Effectiveness of Old Firearms - IV

In our last post, we looked at a series of penetration tests done in Graz, Austria, to weapons from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, compared to modern weapons. But what about accuracy, the reader asks? Today, we will study the accuracy of those ancient weapons against modern weapons.

As was mentioned in the earlier posts in this series, the firearms were typical mass-produced weapons used by infantrymen in the past. The testers also picked two modern rifles and a modern pistol to test against. For testing the accuracy, the firearms were all mounted on a frame and sighted to a paper target at 100 meters (330 feet) distance for rifles, and 30 meters (100 feet) distance for pistols. The paper target measured 167 x 30 cm. (or 5.5 x 1.0 feet), simulating the frontal area of a standing enemy, with an even larger secondary paper target behind it, to track where the bullets were hitting (even if they hit outside the primary target). The actual number of shots fired per weapon varied, but there were about 18 shots fired from each. The table below presents the results:

Results of accuracy tests. Click on the image to enlarge.

As before, a few notes on the results:

1. The modern weapons are highlighted with yellow background at the bottom of the image.
2. The height and width refer to the dimensions of the smallest rectangle that could be drawn around all the bullet holes. The next column is the area of the this rectangle. The last column is the probability that the primary target was hit at all.
3. In keeping with the spirit of the original tests, results are in metric units. To convert cm. to inches, multiply the numbers by 0.3937. To convert the area from sq. cm to sq. inches, multiply the numbers by 0.155.
4. To eliminate human inaccuracy, all weapons were fired from a frame and triggered electronically, bypassing their normal firing mechanisms.
5. Muskets and rifles were tested on targets at 100 meter (330 feet) distance, whereas pistols were tested on targets at 30 meter (100 feet) distance.
6. The flintlock barrel that was used as a pressure tester, was not fired at targets for these tests, therefore it shows up in the chart with green background and the words "no applicable data".
7. The wheellock musket made in Southern Germany in the first half of the 17th century shot so inaccurately, that the tests for it were cancelled. This is shown in the chart with pink background and the words "Tests cancelled due to excessive scatter".
8. The three best performing ancient weapons are highlighted in gray background.

As can be seen from the above figures, long-barreled weapons performed very poorly in the accuracy tests. Only one musket (The 9th weapon - flintlock musket from Austria, made in the second half of the 18th century) showed any good probability of hitting the target (83%). Not surprisingly, this happened to be a rifled barrel. However, two other rifled weapons (the 1st one and the 6th one) performed really badly. In fact, the 6th weapon (the wheellock musket, South German, from the first half of the 17th century) scattered its shots so badly that the test was cancelled for it. For 4 out of the 13 guns tested, the enclosing rectangle's area was larger than the area of the primary target, and for 2 others, it was nearly the area of the primary target. This means that a total of 6 of the 13 long guns shot so inaccurately at 100 meter distances, that they only hit their targets by pure random luck! This is why battlefield commanders of the 16th-18th centuries ordered their troops to shoot at smaller distances, such as 50-70 meters (160 to 230 feet) or even closer than that, in order to be effective. One of the primary reasons for inaccuracy of the ancient firearms is the shape of the bullet, which is a round ball. At distances of 100 meters, the Magnus effect, which we studied earlier, plays a significant role in the ball deviating away from the target. By contrast, modern bullets are tapered and are more stable when flying in the air.

On the other hand, the two ancient pistols fared much better at 30 meter ranges. While they had much larger enclosing areas than the modern pistol, they did manage to put most of their shots into the human-sized target. In fact, one of the two ancient pistols had a 99% probability of hitting its target. Therefore, at closer distances that pistols were used at, they could be pretty deadly. At closer distances, the deviation caused by the Magnus effect is not large enough to cause the ball to miss its target. This explains the number of injuries and deaths in pistol duels, as well as the effectiveness of pistol cavalry units, such as the German Reiters troops.

Effectiveness of Old Firearms - III

In our last post, we looked at a study done in Graz, Austria, that compared mass-produced soldier weapons from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries against modern weapons used by soldiers today. In the last post, we studied the velocities of the various firearms. Today, we will study how the various weapons fared in penetration and accuracy tests.

