am, Gunga Din.
The first thing I remember being told when I went to a range was you never never point a gun at anything that you are not happy to destroy. Sticking my head over the end of a gun, loaded or not, is not something I would ever want to do. Everything else aside, the safety aspect is enough to never want to try this. I find it very interesting that people make videos of themselves putting their head over the end of barrel.
In case people don’t like your video, I thought it was informative and well put together. Thanks for uploading it.
A very nice demonstration. I'm impressed you managed to get off so many shots without a misfire. Congratulations on 10K!
A well looked after flintlock musket is considerably less cantankerous than popular wisdom would make it. Fussy they can be but, I think the modern reputation comes mainly from the impulse to exaggerate flaws in older equipment to stroke a contemporary superiority complex and perhapse market the new gadget on scene even better. Percussion looks even better if you go further than selling it on it's base level improvements and pit it against a worst case example of previous tech.
As a black powder shooter for decades, not a fan of putting my mouth over the muzzle of a just fired and reloaded rifle.
The speed of both these drills also increases how many times the hand spends in front of the muzzle.
Practicing speed for hunting also involves not passing your hand in front of the muzzle, much less ones face.
Like with all shooting, first comes technique, then speed.
Excellent video.
If you've read the Sharpe's novels , you know that when he first showed the troops the speed possible , he did it by timing from the first shot, so he actually only loaded and fired three, and fired four in that minute, I noticed that you spit out the residue while loading. The sulfur in the powder is a quite effective anti bacterial, and they kept their tea in their bullet pouches so , though they didn't know it it helped fight infection when wounded. Also the little trick of putting maggots under the bandages they kept secret.
Lol! I know myself that the series Sharpe's Rifles has a dedicated fanbase who would take the films for reality. So few people have ever regularly fired/loaded a muzzle loader that they have little concept of the actual process.
Thank you for undertaking this experiment. And bravo on successfully firing 4 rounds per minute!
I could practically feel every one of those ball-first bites on my own incisors... can't imagine how uncomfortable that was with a mouthfull of powder as well. Kudos to you pulling that off at your local range. A+ vid here (nice loading too, four shots in close to a minute with all the small hangups is still pretty bad ass!)
It obviously worked in the old days because the scriptwriter says so! I really like your presentations, you make things interesting and are historically accurate or at the very least plausible.
The Maori in the New Zealand Wars of 1850's used this method, no ramrod, just a bump on the ground. But they also used river stones instead of lead bullets, which they carried between their hand fingers. Their speed probably exceeded 4 per minute!
@@stephenfleming3738 Did they hit anything that was more than 50 meters away?
I can't imagine that anyone with any experience at all with muzzleloaders would think "Bite, pour, spit, tap" would actually work as described in the movie. Outstanding job exposing a dangerous Hollywood fallacy!
What do you mean! Sharpe's not real? But, I've seen him, on TV 😅
I did read one a very long time ago of a spit the ball method that might work. It was not intended for speed loading so much as a way to load a trade musket from horseback used by buffalo hunters in Canada at one time.
The powder was loaded from some sort of device and no paper or other wadding. A very undersize ball that was carried in the mouth was spit down the bore (assume still unfouled bore) and the gun maintained pointing up to keep the ball and powder charge at the rear of the barrel. When the bison was close, the gun leveled fired the moment that was done into the bison. If there was a pause with gun leveled or actually inclined down the ball and also the powder would begin to roll forward. Not sure how the priming was done or if it was cap or ball. The gun I assume was primed I assume while loading the power and then spitting the ball.
It was something I read many years ago and I have no idea if such a thing is even possible. But the writer of the sharpe novel or movies must have gotten that idea from somewhere and then modified it to fit the circumstances of the story.
brilliantly done!
I love how you didn't budge, but brought proof like a true scientific discussion, instead of just telling a few fanboys of Sharpe that they're ignorant and stupid (which they most definitely are, claiming something they saw in fantasy but haven't even tried once in real life)
One thing I found when speed shooting the Bess was just how quickly the barrel got hot when shooting 3-4 rounds a minute and military charges. After a couple of minutes, it's too hot too touch and difficult to handle in the proper manner (not putting the musket down when ramming), especially when shooting fast like the French are upon you.
Also from speed loading, like you, I found out what gunpowder tastes like haha.
