The Baker Rifle - its development and use. An interview with Britishmuzzleloaders
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.พ. 2021
- In this month's Peninsular War episode I interview the amazing Rob from Britishmuzzleloaders - he is a walking encyclopedia of historical British rifles and muskets. Today he teaches me all about the Development, accuracy, rate of fire and tactical use of the Baker Rifle - aka the Pattern 1800 Infantry Rifle.
I have a website and please follow this link to sign up for the monthly newsletter - redcoathistory.com/newsletter/
![แฟนแนวใด๋ - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ SyncVersion ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fm8oDwos2uc/mqdefault.jpg)
Rob is one of THE most down to earth experts and extremely generous with his advice and research. His site is well worth a visit but beware - you may become addicted!
Yes very much! A wonderful man
Excellent piece on the Baker rifle, it makes me appreciate my East India company Brunswick rifle even more.
Lucky enough to own a Baker rifle and two sword bayonets - one marked for 2nd KGL Light infantry and the other for Indian service. Great documentary as always. Love this period of history, hence the items within my collection.
From my experience with the 2nd Btn 95th Rifles (re-enactment) the rifles protected the flanks, were trained to think and fight independently, but could also fire in ranks as normal soldiers. And of course the Baker rifle gave them that choice to be different if required. Different tactics were in the manual, also sustained firing of one or two rifles if needed ? Constantly loading and taking turns to fire, as opposed to mass volleys which we could also employ if needed. Fascinating conversation about an incredible weapon.
It’s a great day when my two favorite channels combine. We demand more!
Fantastic, glad you enjoyed it. Teaming up with Rob is always an honour for me too.
Rob's comment on the amazing capability of the Peninsular army is especially interesting in light of something I remember Wellington saying, after the fact, about Waterloo, which is that, if he had had his Peninsular army there, he would have made short work of Napoleon (making a sweeping motion with his arm as he said so, reportedly). This is heavily paraphrased, of course, and I don't remember the source (probably Lady Longford's famous biography). And this is interesting in another aspect as well, which is that it was very uncharacteristic of Wellington to speak boastfully. He was normally highly respectful of Napoleon and the French army as well. As for Napoleon, his contempt for Wellington ("the Sepoy general") and the British army generally, neither of which, of course, he had ever faced personally, would bite him in the arse at Waterloo. It is probably under-emphasized as a contributor to his defeat there.
Yes good point. I think many people aren't aware that the British army at Waterloo was missing many of the Peninsular veteran regiments.
They did have Sharpe fighting there tho😏😂
A lot went wrong for Nappy that day. But he did beat back the German/Dutch and Scots at Quatre Bras 2 days before. Was his haemorrhoids playing up the big reason?
@@Rusty_Gold85 Definitely a factor, not sure how big a one.
Brit historian here. Enjoyed the video.
" ... the longer the distance at which British riflemen can render themselves expert marksmen, the more valuable defenders they become to their country, and at the same time the more effectually they insure their own safety, by being further from the enemy; skill, and skill alone must then determine to whom the advantage is to belong." - SCLOPPETARIA, by Captain Henry Beaufoy (1808), pp. 193
Nice quote thanks for sharing!
You know it's great stuff when an hour just flies by without you noticing. Seriously enjoyable and very educational a great episode.
Thank you Sir. I’m glad you enjoyed it 👍🏼
Exceptionally produced and absolutely fascinating to listen to. Thank you for making my Tuesday brighter.
Thanks a lot - I'm really glad you enjoyed it. Rob is an amazing guy.
Without watching the whole episode. The weapon is simply Britisch version of German military , Jägerbüchse', you can see the ,look' , which is very similar. Had been in 1790s build in larger numbers for German , or better HRE , Jäger. So the weapons had been build for Military, but contained still civilian elements. Also the sword bayonnets are in reality the military german Hirschfänger. The civilian Hirschfänger, was also Not short, but shorter than military versions, introduced in/after Seven Years War. After 1848, every german citizen could buy a Hirschfänger, before it was a sign of noblemen, professional hunters or Forrest officials ( Förster).
Today the Hirschfänger is mostly used as hunters ceremonial weapon, and old hunters still see it as a sign of honour, when they get a Hirschfänger as Gift/ present. On other Hand, the boar problem of last twenty years causes a small Comeback of modern style Hirschfänger and even boarspears.
My comment is a bit out of context, i know, i have Asperger disorder.
Excellent
Excellent video. Rob is always interesting.
Brilliant thanks mate - yeah Rob's knowledge is quite amazing.
I like how the French took the exact opposite approach to the cheaperizer on their MLE 1777 musket where they actually took a scallop out of the stock so it didn't fit you in the jaw so hard.
I must be honest, I thought I would take a quick glance on this. Yet, it is lovely to listen to two men who obviously know there stuff. I have not a clue about military history, I am slowly becoming addicted. Haha
Congrats you're the man, you bring" us" things that i didn't know, thank you sir.
