caused the introduction of the muskets or mosquet, which originated in
Spain about the time of Francis I. They are said to have been first
employed extensively at the battle of Pavia, 1525; but, if we believe
Brantome, it was the Duke d’Alva who first brought them into use in the
armies, when during the reign of Philip II., he went to take upon him
the government of the Low Countries in the year 1567; but that only
means, he brought them more into fashion than they were till that time,
and that till then they were rarely used, at least in the field, on
account of their cumbrous nature. A Spanish army of 10,000 men sailed
from Carthagena, 27th April, 1567, _en route_ for the Netherlands, to do
which they had to cross the Alps. It was a picked body of troops, of
whom about 1,300 were cavalry. The Duke d’Alva formed them into three
divisions, and dispensed with artillery, not wishing to embarrass his
movements. Each company of foot was flanked by a body of soldiers,
carrying heavy muskets with rests attached to them.
~Lephanto, 1571.~
At the battle of Lephanto 1571, fought between the Venetians and Turks,
it is stated by the historian, that one chief reason why so few
Christians were killed in comparison, was because the Turks used for the
most part bows and arrows, whereas the former were supplied with
muskets.
~Caliver.~
A lighter kind of musket was called a caliver or calliver, which was
only a corruption of calibre, denoting that they were all of one guage,
as the original harquebuses were not of any particular length or bore;
the caliver was fired without a rest.
~Dimensions, 1621.~
Sir Thomas Kellie in his “Art Militaire,” published in 1621, says, “The
barrel of a musket should be four feet in length, the bore capable of
receiving bullets twelve whereof weigh a pound, previous to this some
had carried ten to the pound.”
~Hand-mortar, 1594.~
~From butt of musket.~
~By hand.~
~From muzzle.~
The hand-mortar for throwing grenades are said to have been first used
in 1594, and gave origin at a later date to the troops thence
denominated, _grenadiers_. They appear to have been fired from the
shoulder. (Plate 19, fig. 3.) In the reign of James II., a
flint-lock-musket was adapted to fire grenades from the butt, the small
of which was made to resemble a chambered mortar; the heel of the butt
formed a cover, which opened with a spring on a hinge; the priming was
put into the usual pan, and a small piece of metal moved so as to open a
communication with the powder in the chamber. A rest was formed by a
slender iron rod, about three feet long, and when not required let into
the stock, in the place usually occupied by the ramrod, and turning upon
a pivot placed a few inches in front of the guard-brass. The scouring
rod is run through metal loops on one side of the stock. Afterwards
grenades were thrown by hand, the musket being slung over the soldier’s
back, and more recently experiments were made with an iron tube about
four inches long, placed on the muzzle in the same manner as the
bayonets.
~Match-locks and rest, James I.~
In the time of James I., part of the infantry were armed with calivers
or muskets and rests, both of which were fired with match-locks, the
soldier carrying the match lighted at both ends.
~Trickerlock, 1629.~
“A match trickerlock compleat,” occurs in a schedule of 1629. This was
the adoption of what is now called a hair trigger, which was added to
the former one, and gives a more instantaneous discharge. A tricker
wheel lock of Charles I., a tricker match-lock of Charles II., and a
tricker fire-lock of James II., are preserved in Sir S. Meyrick’s
collection.
~Fowling pieces.~
The Earl of Albermarle in 1646, says, “It is very fit likewise that you
have in each company six good fowling pieces, of such a length that the
soldier may well be able to take aim and shoot off at ease; being placed
six on each flank of a division of foot to skirmish with an enemy. These
soldiers ought to have command, when they come within distance, that
they shoot at officers only.” We have here plainly the origin of
riflemen.
~Tin tube for match.~
~First fire-lock.~
Each musketeer formerly carried a tin tube, pierced full of holes, to
contain the match, and prevent his being discovered; in wet weather it
was necessary to carry it in the crown of his cap, to prevent it from
being extinguished. One of the earliest attempts to overcome this
difficulty is in the Arsenal, at Dresden, where there is an old
_buchse_, with a piece of pyrites fixed opposite to the touch-hole, and
which requires to be rubbed with a file, chained to it, until sparks are
elicited sufficient to fire the powder.
~Snaphaunce.~
The next improvement upon the wheel-lock was the snaphaunce; a flat
piece of steel, furrowed in imitation of the wheel, was placed on a
steel post, which being screwed beyond the pan, was made moveable; the
pan had a cover which required to be pushed off by the thumb, and the
furrowed piece being then brought to stand over it, on pulling the
trigger, the flint, which was substituted for pyrites, struck against
it, and gave the spark.