I love that flint lock slowmo! Really need to get me one. It’s funny growing up everyone said you needed a fine 4F powder to prime or it won’t work but the historic cartridge shows that no 2F works just fine for priming.
Congrats on 10,000! Hope for many more years of content and purchases!
I'm not a flintlock shooter (yet, I've still got some good years left in me), but I think the main reason 4F is preferred for priming by modern flintlock shooters is that modern graphite tumbled powder ignites more readily in finer grades vs. the tumbled, but not graphited powder used 200 year ago. That said, though, unless this video was shot with homemade powder (and I don't think it was, given the mention of seventy cents worth of Goex in each cartridge) it's obvious that a well dressed and adjusted flint with a properly hardened frizzen will drop hot enough sparks to reliably and promptly ignite 2F in the pan.
If you're shooting birds with a Manton lock fowling piece, 4F is probably the way to go; lock time is everything in wing shooting with a flintlock, but for combat with a Brown Bess, I'm not sure up to a tenth second matters much as long as it goes BOOM every time the flint strikes.
In addition, the rate of fire is a highly esoteric number anyways, since it only accounts for fastest possible loading. when in orderly combat, you'd finish loading and instead of going to present again, you'd go to a position/stance predetermined for being ready, and would await orders to either make ready, present, fire, or whatever else might have been ordered.
Besides, there was maneuvering, marching, flat out throwing oneself down into a ditch beside a road, depending on the circumstances and orders.
Yeah the fire rate of a regiment as a whole probably matters more than the fire rate of an individual soldier.
@@hedgehog3180 the rate of fire of the unit is directly linked to the ROF of the individual. but ROF was nowhere near the only important aspect to make up an effective millitary unit. mobility, ability to react to changing situations quickly and to be able to reliably control and command the men.
Somewhat famously, Wellington insisted his army adopt the practice of waiting until the last possible moment before firing a single volley at the French and following up with the bayonet, which would make rate of fire somewhat moot. Although even without Wellington's interference British practice since the mid 18th century had been to fire by platoon (usually by sixes or eighths) on specific tempo's, so the speed you could reload would make no difference to your rate of fire, unless of course you were too slow.
The Sharpe example gets even sillier when you consider he's part of the rifles. Not only did they operate under a different drill system, but any rifleman found carelessly blazing away at the enemy rather than doing his actual job and picking his shots would be in for a stern talking to at the very least.
You might be left with this as an only option. I was a black powder shooter for decades shooting both a Long Land Pattern Brown Bess as well as a 1777 Pattern Charleville. I've successfully used them both for deer hunting as well as historic reenacting. I've read in a number of accounts about after-battle analysis about the number of ramrods that were, in the heat of battle, fired downrange (and it was a lot). While it would be a major problem to be hit by one of these ramrods the person shooting would also, at the very least, be greatly inconvenienced. With any luck he could salvage one from one of the dead around him if not however, he would have to fall back on tap loading to even stay in the fight.
I remember at one time an army used wooden ramrods, who could also break more easily. So they gave every soldier 2 ramrods.
I just started watching my DVD set of Sharpe last night. Definitely low budget and not historically accurate, but honestly, it's entertaining. I actually chuckled out loud when this scene came up just for the simple fact that in no way would the ball go down the barrel with just a gentle tap.
Excellent video and you were getting there with handling the flint. Shot a Bess for years and it's easy to load with the military undersized ball.
Holywood never gets the details right
Enjoyed the video. I agree that spit loading is generally a bad idea from my own experiences with my own home rolled cartridges. I could see the benefit from a rifleman's standpoint who would normally shoot loose powder and a patched round ball for accuracy and then when transitioning line infantry pouring powder then "spitting" or dropping a ball so he can keep up with a smoothbore line of troops. I have found that with my fowlers I can make a pre-measured load of shot about .05 smaller than the bore and love the results. I load loose powder first, followed by card and greased felt wad rammed, then drop the paper wrapped shot down the bore. I do not have to use an over shot card and only have to ram once. I do the same thing when deer hunting and drop a bare ball (.530 in 28ga.) but do have to seat an over shot card to hold the ball in place.
Brett has given proper sacrifice to the sulphuric gods here and tasted their pent up fury.
They have finally rewarded his conversion and newfound dedication with 10k followers. 😂
Potassium nitrate is the main ingredient of anti sensitivity toothpaste.
