Brown Bess Rebs?

[trippcor]

If I am not mistaken, the Alabama unit that was first used as guards at Andersonville were issued brown besses. This was after they had their enfields taken away after they had fled during some battle. I really wish I could remember it better but I did that research back just before the movie came out and we where doing a living history down there.

I also have seen and heard of several examples of brown besses that were converted to civilian shot guns and percussion. I also think there may have been some documentation of Georgia home guard and militia using brown besses as well.

[billwatson]

I second Tripp's observation, and I believe the authentication for Brown Besses at Andersonville came from an inspection report that found that not only were the guards armed with what are pretty much fourth class weapons, half of them wouldn't function and there weren't enough to equip all the guards;the weapons were rotated.

My recollection is that the old flintlocks went to George reserves -- beyond Joe Brown's Pets, the regiments dredged up off the very bottom of the barrel in 1864 and sent to Andersonville without tents, uniforms or decent weapons. Their lack of uniforms was one reason the military buttons off the Yankee prisoners become a form of coinage, the guards used them on their civilian coats to at least get some flavor of the military.

I think all of that came from the Andersonville book published around the time the movie was made in 1994 - Last Depot by Marvel? I dunno and I can't find it around here, but suggest it in the hopes someone else might pin it down.

Bill Watson
Stroudsburg, pa.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

The argument for the 1795 is that it was produced until roughly 1816. It was also a piece produced by or for the Gov. It would make sense that these may have still been hanging around in the arsenals just like the model 16's, since they were no more obsolete than the 16, and just as easily converted.

This is why I feel that your argument is going in the wrong direction.

You could better justify the use of a bess by sighting the use of shotguns and other personal / brought from home types of arms. I still feel like it would be very unlikely, it could have still been possible VERY EARLY.

I feel Ryan is right. Document it, or forget it. Its the only way to be sure and be right.

-Jason Asher

Jason

Around 1842 the US government began going through all its flintlock arms to determine which were suitable for alteration to percussion. All the pre 1812 stocks were sold off as unservicable. I would think old foriegn made arms would have gone before this.


At anyrate a Bess would be my second choice after a shotgun or a stick for a earlywar militia impression.

[Curt Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

To be overly brief...

While it can be fuzzy in US and CS Ordnance accounts whether they are speaking to the P1839 musket (most likely) when they speak to "Tower" or old ".75 muskets," IMHO, the India Pattern muskets had largely passed from the scene a few decades earlier.

In 1833, the British Ordnance system still had some 440,000 some post 1793 India Pattern (so-called 3rd Model "Besses") in stock, 18 years after production ceased.
A number of these, with the double throated/reinforced cocks, that came out in 1809, were sold to Mexico.

The US had declared "oldest" muskets as junk to be sold off as part of the post "Mex War" arsenal inventory, but later their agents purchased some in Britain in 1861.

The larger issue, IMHO, is in regards to the use of the Rev War era, New Short Land Pattern muskets, of 1769 (so-called 2nd Model 'Brown Bess')- a different beastie than the India Pattern.

I could possibly see such a Rev War mantle piece coming down for 1861 emergency service, but IMHO that would be stretching things with quite a "fiction," in the first place, and hardly PEC in the second.

Others' mileage may differ...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Yellowhammer]

Guys,

I would like to throw out that we need to be a bit more careful with our terms in this thread. ".75 caliber British musket" does not necessarily mean Brown Bess. The British made several percussion models in that caliber.

We also tend to use the term "1816" generically to describe a family of US martial flintlocks that have significant differences.

Did some backwater Confederate hilljack march off to war in 1861 with an antique Brown Bess? Probably. For my money, if somebody wants to carry a non-standard type arm, I'd go with a shotgun or civilian rifle or fowler LONG before I would consider a Brown Bess.

[SCTiger]

The 17th South Carolina Volunteers carried the Brown Bess with the percussion cap conversion. One of these is at the SCV Confederate Museum in Greenville, SC. The flank companies of the 17th were equipped with the Enfield's.

Once I find further information I will post it. I don't know if the BB was retained throughout the war. It would seem that far better arms would replace this weapon as the war progressed. Commonality of ammunition would be another problem with troops retaining this weapon. Unless your protraying the 17th or another documented unit, it would seem that the investment and uselfulness of the weapon would be very limited. Also for the price of buying a custom made replica, one could own two to three high quality repo's that were seen in abudance. Smart money would purchase a 1842 smooth bore, for a early war CS impression that would useful for a wide range of events.

[billwatson]

I don't picture these coming off mantles. I picture them coming along with militia units from backwater areas, early in the war, then getting turned in as something better came along, and reissued again in backwaters like Camp Sumter, treating them essentially as one step up from spears.
When the government authorized them to be "sold off," after the Mexican War, wouldn't then, as more recently, state organizations like militia get first crack? I'd think the path into private hands would be fairly lengthy.
And I have no idea what particular "brown bess" the Andersonville troops had.

Clearly an area where more needs to be known....

[tmdreb]

It would most definitely depend on what the desired impression was. For early war or rear echelon duties, perhaps, if besses can be documented, or at least have even been a possibility. I would assume these type weapons might have been found in the units that had quite a few men unarmed. When the need is great enough, age and effectiveness doesn't matter near as much.

John, just out of curiosity, could you explain what you mean by the "family of US martial flintlocks that have significant differences" that are referred to by the name "1816?" I know there are variations on the different models of the 1816 musket, but these variations were slight.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

John, just out of curiosity, could you explain what you mean by the "family of US martial flintlocks that have significant differences" that are referred to by the name "1816?" I know there are variations on the different models of the 1816 musket, but these variations were slight.

Im no expert on muskets like some members of this board, but I will try to answer this. Athough there was some noticable changes in the different US flintlock muskets from the late 18th early 19th century. The major difference was due to the improved manufacturing processes used in these muskets. Towards the begining of the 1800s, tolerances, and tools to measure those tolerances improved by leaps and bounds. Although it would still be years before 100% interchangeability would be sorted out, it was getting started on certain parts to a small degree. For example a 1816 musket would have nowere close to the quality of interchangeability that a 1822 musket would have.

[David Fox]

Somewhere or another is a quotation that the most uniformly armed unit surrendered at Fort Donelson carried flintlock British muskets. Likewise, they (described as "Queen Anne" muskets), were carried by the Georgia troops guarding Camp Sumter, Andersonville, heavily loaded with buckshot.