~Flint lock.~
The next step in the improvement of the musket was the introduction of
the flint-lock, now so well known, that I need not enter into the
details of its mechanism.
~In France, 1630.~
~In England, 1677.~
~Earl Orrery’s opinion.~
It was used in France as early as 1630, but was not employed in the army
until 1670 or 80, when it took the name of “fusil.” It was not employed
in England until about 1677, and its advantages over the matchlock are
thus described in a work addressed to King Charles II., in 1677, by the
Earl of Orrery:--“First it is exceedingly more ready, for with the
fire-lock you have only to cock, and you are prepared to shoot, but with
the matchlock, you have several motions, besides if you fire not the
matchlock as soon as you have blown your match, (which often,
particularly in hedgefights and sieges, you cannot do) you must a second
time blow your match. The match is very dangerous, either when
bandoliers are used, or when soldiers run hastily in fight to the budge
barrel, to refill their bandoliers. I have often seen sad instances
thereof. Marching in the nights to avoid an enemy or to surprise one, or
to assault a fortress, the matches often discover you, whereby you
suffer much, and he obtains much. In wet weather, the rain deads the
powder and the match too, and the wind sometimes blows away the powder,
ere the match can touch the pan; nay, in very high winds, I have seen
the sparks blown from the match, fire the musket ere the soldier meant
it, and either thereby lose his shot, or kill some one before him.
Whereas in the firelock, the motion is so sudden, that what makes the
cock fall on the hammer, strikes the fire and opens the pan at once.
Lastly, the quantity of match does much add to the baggage, it naturally
draws the moisture of the air, which makes it less fit, and if you march
without close waggons, it is the more exposed, and without being dried
again in ovens is but of half the use which otherwise it would be of,
and which is full as bad as the skeans you give the corporals, and the
sinks you give the private soldiers, being rendered useless if damp;
nothing of all which can be said of the flint, but much of it to the
contrary.”
~Bows to be replaced by muskets, 1596.~
In a proclamation of Queen Elizabeth dated 1596, it is stated, “You
shall bring with you all such furniture and weapon for footmen as you
stand charged withall by statute, or have formerly shewed at other
musters heretofore, changinge your billes into pikes, and your bowes
into muskettes accordinge to our sayde former letters.”
~Muskets with two locks.~
~Match-lock preferred.~
~Match made of.~
In France, as late as 1702, when the flint had wholly superseded the
pyrites, and the structure differed very little from our present
musket-locks, an additional cock was attached to the end of the
lock-plate, and a sliding cover placed over a hole in the hammer-seat,
for the purpose of lighting the powder by a match, if the flint failed.
The match was therefore from its simplicity, preferred from all others
for a considerable period, and is still used by the Chinese, Tartars,
Persians, and Turks, in some provinces either wholly, or partially. The
match itself was made of cotton or hemp, spun slack, and boiled in a
strong solution of saltpetre, or in the lees of wine.
~Iron ramrod 1740.~
In the time of Frederick the Great, (1740 to 1786), the invention of the
iron ramrod by the Prince of Dessau, trifling matter as it seems,
doubled the value of the fire of infantry. Prior to this the rammer had
been made of wood, and was called the scouring stick.
~Dimensions, &c. of English musket, in 1800.~
~Charge.~
~Priming, 1st. mode.~
~Priming, 2nd mode.~
At the commencement of this (19th) century, the weight of the English
musket and bayonet was, 11lbs. 4ozs., bayonet 1lb. 2ozs., length of
barrel 3ft. 3-in., bore ·753-in., bullets 14¹⁄₂ to the pound. Charges of
powder 6 drs., F.G. Every soldier was furnished with three flints for 60
rounds. Originally it had been necessary to put the priming into the pan
from a flask, containing a finer grained powder, called “Serpentine
powder,” but in the early flint-lock musket this was rendered
unnecessary, as in loading, a portion of the charge passed through the
communication hole into the pan, where it was prevented from escaping by
the hammer. Latterly a portion of the cartridge was bitten off, and the
pan filled with priming before loading.