Funny thing, my teeth haven’t been sensitive ever since I did this video…
@@papercartridges6705 That does seem to explain the tingling I get when pretend loading Barbaric Burton-style cartridges (or the real ones on the range).
My first encounter with this idea might be even worse than Sharpe's sin. In Gary Paulsen's 1995 novella Mr. Tucket (the first in a series centered on a boy separated from his family on the Oregon trail), the protagonist is reacued from Pawnee by a one armed mountain man and trained in various necessities for his coming adventures, including how to shoot accurately and rapidly. I remember his demonstration of real speed with a rifle had him fire five shots to Tucket's two by pouring unmeasured powder directly from the flask and spitting an unpatched ball straight into the muzzle of his Hawken rifle before capping the firing cone and bringing it up to send his round. Even in a rifle, the balls were apparently undersized enough that "without a patch it slid down freely, without needing a ramrod". Reading it as a child, I was very impressed.
I remember those Paulsen books, I think I probably read them all at some point growing up.
@@papercartridges6705 I'm still very fond of his work generally, and Tucket in particular, but increasingly disillusioned as to his understanding of topics that have gone from fascinations largely sparked by his writing to practiced hobbies.
Just saying to say that Sharpe is hardly the only source to inspire an uninformed audience with the magical merits of spit loading.
@@papercartridges6705And because finding this video woke up an itch to watch Sharpe again, I've noticed that in the first episode Harper reloads his Baker by spit loading, before it's featured in the second as a superior technique for muskets. Thought it was worth a mention.
I believe in the books Sharpe is actually opposed to shortcuts (at least whatever the author regards as such), so lectures them on following proper drills and not tapping instead of ramming. So whilst the show is faithful on the spitting point, it kind of does the opposite with the rest. In terms of the mechanics, I can only assume that they are imagining some fantasy cartridge design where the ball is easily extracted from the paper and spat down the muzzle naked (accepting or ignoring any disadvantages that come from a lack of wadding).
But I think there are a couple of advantages from a TV production point of view with the method used. For one it looks kind of flashy and establishes Sharpe as the maverick who knows better than the stereotypically stuffy old officers who've likely never fired a musket in their lives. For another it may be one easy way of making it so that the actors are not required to visibly put anything down the barrel that cannot easily be removed without firing it. At most they might dump some loose powder in there and possibly not even that. Their mouths are almost certainly empty and they just blow into the muzzle. I'm pretty sure that the actual firing is done separately in a controlled manner and editing stitches it together in post.
As to why Cornwell has them spit loading in the books, I'm not sure. Since the ramrod is presumably still used it is not necessarily so much of a time saving technique and therefore also not a problem if the ball does not just fall into place unaided. Maybe he still had some unrealistic expectation of how easy it is to tear the ball off and how far it would slide down without ramming though. It still sounds like a bad idea from as safety perspective, as I'm sure that the gun going off in the soldier's mouth is still possible and there is also the barrel getting hot.
I don't know if this is a fair assessment but Cornwell comes across as a bit of a history buff so I don't know if he just had a dodgy source on this or if he conceded the point to what he perceived to be the rule of cool. But I imagine the book version going more like how it does in this video, so it does seem like it is just making things more awkward and unpleasant, potentially slowing down the rate of fire.
I thought it was because of the few soldiers who weren't fast enough to reach 3 rounds a minute using proper techniques and Sharpe didn't want to lose his bet with Simmerson.
@mk-ultraviolence1760 It wasn't just that he didn't want to lose his bet, he genuinely didn't want the men to die because they couldn't shoot fast enough.
It was a quick and dirty way to prepare inexperienced men for a battle. They would have time to practice doing it the right way later.
Perhaps that was the rationale in the show, though I'm fairly sure that in the book he actually tells them that the shots loaded this way would be under powered. The Sharpe character in both books and series is rough around the edges and has little time for foolish officers but he is a "proper" soldier. He seems proud of the skill and professionalism of the British army and the book version especially shows an awareness that this is down to superior training, not corner cutting. So perhaps in the series it was a means to an end but comparing the two it is a little bit surprising that he has them half arsing it, instead of drilling them as close to the right way as Cornwell understood at the time.