Cheers, Joao! Glad you are enjoying the videos.
Bayonets were vital for defence against cavalry. Skirmishers were very vulnerable against cavalry. Usually, the riflemen would fall back to the regular infantry lines for protection. Often forming in large squares. Where the sword bayonet was used. Horses normally do not ride into tight infantry lines. In close combat the baker could be fired more like a musket. Where rapid fire was more important than accuracy. The ball being fired without using the leather. Making loading easier.
Ferguson was wounded and lost the use of his right arm. So his unit of 100 men returned their former units. Ferguson taught himself to use his left arm to use sword etc. Then raised & commanded a loyalist militia. He was defeated & killed at the Battle of Kings Mountain, October 1780. I live in Kings Mountain & have visited the battle ground memorial.
Funnily enough the only Revolutionary war battleifield I have visited is also King's Mountain (I was passing by on a road trip with my wife and convinced her to stop) - it was in 2014. Next time we must meet for a beer and you can show me around.
you never hear much about loyal american troops in the american war of independence (civil war uk ) iv heard a song the american loyalists just saying
Enjoyed it, and found the line volley fire perfect for my next posts on Instagram.
Lovely mate - glad it was useful.
@@redcoathistory Aye sir.
Useful presentation, thanks! Not sharpshooting here (pun intended) but a dragoon is a mounted infantryman, not a cavalryman. A dragoon rides to battle but fights dismounted. Your focus is of course redcoat weaponry, but your American cousins reached the same conclusion as the British with the 1776 pattern rifle, providing no bayonet for the M1803 rifle.
The British used them as heavy and light cavalry but kept the name to save money. Dragoons got replaced in the revolution with tarleton but seven years war they were carrying full length muskets and fighting dismounted too.
Take the Royal Dragoon Guards, a current Cavalry Regiment in the British Army. They are the result of an amalgamation of four regiments, all of those regiments were over two hundred years old. The 5th (Princess Charlotte of Wales) Dragoon Guards, the 7th (Princess Royal) Dragoon Guards, the 4th Royal Irish Dragoon Guards and the 6th Inniskilling Dragoons. Of these four Regiments only ONE was raised as a Regiment of Dragoons, as in Mounted Infantry, the 6th Inniskilling Dragoons. The others were Heavy Cavalry (5th and 7th Dragoon Guards), and Line Cavalry (4th Royal Irish Dragoon Guards).
As you can see, when it comes to the British Army at least the term Dragoon is a bit misleading. Just because you see a British Regiment named as Dragoons do not assume they are mounted infantry. In many cases they were not. The British did use traditional Dragoons, but they were in the minority, most Dragoon Regiments were in fact Line or Heavy Cavalry.
As Chroma above stated it was about money, Cost cutting. Basically many Cavalry regiments were raised as, or given the name Dragoons because Dragoons were paid less than Heavy or Light Cavalry, even though they were basically armed and trained as Heavy or Light Cavalry, and not Dragoons.
Rob is great, as his is channel, and these interviews add greatly to your channel
Excellent documentary with a lot of accurate info! Well done gentlemen!
Thanks as usual, sir!
A book I enjoyed about the evolution of the peninsular army and the rifle units is a book called "Rifles" by Mark Urban
A good book - I had breakfast with him just the other day too. A really nice guy.
Love your channel... dankie
Baia Dankie maneer! (Sorry for my poor Afrikaans)!
There is a huge misconception that the American rebellion was won by buckskin Fringe wearing backwoodsman with Pennsylvania and Kentucky long rifles. This conflict was won by the regular Continental army, armed with smoothbore muskets, trained in the French / originally Prussian close order combat style. Rebel forces absolutely made greater use of rifles than British forces, initially out of necessity. Rifled weapons were used for hunting, not initially designed as military weapons, but they certainly served well in the right tactical situations.
Not mentioned in it’s use was the part it played in the Carlist wars.
Portugese Rifle Units..
I like that!
Yes, the Cacadores were excellent!
I did not know the Baker had a cheek plate on the stock. All the illustrations I have seen are from the right side.
This guy is good
Top geezers
For fans of British Military History. I recently talked with Pedersoli Firearms and they informed me that they have purchased an original Baker Rifle and were in the process of examining it. They are planning to make a replica. They could not verify when it might be available to the public but said probably not for 2024, but they would keep me posted. Something to look forward too. They indicated there was enough interest in the rifle to warrant the production of a replica.
Starting price $3000 and a kidney, knowing them...
Also no proper rifling on their replicas.
There was also a Calvary model
This was outstanding, thank you guys! Rob is a wonderful chap. The Ferguson he mentions at the beginning is a fascinating piece of engineering.
If you want to see an original Ferguson and find out more about it you can find my article/video on it here armourersbench.com/2018/10/15/the-ferguson-rifle/
Thanks Matthew - I will save that link now.