For the penetration tests, the testers used different types of targets: gel blocks, wooden boards, modern steel plates and 16th century armor plates. Gel blocks are one of the modern ways to evaluate penetration, since it approximates muscle tissue. If the gel blocks are prepared carefully, they can be produced repeatedly with the same consistency, thereby providing for more reliable comparative tests with multiple firearms.

Results of Penetration Tests. Click on the image to enlarge.

As before, a few notes on the results:

1. The modern weapons are highlighted with yellow background at the bottom of the image.
2. The flintlock barrel that was used as a pressure tester, was not fired at targets for this series of tests, therefore it shows up in the chart with green background and the words "no applicable data".
3. The targets were placed at distances of 30 meters (100 feet) and 100 meters (330 feet) and the penetration was measured in millimeters (mm.). In keeping with the spirit of the original tests, your humble editor has not converted these into imperial measurements, but can be easily done as follows: To convert meters into feet, multiply the numbers by 3.3. To convert mm. into inches, multiply the numbers by 0.039. To convert cm. to inches, multiply the numbers by 0.39
4. The targets were made of steel and wood. For the wooden targets, they were made using wood from spruce trees.
5. The theoretical maximum range of the weapons was determined by firing each weapon at 60 degree angle. 

As the chart shows, the pistols, whether modern or ancient, all have similar penetrative properties at 30 meter range. Although the modern Glock had the best penetration on both steel and wooden targets, it didn't outperform the ancient pistols by that much in the penetration tests. On the other hand, it has a much longer range than the other pistols (and even the ancient muskets). This is because the tapering bullet does not lose velocity as quickly as a spherical ball does. 

On the other hand, the modern rifles simply outperformed the ancient muskets by a large margin in the penetrative tests, as well as the maximum range test. The AUG firing the NATO 5.56x45 cartridge penetrated about 2x to 3x the depth of the ancient muskets and the FAL firing the NATO 7.62x51 cartridge penetrated about 3x to 5x the depth of the ancient muskets. The maximum range of the modern rifles also far outperformed the ancient muskets.

However, there are other interesting results that became apparent by this series of tests.

Since the ancient weapons all fire larger spherical balls, (the calibers are listed in our previous post) they left larger volumes of wound cavities at shorter ranges. This is because, at close distances, the spherical balls were moving fast enough to do some serious damage. For instance, the flintlock musket that was made in Suhl in 1686, fires a 17.8 mm. diameter ball weighing 30.93 grams and at 9 meter distance (about 30 feet), it left a cavity of 530 cm³. Similarly, the flintlock musket from Austria that was made in the second half of the 18th century, fires a 16.4 mm. diameter ball weighing 26.73 grams and left a cavity of approximately 369 cm³ at a distance of 9 meters.

By contrast, modern weapons fire much smaller tapered bullets, which generally do less damage. At the same 9 meter distance, a modern Steyr AUG rifle firing a 5.56x45 mm. cartridge only left a cavity of 101 cm³.

On the other hand, as the distance increased, the tests showed that the wound cavity made by spherical balls decreased much more significantly. The same musket that made a 369 cm³ cavity at a distance of 9 meters, made a 155 cm³ cavity at 100 meters distance. In contrast to this, the Steyr AUG rifle which made a a cavity of 101 cm³ at 9 meters range, left a cavity of 70 cm³ at 100 meter range. This means that the modern rifle only lost approximately 30% of its penetrative powers at this distance, whereas the older weapon lost about 60%. Still, the older weapon left a much larger cavity, even at 100 meters distance. This explains the extremely horrific wounds experienced by soldiers in the 16th to 18th centuries.

Additionally, the tests showed that the shapes of the wound cavities are also different. Spherical musket balls leave trumpet-shaped wounds. They are widest at the point of entry and taper steadily down in diameter as the ball slows down and loses energy. By contrast, modern bullets leave cavities of a completely different shape:

Cavity left by a 5.56 mm. bullet.

The above image shows the cavity left by a NATO 5.56 mm. bullet in ballistics gel. As you can see, the bullet first creates a smaller hole in the beginning as it enters the target, but as it moves deeper into the target, it starts to tumble and fragment and leaves a much wider hole than the bullet diameter as it moves further in.