@@ReddwarfIV I think its more interesting for Sharpe's character if he did it solely to win a bet, knowing the technique was improper if not dangerous because something I feel Sharpe lost as the series went on was his ambition and his willingness to sacrifice others for that ambition.
@mk-ultraviolence1760 That sounds like book Sharpe, yeah. I watched the TV show version, a somewhat more heroic figure even from the outset.
Congratulations on reaching 10,000 subscribers. I’m a great fan of Sharpe, both the books and the TV series, but I’ve always felt that the idea of putting your mouth over the muzzle of a loaded musket didn’t pass the smell test. What do you think of Bernard Cornwell’s American Civil War series, the Starbuck Chronicles?
I read them and they were entertaining in their way, but I could not really get into them the same way I could with Sharpe.
@@papercartridges6705just replace the name Starbuck with Sharpe and it's literally Sharpe in America
It's actually a brilliant move that help win the battle of Waterloo. This video was circulated among Napoleon's inexperienced men in 1815, who then could not fire with any regularity and were thus overcome by Sharpe's Chosen Men. It would have been more catastrophic if not for there being no more than 100 men on either side.
Yes, I wondered what they were doing… You crushed it! Loved the thoroughness of your test. Thank you!
One thing I like about old smothbore flintlock is that you could definitely get 4 shots under a minute, much faster than a rifled musket. But I think this particular one like the brown bess is unique the design of the firearm and the tactics the british used during the Napoleonic wars, I might be wrong but history seems to say that with this 75 cal. Musket you could fire it much faster then the French 69? Cal. On their Charlottesville musket.
That more had to do with training than technology of the troops. The windage (size variance between the calibre of barrel and the calibre of the ball) was the same (variance of about .04cal on each).
The overall quality of French troops deployed to the Peninsula seriously declined over time, and the drill quality of British infantry at the time was extremely high.
Any service musket would have significant windage with standard ball. French muskets were nominally .69 inch calibre while their balls were .65 inch. As opposed to the British .75 inch barrels with .69 inch balls which is pretty much the same ratio.
Given the manufacturing tolerances at the time and the use of paper cartridges, you needed that windage to ensure easy loading even after the barrel is fouled.
The wadding served an important roll in keeping the force from escaping around the ball.
In rifles, this wasn't an option as you needed the bullet to bite into the rifling, so it (or an attacked patch) needed to fill the barrel. At least until the development of expanding base bullets.
As to rates of fire. I would always take claims around it with a grain of salt, but the French Army was much larger, at its peak, the British forces in the Peninsula counted a bit over 50,000, with their numbers bolstered by Portuguese and Spanish forces.
There were over a half million French soldiers in 1812 in various armies plus all the forces from client states. Over two million Frenchmen served in the armies of the Empire from 1805-1813. You simply can't drill armies of that size as much, so you generally have a core of excellent soldiers (the top fifty thousand French soldiers absolutely would have been at least as good as good as any regiment in the British Army) surrounded by the mass of lesser trained conscripts. And it worked.
Great video! Well done! Nice to see a voice of sanity on this subject! :)
Love your phrase "give or take a metric smidge"! I'm using that at work now!
Thank you for doing these great videos! Congratulations on so many subscribers hope you ge twice as many more. I just started as director for muzzle loading at one of the local rifle clubs here in tow it’s great to see more people put out great material for people to learn from thanks again!
In one episode I think one of the soldiers did get up to four shots per minute. It was three shots per minute in any weather and it seemed like you got there with the method you learned.
Great content, I remember watching Sharpes when I was a child in the '90. I was fascinated back then, as always it's a movie and movies not always get it right. Thank You for Your analysis.
I appreciate that you went out of your way to observe the legal requirement to show a slow-motion flintlock ignition sequence. So glad I don't have to report the channel to the ATF for failing to include the mandatory video sequence.
Brett, congratulations on hitting 10,000! I had all the Sharpes shows on DVD, and every time I watched that one, I thought, a whole bunch of black powder newbies are going to be in for a rude awakening when they try this…LOL…loved this video. I hope you stick with shooting a flintlock every now and then. You’ll find that they are addictive.
