Colonial era military vs. civilian arms questions

[Kaylee]

I heard the Heller audio the other day (belatedly, I admit), and one of the judges asked something about antecedents to modern select-fire rifles and suchlike in the context of militia arms. He seemed fuzzy on what would apply.


First - am I correct that in assuming that a longarm of the period designed for military use would be distinguished by (for example) - a heavier stock and bulkier lock, a bayonet lug - perhaps also a more-or-less standardized bore diameter?

Essentially - could an 18th century person schooled in such things look at a given longarm of his time and say "this firearm is specially suited for military service" and "this one isn't?"

Secondly - how common were these features in Colonial era civilian possession, as opposed to more utilitarian fowlers and rifles and such? I'm assuming that since such features would be more of a hindrance than a help to most folks using longarms as "working guns" they'd be comparatively rare, especially in an era when everything was handmade and having "one of each" wouldn't be financially feasible for most folks. Is that assumption correct?

Thirdly - do we have any evidence of "conversions" - say restocking in heavier wood or mounting bayonet lugs - to those more utilitarian arms in the years leading up to the Revolution?

Fourthly - were there any laws we know of mandating or forbidding such a practice at the time?

 

[Dfariswheel]

"Civilian" long arms of the time were typically more slender and light weight, simply because they were intended for hunting and didn't need to be as tough as military arms which were basically spears that could fire a shot or two before closing with the enemy.
Other than the weight and general appearance, there was little distinction between a military weapon and a civilian hunting weapon.

Many military weapons found their way into civilian hands, and this was almost unremarked on.
The fact that the weapon a hunter was using happened to be a former military weapon with a bayonet lock was totally a non-issue.
The feeling as far as that went was, a weapon was a weapon.

Military arms were routinely sold to "civilians" like ship's captains, explorers, and colonists and there was little restriction on their sales other than to people who the authorities might not like to be armed.
There was usually a distinction between arms made specifically FOR a government and the same gun as made for commercial sales.
As example during the Revolution and the Civil War European military arms were sold in large numbers to Americans both as representatives of the government and as thinly veiled "commercial" buyers.

Due to the high cost of commercial arms, the typical gun owner of the Revolutionary era was probably armed with a "former" military weapon.
Since the weapons were mostly muskets, an ex-military musket served just as well as the latest "Brown Bess" military issue weapon OR a custom built weapon by a Colonial gunsmith.

Since most "commercial" arms were custom made as individual items and not mass produced, they cost much more than a military type weapon that cost far less.
In those days gentlemen were armed with custom made, expensive guns, frontiersmen were usually armed with very basic rifles made by frontier gunsmiths, and the typical farmer or townsman was armed with a military surplus musket.

What "conversions" there were were military weapons adapted for hunting purposes. in much the same way that old Mauser rifles are "sporterized" today.
Commercial rifles, again, were mostly one-off custom rifles that simply didn't lend themselves to being "militarized".
Since little distinction was made between a military musket and a civilian weapon, I doubt anyone would have been interested if someone added a bayonet lock to a hunting rifle, especially since a great many hunting weapons were already so equipped being surplus weapons to start with.

 

[44 AMP]

Military arms of the period are muskets

Smooth bore, and mounting a bayonet. The main drawback of the rifle was that while deadly accurate at range, it was slow to load, and had no provision for mounting a bayonet. This was the principle reason "riflemen" did not stand and go toe to toe with the British. They had no bayonets, and no way to mount them on their rifles, if they did.

Colonial milita would have whatever the owners had, rifles, muskets, fowling pieces, etc. When (and if) enough muskets were available, muskets were preferred for military use, but the Minutemen used whatever they had. Later, when we actually formed units of the Contenintal Army, muskets were the standard arm.

There were large numbers of former military muskets in civilian hands, simply because they were the most common useful arm. By the time of the Revolution, we had already been throught the French & Indian War(s), and there were quite a few "surplus" muskets in private hands.

Frontiersmen preferred rifles, but rifles were expensive, and one might have to spend several seasons trapping and whatnot to be able to afford a good rifle. But because they were important, many made a good rifle a high priority, and since the didn't wear out often, a good rifle could pass through a couple of generations easily. The same with a musket, in that regard.

Much was made by a now discredited anti gunner who tried to convince us all that since so few guns were shown in wills from the colonial era that they were not as common as believed. Turns out both his methodology and his conclusions were flawed. Rifles, muskets, and other guns seldom were included in wills, because they are small property, and were customarily passed on either before death, or without being written down. Unlike the family silver service, the gun commonly went to someone else (son, son in law, friend, etc.) before the owners death, or as a result of a long term verbal understanding. So not lots of individual records.

As mentioned, in those days, except for high value pieces, not a lot of enphasis was put on military vs civilian firearms. ALL firearms had the same utility against animals and Indians, and only the musket's short range and bayonet lug set it apart at all from other long guns.

The British armed the colonists before the Revolution to fight the French, and the French sold as many guns as they could smuggle in during the revolution, muskets all, or nearly so.

Rifles were treasured pieces (and more than afew have survived to this day) while muskets were the "working guns".