The tests also measured the protection offered by body armor. Modern mild steel plate of 3 mm. thickness of the same steel grade as those used for the penetration tests tabulated above, was lined with two layers of linen and then placed before a gel block. The entire target was mounted at a distance of 9 meters. The flintlock musket from Austria that was made in the second half of the 18th century, was fired again. Remember that this same musket had left a 369 cm³ cavity at an unprotected target at the same distance earlier. When fired at the protected target, the bullet did manage to penetrate through the metal and linen and entered the ballistics gel. However, it only penetrated for a short distance and left a cavity of 25 cm³. The bullet and the armor plate both splintered and some of these splinters penetrated into the gel block up to a depth of 80 mm. (or about 3.15 inches).

Incidentally, the testers also fired the flintlock pistol made in Ferlach in the 1700s, into a gel target with no protection at the same 9 meter distance and it left a cavity of about 23 cm³. This shows that the 18th century flintlock pistol fired at an unprotected target produced a wound pretty similar to the wound produced by the 18th century musket fired at a protected target.

The most interesting result of the Austrian tests involved a pistol shot at a breastplate made in the 16th century, at a distance of 8.5 meters. The breastplate was part of an armor set made to protect horses. It was manufactured in Augsburg sometime between 1570 and 1580 and made of mild steel, which was cold-worked. The thickness of the plate was approximately 2.8 to 3.0 mm throughout and had a Brinell Hardness Number of 290. The plate was mounted on a sandbag, covered with two layers of linen cloth, to simulate what a typical knight on the battlefield would wear. The pistol used for this test was the wheellock pistol made in Nuremberg ca 1620, firing a 12.3 mm. ball weighing 9.56 grams. At the point of impact, the ball was measured traveling at around 436 meters/second. The ball completely penetrated the breast plate, but it lost all its kinetic energy in doing so. The ball became heavily deformed, lost about 24% of its mass and got stuck in the linen cloth. No part of the ball managed to penetrate to the sandbag and there were no secondary splinters from the armor to cause any damage either. This means that our 16th century knight would have probably survived a pistol shot at close range with nothing more than a few bruises on his chest. This shows that the 16th century armorers actually had some pretty good skills and understood cold-working techniques well to provide such hard armor.

In our final installment of this series, we will study the accuracy results of the same weapons.

Effectiveness of Old Firearms - II

In our last post, we looked at some tests done against many early firearms, mostly arquebuses and muskets. While we studied some of the tests, it might be a good idea to actually present some of those results in a bit more detail, so we can understand it better.

Examples of arquebuses. Click on the image to enlarge. Public domain image.

As was mentioned in the previous post, during 1988 to 1989, staff members of Steiermärkisches Landeszeughaus (Steyr Provincial Armory)  in Graz, Austria, conducted tests using 16 firearms dating from 1571 to post-1750, with equal numbers of specimens from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. The guns were mostly mass-produced specimens, such as might be typically issued to infantry troops. Three of the weapons had rifling, the others were smoothbore guns. A couple of the guns were rejected after early inspection revealed that they had potentially dangerous weaknesses in the metal. The remaining 14 weapons were test fired 325 times under controlled conditions, in a testing range operated by the Austrian Army. As part of the tests, they also brought two modern production assault rifles and a modern pistol used by the Austrian military, so that they could compare the results against modern firearms.

The following charts below summarize the various firearm dimensions and the results of velocity measurements:

Physical Characteristics of the various firearms. Click on the image to enlarge.

Velocity measurements of the various firearms. Click on the image to enlarge.

A few notes on the results presented above:

1. The modern weapons are highlighted in yellow background at the bottom of the images. 
2. The "Spanish" weapons are actually made in Austria, but the Spaniards were the first to equip their troops with heavy muskets in the 1520s, which is why heavy muskets of that era are generally called "Spanish muskets", irrespective of where they were actually made.
3. The results presented above are in metric units, in keeping with the spirit of the original tests. To convert mm. to inches, divide the numbers by 25.4, to convert weights from kg. to pounds, multiply the numbers by 2.2, to convert grams to pounds, multiply the numbers by 0.0022, to convert grams to grains, multiply the numbers by 15.43 and to convert velocity from meters/sec to feet/sec, multiply the numbers by 3.3
4. Caliber is actually the nominal caliber of the bullet (i.e the bore diameter). We read something about this when we discussed 5.56 mm. vs. .223 ammunition earlier.
5. Pistol weapons were shot at targets at 30 meters (100 feet) ranges, whereas rifles were shot at targets at 100 meter (330 feet) distances. This is why rifle velocities are measured at both 30 and 100 meters.