Sharpe series is on utube ,
except for the ones where he's in India for some reason :/
Interesting video the Brown Bess is actually faster than I expected. There is the hell of a lot of poor information on historical weapons and its pretty hard to find faction from fiction these days. I prefer to see it the tests myself rather than someone just saying "yeah it shoots 4 per minute" because they might be wrong. I would be interested how it effected accuracy because shooting 4 shots per minute isn't that useful if it makes you miss.
muskets are for fast volleys not for accuracy
I suspect speed was probably more limited by trying to coordinate a few hundred people so they all fire at the same time.
I think this video overstates things a tad, but there are a lot of things that build our impressions, some rational and others not.
There is always a healthy dollop of "oh how dumb those people were" in all of this and the perception of accuracy and rate of fire are harmed by it.
But more rationally, muskets were used for centuries with various loading mechanisms etc. A 17th century gun and process was likely slower than in the 19th century, but the average person just sees "musket". And the users varied considerably, someone veteran professional Guardsmen would be a very different beast from a green conscript levied last week. On top of that, most people won't even know about paper cartridges and they will think soldiers were loading from powder flasks.
Then we get into that soldiers weren't drilled to be as fast as possible, they were drilled for volleys. This meant you couldn't be faster than the slowest men and consistent, smooth loading over time was far more important than firing as many shots as possible in a minute. You can see this throughout history, just look at the marksmanship requirements of any military, they are pretty much always laughable compared to decent competitive shooting.
The next level would be that combat will always slow things down. All the noise and death and distraction and exhaustion on a battle will result in lower rates of fire, so in order to sustain three rounds per minute on the battlefield you are going to have to be able to do more than that on the range.
Excellent stuff, thanks Brett - Congrats on 10k!
in book he showed this method for baker rifle, by telling that when enemy is close, you need shoot fast more then be acurate. For baker rifle you need up to 15 seconds for ramming ball whith wadding an 2-3 for tapping ball whitout wadding. Later in story when he trains musketmans he tells them to hold ramrod in hands becuase soldier can do additonal shot in a minute by not sliding it back
addition #2: I have maxed out some sessions of 60-odd live rounds through the bess with 1770s british cartridges, and they slide in very easily with a clean barrel. the resistance slowly picks up as fouling builds up, but tends to reach a stable maximum at some point, with the cartridge and rammer scraping off the same amount the shot deposits.
never had a stuck or even seriously hard to load round.
How long do your flints last for? I have next to zero experience with flintlocks and only had the one flint in the gun, I was worried it wouldn’t make it through the filming. Do you know about the original flints sold by IMA? Or should I stick with modern manufacturers?
@@papercartridges6705 Ooof... I usually stick to modern english gun flints. I have heard some flinter swear by the french amber coloured flints.
I have not used original flints, yet. But I may try them. I have seen only few of these close up, and some looked a bit worse for wear.
Honestly, I have flints that I would be comfortable claiming lasted 100 or more shots. Others worked half a dozen times before effectively dying. I have had ones practically shower the pan with sparks but wear out quickly, others threw few sparks but were reliable.
as far as I can tell from my experience and that of friends and feelow shooters, there is a BIG aspect of randomness to it all. Flits being natural rocks, wearing and breaking differently, shape not 100% equal etc.
A good lock and proper seating helps create consistent sparks with no undue wear, but some flints are just...junk.
What helps me out of a tight spot with a flint nearing it's end, is turning/twisting it between the jaws ever so slightly left and right, to coax some more good shots out of them.
I prefer leather for holding the flints, and it seems to be the norm for AWI. Lead is also documented, so I usually prepare a fine working flint and test it, using thin lead sheet, pressing the lead to conform to the flint, and have the cock's teetch dig into the lead for a basically indexed fit. remove it, store in the pouch, and then fit the next good flint with leather.
If the main flint dies on me in action, i can just open the jaws, take it out, put the lead wrapped one in, and being pre--indexed it will auto-seat itself.
@@papercartridges6705 I bought a bag of the IMA flints as a curiosity. Never tried shooting them, but I can say the shapes and sizes were very inconsistent. Definitely inferior to the modern flints I've gotten from Track of the Wolf.
Someone out there did an academic study of these same IMA flints a few years ago. If I remember rightly, they concluded the flints were probably English and French commercial trade products, not up to government standard, mixed with some indigenous Nepalese 'flints' made of a rock that isn't flint at all.
@@RobertQuinlan that they are all weirdly sized and varied seems to me as if they at one point got all thrown into a bin together, size be dammned.