~Objections to flint-lock.~
~Priming by detonation, 1807.~
~Experiments, 1834.~
~Advantages of percussion.~
~Reduced charge.~
~Reduced pull of trigger.~
The objections to the flint-lock were, that it did not entirely preserve
the priming from wet. Sometimes the flint failed to ignite the charge,
and it was necessary to change it frequently. Owing to these
imperfections, in 1807, the Rev. Mr. Forsyth obtained a patent for
priming with fulminating powder. The composition consisted of sulphate
of potash, sulphur, and charcoal, and exploded when struck by any metal
or hard substance. This composition was considered too corrosive, but
was subsequently improved, and finally applied to the musket, in the
form of the present percussion cap, which consists of chlorate of
potash, three parts; fulminating mercury two parts; and ground glass one
part. The experiments for Mr. Forsyth’s invention, commenced in 1834.
Six thousand rounds were fired from each description of arm, and the
experiments conducted in all weathers, six of each kind of arm being
used. The result proved exceedingly favourable to the percussion
principle, and may be briefly summed up as follows:--1st, out of 6,000
rounds from the flint-lock, there were 922 missfires, being 1 in 6¹⁄₂,
whereas in the percussion musket there were only 36 misses in 6,000
rounds, or 1 in 166. With the flint-lock there were 3,680 hits out of
the 6,000, and with the percussion 4,047 hits, being 7 per cent. in
favour of the latter. To fire 100 rounds with the flint required 32
minutes 31 seconds, whereas the percussion occupied only 30 minutes 24
seconds. Another advantage of the percussion musket, was that it was
capped _after_ being loaded. Hitherto a certain amount of powder had
been allowed for priming, but as this vestige of the hand-gun could be
dispensed with, a reduction of charge could be made; a total reduction
however was made from 6 to 4¹⁄₂ drs., which caused a diminution of
recoil. The 4¹⁄₂ drs. then recommended was known to be more than was
necessary for the projection of the bullet, but an extra ¹⁄₂ dr. was
retained to allow for the effect of damp or waste on service. In the
course of these experiments, it was found that the considerable force
required to pull the trigger might be advantageously reduced, and that
increased accuracy would ensue, therefore the pull of the trigger was
lessened to 7lbs.
~New model musket.~
The advantages of the percussion system having been satisfactorily
shown, it was decided to convert a portion of the old flint-locks into
percussions, and to establish a new model percussion musket for the
English army.
~Percussion at Canton.~
The following anecdote illustrates the weak points of the flint-lock.
During the Chinese war, a company of the 37th Madras Native Infantry had
been detached to the left, when, the evening closing, the order was
given to rejoin, and the whole were to retire upon Canton, and just as
it was being carried into execution, a tremendous storm of wind and rain
arose, making the air so dark, that no one could see 20 yards. The
detached company retired sounding bugles and beating drums, which were
drowned by the tempest, and they could not find the battalion. In a few
minutes the enemy got between this company and the retreating force. The
muskets would not go off, and several attempts of the enemy to close
were with difficulty repulsed with the bayonet. In the meantime, the
enemy contrived to fire off their own matchlocks, and some of the
sepoys’ muskets of men who had dropped in the retreat, by applying
matches to them. The square into which the company was formed, was thus
being diminished, while the only return that could be made, was an
occasional shot from a solitary musket, which the three officers of the
company managed to clean out, under cover of great coats held over the
muzzle. A company of Marines was dispatched for the 37th party, armed
with percussion muskets, scarcely one of which missed at the first fire,
and a few volleys sufficed to clear the way, and both detachments
reached the camp in safety, with but little loss. This happened in the
early part of 1841.
~Percussion introduced, 1842.~
~Sighted for 150 yards.~
After a “hang-fire” of about 200 years, a new pattern percussion musket
was issued in 1842. Its weight was greater than that of the old
flint-lock, being with the bayonet about 11-lbs., 6-oz., bayonet 1-lb.,
0-oz., 8-drs., bore ·753, barrel 3-ft. 3-in., length, with bayonet 6
feet, length without 4-ft. 6³⁄₄-in., a block sight for 150 yards, and a
percussion lock. For many years prior to 1839 no sight at all was
thought necessary for the musket, the bayonet stud being sufficient, but
which was totally obscured when fired with fixed bayonets. This arm
continued as the approved weapon for our infantry without improvement
until 1851, when the Minié rifle was partially introduced.