Is there any reason a .62 caliber Baker rifle in reproduction form couldn't be utilized today in the 21st century for black powder hunting of North American big game: deer, elk, moose, caribou, and even buffalo (Bison)? Especially with proper shot placement within 200 yards. James A. "Jim" Farmer Klamath County, Oregon
Having watched Robs video on different types of ammunition used with the Baker Rifle, I saw that he used one type of cartridge which included the ball being wrapped in a patch within the cartridge.
Was this a type of ammunition used in the peninsula war or is it a more modern variation?
Hi david, I think that any technical questions are best posted on Rob's page as I am not very knowledgable about the ammo of the time and may have missunderstood your question...Sorry I can't be more helpful.
Thank you, I’ll ask him.
Rob looks very strange without the red coat. ;)
Did the British 60th Rifles, aka the Royal American Rifles use the earlier American design or the Baker given that ammunition for the latter would be more readily available?
Also was the 95th Rifles' command 'Fix swords!' instead of 'Fix Bayonets! a remnant of the original jager roots of the rifle?
Bayonet still called swords today in The Rifles a heritage from The Royal Green Jackets. Swords are never fixed on parade as rifles are carried at the trail.
How many twists are the rifling ?
I think it was 7
Don’t forget the 60 th
Hi Graham - I have an entire episode on them - please look for my interview with Rob Griffith
Er…..5/60th…..predated the 95th
What utter nonsense . London gunmakers Harman Barne and Jasper Caltoff were producing rotating breach , screw plug and even repeating rifles in the mid 17th C . Birding pieces ( long rifles and muskets ) were used during the English Civil Wars for sniping officers and engineers in trenchworks . Mordern style stocks can be seen on many 17thC weapons at the Royal Armouries and plug bayonets were in use by the end of the 17th C . Treatises in the British Library refer to these as ' screwed barrels ' before the term rifling existed . It simply takes time for any government to convert any kind of hard cash into the arms of humble soldiers . The effectiveness of such arms were very appreciated by armies of Europe . For example of fighting like Light Infantry take a look at Okeys Dragoons at the Battle of Naseby 1644 or Nathaniel Burts Dragon Manual of the 1622 . This is light infantry work with the use of horses to transport the men into position .
Of course Germany did not exist at the time and was a number of independent electorates and palatinates , city states . The US has little or nothing to do with the adoption of rifled arms by the British Army , it was simply a recognition of need and economy of trained soldiers to reduce losses of intensively trained men .
Nuremburg was the centre of manufacture of highly ornate target rifles and other arms of quality from the 16th C using the cartridge system . Used mainly for target or schutzenfest events . The Ruhr region was capable of mass production of munition quality firearms and blades .
In the same way the US didn't enter WW2 with a state of the art magazine fed semi auto rifle , the likes of which had been around since WW1, no , a bolt action Enfield Pattern 17 rifle not even of US design !
This is another example of the US rewriting history , like the horrifically embarrassing and patronising film ' The Patriot '.
The Ferguson rifle one of the earliest practical breech-loaders: The rifle could be fired six times a minute, a major advance in fire-power for the time, but because of official British conservatism not more than 200 of them were ever used in the war. Here are two informative sites regarding the development of breech-loading rifles. A must reading, for the black-power man.
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyse-Z%C3%BCndnadelgewehr
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyse_needle_gun
It was not simply conservatism. The Ferguson Rifle was very costly and difficult to manufacture for a personal firearm, something that those who laud it either fail to appreciate, or simply ignore. Also due to its design it was prone to stock failures, and was not nearly as robust as a weapon of that period needed to be. Indeed the surviving examples have cracks in their stocks in almost exactly the same place.
People like you who bang on about British Conservatism tend not to appreciate that the decision to adopt a weapon for the military is about more than just rate of fire. Sustainability is important, as is reliability, and for an issue firearm so is ease of production and cost of production.
The Ferguson rifle was a fascinating design, but it simply came a century too soon. The manufacturing methods of the time simply were not enough to manufacture them in the kinds of quantities they needed. While I am sure the British Army liked the rate of fire, they were less enamoured of the rifles low durability, its achingly slow manufacturing process, and its exorbitant price.
Frankly going for the Baker over the Ferguson was the right choice for the time. Bear this in mind before you go on about how conservative the British Authorities were. Four gunsmiths made the Fergusons, it took those four Gunsmiths six MONTHS to make 100 rifles. Each costing four times that of a musket. The guns broke down easily in combat, especially in the wood of the stock around the lock mortise. The lock mechanism and breech were larger than the stock could withstand with rough use. All surviving military Fergusons feature a horseshoe-shaped iron repair under the lock to hold the stock together where it repeatedly broke around the weak, over-drilled out mortise. THAT is why the Ferguson was not adopted.
Talk about the Ferguson rifle, The breachloader withdrawn from service because it was too accurate and put officer's lives at serious risk.
Not at all. Withdrawn for being too fragile and expensive not to mention the industry could not turn out many of these compared to a conventional Jaeger style rifle.