I doubt an army carrying a standard weapon would normally buy a haphazard bunch of flints that has at best 25% of them matching. they do offer, i believe, selected ones for bess size.
I may endup getting some just to satiate curiosity
😅 I thought a chewing tobacco company would sponsor this. In all seriousness a thoughtful analysis with a video that proves, at least, you put your mouth where your musket is to get at the truth. Well done. I am really enjoying your content.
I enjoy the Sharpe's shows as well. But t.v. is t.v. they are just entertainment. Congrats on reaching 10k. Hope to walk in to your place one day.
Never fired a brown bess but i was surprised that more ramming wasn't required to form a proper wad. Great vid btw.
Great video. I love the Sharpe books and videos - as you say, they're great fun, but I love learning about historical facts too. Awesome!
I've found this really informative. Have always enjoyed the Sharpe series but never given this topic any real thought as have no experience with this sort of weapon. As a casual reader it feels reasonable but once introduced to reality its plain to see how silly it is. Thank you for your work.
Fascinating video, thank you for that! It did work as a plot device (because Sharpe obviously needed a gimmick to beat Simmersons challenge in the time he had), but it obviously doesn't in real life. TIL.
Brett, keep rolling out these videos they are fire 🔥
Very interesting and informative! CONGRATS on the 10K milestone!
I'd like to see if spit loading would be any faster with a Baker rifle, as the riflemen has smaller callibre balls to the rifle (the cartouche was the wadding that made it accurate) seperated their ball from the cartouche and poured their powder from a horn. I can imagine the problems you had with the musket, ie the ball stickinig due to the paper etc, would be gone.
My reading suggests that "bump loading" -as my friends and I called it - was considered a "Frenchified and unsoldierlike practice" in the British army. It was permitted, sometimes, for sentries when it was considered very unlikely that they would have to fire their piece and bump loading meant that they could tip out the powder and ball when they came off duty, rather than having to worm it out. I never understood the TV show's fondness for having "Sharpe's bump-loading masterclass" in every series, he was a rifleman, rate of fire over accuracy was the opposite of what such soldiers were about. Don't get me started on Sergeant Whatsisname's volley gun!
"Frenchified and unsoldierlike" is a quote I am going to have to remember!
The Nock gun did exist... albeit, yeah, very uncommon.
Another great video Brett, congratulations on 10k 🎉
Very well done video, thanks for making it. You are nice to listen and watch and the content is informative.
You know, I've never actually seen somebody load and fire 3 rounds a minute never mind 4. Very well done. I usually can get 1 per minute. I also hate pouring powder down a freshly fired rifle. I have heard that it can ignite and hurt your hand...
Congratulations on 10k! An additional problem with "spit loading" - besides the chance of a nasty head wound - is that if you survived the battle in which you were spit loading, repeated insertion of a cast lead ball into your mouth (even partially wrapped in paper) would likely give the shooter a regular and significant dose of inorganic lead directly into their digestive tract, leaving the shooter with a nasty case of actual lead poisoning from ingestion as a result of this technique. It might not kill them (at least not right away), but the neurological issues would seriously degrade the soldier's ability to fight in the future.
It's strange anyone would get attached to this method from a movie. The drill manual was based on about a hundred years of loading flint locks with paper cartridges by the Napoleonic wars, so they would have to optimum procedure worked out. Likely it was routine to get four shots per minute in drills, and that might translate to three in a battle where barrels get fouled and someone is shooting back.
That was extremely impressive mate . Nice going !
Wow! I’ve handled an original brown Bess and there was no way the spit thing would work properly.
Sir, you're making really good videos with outstanding quality. I think you have a good and stabil charakter which I do really like on humans! Question: Is it possible to deeper in to details of rifled muskets especially carbines? I'm interessted in the ballistics of different barrel lengthes due to the typical ordonance paper cartridges. A comparision of precission between the Enfield bullet and Burton Ball with a .58 Lee REAL bullet could be also interessting😊 thank you! Greetings and blesses from Bavaria/Germany
I have to say this as someone that has shoot old percussion cap rifles, shotgun’s and revolvers. That bite, prime, poor, spit, tap seams like a great way to put a sun roof in the center of one’s top! And I do not mean just one’s cap. Now I am sure that a flint lock, long gun either a rifled barrel or smooth bore, would seam just as natural to load as my old Tennessee rifle was, even if I reversed the order from: Charge, patch/ball, ram, cap. The only problem I see with prime, charge, ram is blowing the flash powder out of the flash pan when you ram that ball home.