~Comparison with foreign muskets.~
~Brown Bess advocated.~
The English musket (1842) differed from all those in use on the
Continent, in having, 1st, the least accuracy, 2nd, reduced range, 3rd,
heavier, 4th, shorter, 5th, larger bore, 6th, greater windage, 7th,
double the charge of powder, 8th, the greatest recoil, and 9th, the most
expensive! _i. e._, as compared with those of France and Belgium,
Prussia, Austria, or even with the old Sikh matchlock!! And yet a “stand
up fight” was stoutly maintained for this most inefficient arm, by many
military men, as may be seen from the following extract from a note in
Part II., Vol. II., of the “Aide Memoire to the military
sciences:”--“Erroneous ideas prevail as to the precise wants of the
service with regard to the musket, and its proper qualities and utility
in the field, as well as much exaggeration as to the defects of the new
percussion musket of 1842, for the infantry of the line. It is stated
that it is too heavy and of imperfect construction. Some prefer the
French pattern, and others would lessen the weight and calibre still
more, reducing also the windage: as, however, the new regulation has
brought into use some hundreds of thousands of new muskets, and has been
approved by the highest authorities, some considerations are necessary
before a radical change can be effected beyond range and a nice accuracy
of fire. 1st, What are the essentials for a musket for the infantry of
the line? 2nd, The application of the musket to the infantry soldier. It
is evident that the most essential points are strength, and facility of
pouring into your enemies’ ranks a powerful fire. Troops do not halt to
play at long bowls; a field of battle presents a series of movements for
the purpose of outflanking or closing in upon your enemy, and when
within two hundred yards, to deliver your fire with effect. Firing at
500 or 600 yards is the business of artillery, and, therefore, to fire
at 300 or 400 yards is a misapplication of the musket, a loss of time, a
waste of ammunition, and tends to make men unsteady in the ranks.”
~Brown Bess tried at Chatham.~
~Merits of “Brown Bess” illustrated.~
The shooting powers of the musket (1842) are stated in the report on
Experimental Musketry firing carried on by Captain (now Lieut.-Colonel)
McKerlie, Royal Engineers, at Chatham, in 1846, which concludes as
follows: “It appears by these experiments, that as a general rule,
musketry fire should never be opened beyond 150 yards, and certainly not
exceeding 200 yards. At this distance, half the number of shots missed a
target 11-ft. 6-in., and at 150 yards a very large proportion also
missed. At 75 and 100 yards every shot struck the target, only 2-ft.
wide, and had the deviation increased simply as the distance every shot
ought to have struck the target 6-ft. wide at 200 yards, instead of
this, however, some were observed to pass several yards to the right and
left, some to fall 30 yards short, and others to pass as much beyond,
and this deviation increased in a still greater degree as the range
increased. It is only then under peculiar circumstances, such as when it
may be desirable to bring a fire on Field Artillery when there are no
other means of replying to it, that it ought ever to be thought of
using the musket at such distances as 400 yards.” In fact, it has been
stated that the probability of hitting one man with a musket ball at 500
yards would be as one farthing to the National Debt! On a recent
occasion, at the Cape, 80,000 rounds were fired to kill 25 men!! To put
a man “_hors de combat_” requires his weight in lead, and six times his
weight in iron!!!
~Price.~
~Fastened by bands.~
~Bands unsightly!!~
~Supposed profit of large bore.~
Our musket cost £3, the French and Belgian £1 8s. 6¹⁄₂d. In foreign arms
the barrel is fastened to the stock by bands, binding the two together,
and thus adding greatly to their strength. This mode, although
acknowledged to be infinitely superior for military purposes, by our
Inspector of small arms, was condemned as unsightly!! The French musket,
although three inches longer, is beautifully poised, being lightened
forward. Our bore being larger was considered an advantage, as their
balls could be fired out of our barrels, while our balls could not out
of their muskets. It was generally thought that the greater weight of
the English ball produced an increased range and momentum, but this was
counteracted by the excess of windage.
* * * * *
~Various forms of early fire-arms.~
In former days small arms were made of various shapes and devices, and
also combined with other weapons of attack and defence.
There is in the arsenal at Venice a matchlock containing twenty barrels,
ten gun barrels, about 2¹⁄₂ feet long, and ten pistol barrels half that
length. The match exploded a gun and pistol barrel together.
The Chinese of the present day make use of a species of matchlock
revolvers, and also of another matchlock, consisting of several barrels,
placed on a common stock, diverging from each other, and fired
simultaneously. (Plate 4, fig. 4 and 5.)