 

[radom]

One flaw with the lack of logic on gun ownership back then is they dont now recall that most of the colonys required that people own a long arm, preferably a musket for basic militia call ups.

 

[Bart Noir]

Turns out both his methodology and his conclusions were flawed.

44 AMP, you are simply being too nice to the jerk. He was a fraud who invented some of his research data, and lost his tenure as a prof because of it, IIRC.

Back on topic, another reason that the military muskets were built heavier than civilian arms, is that they were expected to become clubs in hand-to-hand fighting, if something happened to the bayonet.

Bart Noir

 

[armedandsafe]

Turns out both his methodology and his conclusions were flawed.

I remember reading a review of his "work" somewhere. The writer commented that the people of the day must have gone without pants, as they, also, were never mentioned in wills.

Pops

 

[teeroux]

delete

 

[greenacres]

Heres a little tidbit.
I have a copy of the book "Flintlock Fowlers The First Guns Made in America" In this book are photos and details of a great many original American made fowlers. It appears to me that almost all of the fowlers shown whice were made before the revolutionary war, were modified so a bayonet can be attached.

After seeing that I made the assumption that if a soldier or militia man owned a fowler he used that instead of being issued a musket. Maybe because there was a shortage of muskets to go around, it was mandatory that you had to use your own smoothbore if you owned one?

 

[Stagger Lee]

Back then you either enlisted in the standing army or served in the militia that was organized and controlled by the local leaders or you did not.

Today you can enlist in the military or apply to a local police department of you can decline.

And there are guns made for the people who do those things which are different than those available to those who do not.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Me 2 centavos worth.

I've been interested in the fact that early military muskets were less effective killing machines than civilian rifles. Muskets were smoothbore weapons which could double as shotguns. The military Brown Bess musket was commonly loaded with buck and ball, but in essence she WAS a shotgun. (Greenacres: See Les Jones' comments about the relative size of rifle versus shotguns and you'll see that muskets were essentially the same diameter as modern shotguns.)

Muskets were faster to load than rifles but the rifle was a superior weapon for small groups of irregulars to kill long lines of British soldiers.

I suppose a line of musket wielding troops was the colonial equivalent of "spray and pray" shooting as characteristically they would fire high in the hopes that their enemies would politely reciprocate. During the Napoleonic wars lines of soldiers would sometime shoot at one another point blank for hours with minimal casualties.

Not so the Americans. In the War of 1812 the American militiamen killed the hated British general Ross near Baltimore but there is some disagreement as to whether he was killed with volley fire from a line of troops using muskets or from two snipers in a tree using rifles.

In the same war Americans killed 3 other British generals near New Orleans but at least one of them was killed by a civilian - owned cannon firing grapeshot.

 

[44 AMP]

The tactics of the day were different

Soldiers lined up and fired volleys (usually 3, because 3 was the most convenient that culd be shot without cleaning) and then closed with the enemy with fixed bayonets. Individual soldiers did not aim their muskets (much), Commanders aimed the fire of the unit. Massed formations were the way they got "accuracy". Formations shot at each other, individuals didn't.

In fact, one old manual of arms instructed the shooter to turn their head away when pulling the trigger. It was considered "ungentlemanly" to actually look at someone when you shot at them.

The main reason for the superiority of the musket over the rifle as a military arm of the day was the bayonet. True, muskets could be loaded and fired faster, but it was the bayonet that decided things when they got down to hand to hand. Rifles of the era did not mount bayonets, and this was the reason that the militia riflemen would break and run when the British closed in.

By the time we got Colonial Regulars formed, we had developed a tactic that called for the irregulars to form up in front of the Colonial Army, fire on the British until they closed in, and then retreat (run) and reform behind the regulars, or to the sides, so they could continue to engage the enemy. We did this because the irregulars would not go toe to toe with the British, while the Continental Army could, because their muskets had bayonets. We didn't always manage it sucessfully, but it was tried.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Rifles of the era did not mount bayonets, and this was the reason that the militia riflemen would break and run when the British closed in

This is why General Smith had General Stricker put his troops behind a fence at Baltimore and General Jackson had his troops dig earthworks at New Orleans and both armies used flanking fire from artillery. Nothing like standing your riflemen behind protection and flanking them with cannons to make them just as effective as regulars. (BTW, the cannons in New Orleans were privately owned.)

 

[Stagger Lee]

(BTW, the cannons in New Orleans were privately owned.)

They were owned and used prior to the battle by the Baratarian pirates and "loaned" to Jackson's defense in exchange for pardons. They weren't just owned by average Joes. But that aside, so what? You can own black powder cannon today.

 

[MeekAndMild]

so what?

During the period from the mid 1700's to the mid 1800's much naval defense of smaller nations (including the US) was contracted out to privateers. This particular fact has a great deal to do with the history of RKBA, as the US could not have won independence nor kept it if private citizens had not been able to keep artillery.

The Baratarians happened to privateers in the service of Cartagena and not pirates. The presence of Cartagenan privateers was one of the key factors in Spains decision to cede Florida and West Florida to the US. The other factor was Jackson's aggressive attacks on Spanish allies in the Florida panhandle.