You close the frizzen to keep the priming in the pan when you cast about so ramming isn't going to shift it either
As I write this, you are at 17,000+ subscribers. Great job. I love the Sharpe series, although I am not rabid about it as a source for military history. I enjoyed watching you fire the musket. I see that and imagine the lines of Wellington’s army at Waterloo firing 4 shots a minute at the attacking French. Thank you for your wonderful videos.
I'm sure this has been asked before, but wouldn't it be quicker to just stick the ramrod in the ground or hold it in the supporting hand beneath the stock rather than reinsert it into the stock? Granted I am a complete novice to muzzle loading shooting. Its actually the only style of shooting I've yet to do in my 62 years.
It is quicker indeed, by several seconds, but historically this was discouraged because the unit would often be ordered to move, and in all the excitement, the soldier forgets to grab the ramrod as the unit moves, and now he has a pike instead of a gun.
‘March swiftly and in good order, always endeavouring to gain ground.’ - Frederick the Great
One tactic developed by Hessian light infantry that was later adopted as a standard tactic in the British infantry arsenal was what was called ‘street firing,’ which was essentially a way to generate continue firing, either advancing or retiring, on a very short front: A column that never had its firepower truly diminished. The front rank would fire and retire to the rear of the column, with all subsequent columns moving up to assume the front rank and repeat the process in a continuous cycle. You loaded your piece upon assuming the rear of the column. It is brisk work that leaves no time for sticking your ramrod in the ground!
Being a fan of another muzzleloader channel (a certain Canadian with an epic mustache you may know) I found this video really interesting, I'd wondered how accurate or not the Sharpe books were in this regard. Very informative and well presented video, plus pointing out the risk was wise. +1 sub to your list you deserve it!
What other channel?
@@DrGero15 Not really fair or polite to mention someone else's channel in the chat on a video. I'm 99% sure Brett knows who I mean, up to him if he's happy with it.
@@yt.602 I want to know so I can check it out. I want more muzzleloading stuff to watch.
Your practical expertise always amazes me.
Absolutely love the Sharpe series and have watched them multiple times. Absolutely loved how clear your video was and if it doesn't convince the naysayers then nothing will other than Sharpe himself turning up to tell them they're wrong ;)
Way to go Brett! Welcome to the world of military marksmanship myths that can never die! Always seems that no matter how old the technology there is some guy somewhere who has his manhood invested in the absurd and can justify it as “in the heat of battle”. My bet is in the heat of that battle you die with a mouthful of black slime and an ineffective Brown Bess covered in your drool. Focus on the training of sound procedures and grow muscle memory. Try not to train stupid in advance😊. Appreciate your work brother!
Things like this are why I fully disbelieve that media with inaccurate or false representations of history don't affect people. I'm glad channels like this are working to dispel these false beliefs with facts and scholarly analysis.
"A river to my people!" I nearly blew coffee through my nose.🤣 Loved your presentation, first time I've seen your work.
Congratulations on reaching 10,000 subscribers. You have far too much fun making your videos.
19:45 but the average Brit is extremely used to working with balls in their mouth, especially at that time. More than likely they just gently untied the string with their tongue while they were dumping the powder, due to their natural talents of course. 😎😉
You mean flagging your face is wrong?!?
This summer we were firing my brother's 19th century fowler and I got some excellent slow motion footage which is always cool to go back and watch. Great video, thank you for your dedication.
Very engaging and informative. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and taking the time, money and effort to produce this video. I agree with all you said and I rarely shoot black powder, it's just common sense.
I love the “first a word from our sponsor” followed by a muffled “we don’t have a sponsor”, “ok let’s just go shoot the thing… 😂
I remember in the movie Glory, they wanted five shots per minute. Grated this was using percussion caps which load quicker. I think for a trained British regular with ingrained muscle memory it would be a lot easier to get to five shots.