~Shield fire-arms.~
~Breech-loaders.~
Soon after the invention of fire-arms, the boss, or spike, issuing from
the centre of the targets or shields, was superseded by one or more
short barrels, fired by a matchlock, and having an aperture covered with
a grating above, for the purpose of taking aim. These barrels were
loaded at the breech, the charge being put into an iron tube, or short
barrel, which was pushed in at the end, and retained there by shutting
down a lid or spring.
~Cross-bow and pistol united.~
There were cross-bows, which combined a pistol and cross-bow, the
wheel-lock being placed about the centre of the handle on one side,
whilst on the other was the string of the bow, and the windlass for
drawing it up.
~Pike and pistol.~
Pistols were frequently introduced into the butt-end of pikes, and also,
in the reign of Edward VI., in the handle of the battle-axe, the spiked
club, the martlet, and other weapons, even the dagger.
~Carabines with joint.~
~Heel plate to draw out.~
In the time of Charles I. there were esclopette carbines, made with the
butt to double back on a hinge, in order to get them into a holster; and
a little later the butt was lengthened by drawing out the steel cap
which formed its cover, now called heel plate.
~Revolvers in Charles I.~
~Double-barrelled pistols.~
In the reign of Charles I. there were also revolvers, with eight
chambers to hold the charges; and in the time of Cromwell and Charles
II. we find self-loading and self-priming guns. Pistols were made both
double-barrelled and revolving.
~Arrows fired out of muskets, 1591.~
In Sir Richard Hawkins’ account of his voyage in the South Sea, 1591,
mention is made of his shooting arrows from muskets with great success
at shipping: “for the upper works of their ships being musket proof,
they passed through both sides with facilitie, and wrought extraordinary
disasters, which caused admiration to see themselves wounded with small
shot when they thought themselves secure.” These wooden arrows were
called sprites or sprightes. Lord Verulam says, “it is certain that we
had in use at one time for sea fight short arrows which they call
sprights, without any other head save wood sharpened, which were
discharged out of muskets, and would pierce through the sides of ships,
when a bullet would not pierce.”
~Sprites required wads.~
Sir Richard Hawkins informs us, that in a discourse which he held with
the Spanish General, Michael Angell, the latter demanded, “for what
purpose served the little short arrowes which we had in our shippe, and
those in great quantity. I satisfied him that they were for our muskets.
Hereof they prooved to profit themselves after; but for that they wanted
the tampkins, which are first to be driven home, before the arrow be put
in, and as they understood not the secret, they rejected them as
uncertaine, and therefore not to be used; but of all the shot used now
adayes, for the annoying of an ennemie in fight by sea, few are of
greater moment for many respects, which I hold not convenient to treat
of in public.”
Thus it appears that bullets of metal, have been fired out of bows and
slings, stone balls out of guns, and arrows from muskets.
The following are the names of different descriptions of small arms,
viz:--
Hand-cannon
Hand-gun
Arquebus
Caliver
Petronel
Scorpion
Dragon
Musketoon
Hague
Demi-hague
Esclopette
Currier
Fusil
Hand-mortar
Blunderbuss
Musket
Pistol
Dag
Tack
THE BAYONET.
~Pointed stake.~
It was common with archers to place a long pointed stake in the ground
to protect themselves against cavalry. On the arquebus replacing the bow
the same practice was continued.
~Pike.~
From the earliest ages it had been customary to arm some of the infantry
with pikes, and in the middle ages when cavalry was so much employed in
armies, it was found impossible to dispense with this weapon; for some
time after the introduction of fire-arms, only a portion of the infantry
were armed with them, and the remainder were pikemen. The proportion of
each varied at different times, from one half to two thirds, but as the
proportion of musketeers increased it became necessary to contrive some
method, by which they could defend themselves.
~_Marlets-de-fer_ with touch.~
~Rest, with touch.~
~Swines’ feathers.~
In the latter part of the reign of James I., some attempts were made to
convert the musketeer’s rest into a defence against cavalry.
_Marlets-de-fer_ and small pole-axes had a touch enclosed in them, which
by touching a spring opened a small valve and sprung out. The musket
rest, instead of having a wooden shaft, was now made of a thin tube of
iron, like these pole-axes covered with leather, and armed with the
touch. Rests thus armed were said to contain Swedish or Swines’
feathers. It was found however that the musketeer could not do his duty
when armed with musket, sword, and rest, (especially if he had a Swedish
feather to manage with them) which led to the abandonment of the rest
during the Protectorate.
~Sword stuck in muzzle.~
~Bayonets in France, 1671.~