There are in fact methods to speed up the loading process of a flintlock musket. There is the invention of the cylindrical ramrod, that does away with the need to turn it 180° to seat the bullet and turn it again to put it back in its place beneath the barrel. That might not save a lot of time but it still allows you to get rid of two steps of the usual loading routine without loosing anything in regards to reliability of the weapon being loaded correctly and safely. Another gimmick that does reduce loading time substantially is by way of having a conical priming hole, which means that the opening that connects the priming pan with the powder load at the bottom of the barrel is widening from the outside to the inside. The way it worked was that you would bite the cartridge, pour the entire amount of powder into the muzzle, top it of as usual with the lead ball plus the paper as a wad, ram it home with the ramrod and as you lift up the musket, you give it a quick and decisive shake to the side, which will let the loose powder be funneled through the conical firing hole right into the pan with the frison closed so that it would be contained. All you had to do then was to fully cock the hammer and fire the gun. I have a modern replica of a flintlock pistol that is equipped with exactly such a device and I can tell you it works like a charm.
PS: You have clearly demonstrated the veracity of your objection of the bite-pour-spit-tap routine without the shadow of a doubt and only a fool would say that the points you made are not 100% valid. Greetings & best wishes from Switzerland! Thank you very much for the high quality content you present us with!
YACK! Was all I could think of when I looked at you biting of those bullets... Congratulations with 10K!
Congrats on 10k! Well earned, Sir! Cheers!
Thank you! Cheers!
Sharp wasn't aired in Sweden, so I just stumbled over it. And I loved it from the moment I heard the song... Love the series.
Brilliant work!
I've read the Sharpe books several times, never bought one. Saved my money for important books such as the English Cartridge and the Avenging Angel. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for buying my books. I will use the money to buy more silly hats.
Congratulations! Great channel!
It's always hilarious seeing people going out of their ways to defend fictional techniques when everyone including the author acknowledge it to be fictional. They'd discount technicians , historians, engineers and everyone in-between just because they saw it in a movie and just cannot grasp the concept of them being wrong, so they double down and dismiss anyone claiming otherwise. Loving the content and looking forward to seeing more in the future.
If, and I do mean, IF, you are able to do this spit thing properly and keep up a rate of fire, it does violate several safety protocols including but not limited to
1) Burning the lips after repeated fire
2) inaccuracy due to decreased compression
3) Col Cooper's rules are there for a reason. This violates two of the four rules (Specifically, never let the muzzle cover anything you don't want destroyed and always consider a firearm as loaded) and can result in drastic weight loss and body temperature dropping to ambient environment temperature.
4) In TV/movies, cars explode at the drop of a hat. In a most vigorous and flamey manner. People who look to fiction for historical and functionality of the past are going to be deeply disappointed
Good day Mr. Gibbons,
I have recently found myself in heated discussions with my history professor regarding the accuracy of a flintlock musket (He was a fellow at West Point, so he hangs his hat on such bona fides). We were discussing the battles of Lexington and Concord (using David Hackett Fischer's as a textbook), and he mentioned that the British Manual of Arms did not have a command to "Aim" as the firelock was terribly inaccurate, and aiming was pointless anyway. Armed with knowledge from your recently released test of the accuracy of the 1842 percussion musket, (and Rob from Britishmuzzleloaders's work with the platoon exercises of the Napoleonic era) I responded that it was not such a fruitless endeavor, but issues with the charge created terrible habits among regulars (As you've noted, 4 drams of powder is quite potent).
My professor thought the issue was resolved when he played a clip from Lt. Col Arthur Alphin, (unfortunately, the clip in question is unable to be found) who took aim at a target at approximately 70 paces and blazed away with 6 shots, none of which hit.
I understand that you likely get suggestions all the time, but curiosity was too much for me.
The drill command may have been "level" rather than "aim" but the action taken was to "raise [the gun] upon the right shoulder ... the right cheek to be close to the butt, and the left eye shut, and look along the barrel with the right eye from the breach pin to the muzzle." That sounds a lot like aiming because that's what it is!
Some muskets have even been found with a groove carved into them that aligns with the bayonet lug. Those soldiers apparently considered the breach pin an insufficiently rigorous rear sight and installed their own. And no wonder: on a target practice day the best shots were often awarded significant cash prizes.
A lot of effort for a gun whose accuracy is supposedly hopeless, don't you think? =)
@@ReaperStarcraft Oh, absolutely, I agree!
I was a bit hesitant to argue for too long, as I wasn't sure how the flintlock hang time would affect accuracy, but with that note about the addition of a back sight, that would certainly suggest that some level of accuracy was expected, thanks!