The first thing we note is that all the older weapons have much larger dimensions than modern weapons. In fact, the only two older weapons that are smaller in length are the two pistols, which are shorter than modern rifles, but not by too much. The modern pistol is much smaller in size than everything else. Similarly, older weapons are generally much heavier than modern weapons, especially the ones from the 16th and 17th centuries. Advances in metallurgy have made it possible for modern firearms to be both stronger and lighter than the ancient firearms. The calibers of weapons have also significantly reduced in modern times. Powder weights are somewhat harder to compare, because the older weapons use black powder, whereas modern weapons use smokeless powders, which are much more efficient in propelling bullets. However, they are still listed above, so that the reader can see how much less weight of powder modern weapons use.

Now on to the muzzle velocities, which are shown in the second chart above. The interesting thing is that the slowest muzzle velocity measured is actually from a modern weapon (the Glock 17 pistol). Of course, it should be noted that this Glock pistol was the shortest weapon in the test with the smallest barrel. It also uses a lot less powder (0.4 gm.) versus the other firearms (albeit, smokeless powder, which produces more thrust). The ancient firearms are all generally between 450 and 550 meters/sec., with the exception of the two ancient pistols, which clock in at 385 and 392 meters/sec. The two modern rifles shoot much faster than the others, exhibiting nearly double the muzzle velocity compared to the ancient firearms. It must be noted that all the weapons are firing at supersonic velocities initially, even the ancient weapons using black powder (speed of sound at sea level is about 330 meters/sec. (or 1125 feet/sec.))

Also, note the change in velocities when measured at 30 meter and 100 meter ranges. As we studied in the previous post, round balls lose velocity at almost 3 times the rate that conical bullets do. The modern weapons all fire conical bullets, whereas the ancient weapons all fire round ammunition balls and we can see the results clearly. For instance, at 30 meter range, the FAL rifle only loses 20 meters/sec velocity (835 vs 815 meters/sec.), whereas the ancient weapons lose velocity a lot quicker. In fact, at 30 meter range, some of the bullets from ancient weapons are slower than that fired from the Glock 17, which had the slowest muzzle velocity initially. At 100 meter range, the velocities of older weapons are significantly less, with many of them travelling at under 300 meters/sec. (about 1000 feet/sec.) This means they also lose penetrative power much more rapidly than modern weapons do. This is the reason why most ancient commanders told their men to not shoot until about 60-70 meter ranges or even closer than that.

The interesting thing is that the two older pistols, while they shot at lower velocities than the muskets, they still retained a good bit of their velocity at 30 meters range, which means that they could inflict a fair amount of damage at shorter ranges. This explains the popularity of pistoleers on horseback, such as the German Reiters of the 16th century. These troops could quickly ride close to the enemy, discharge their pistols and then ride back. Some military writers of that era noted that a squadron of Reiters could easily beat a comparable squadron of traditional cavalry

In our next post, we will look at the same weapons and compare their respective penetrative powers and shot dispersion.

Effectiveness of Old Firearms - I

When this blog first started, we talked about the accuracy (or rather, inaccuracy) of old firearms, especially those of the muzzle-loading variety. Back in the day, military commanders would line up their troops and tell them to shoot at the enemy at close range, with the hope that at least some of the shots would hit their enemies. However, trials on weapons of the day showed they seemed to be more accurate during controlled tests, but not so accurate under battlefield conditions. So what is the cause of this inaccuracy, when used in the field?? Was it because of the limitations of the weapons technologies? Was is because of the training of the soldiers? We will study the causes in the next couple of posts.

For the purposes of today's discussion, we will consider two early firearm types today: the arquebus and the musket. These were generally muzzle-loading weapons using matchlock technologies.

Examples of arquebuses. Click on the image to enlarge. Public domain image.

The arquebus is one of the oldest types of firearm used in Europe. The first use of arquebuses in large numbers was in Hungary in the late 1400s by King Matthias Corvinus. The idea spread westwards, and soon, Italian troops and then, Spanish and Portuguese troops started using arquebuses in the early 1500s, followed by the French around 1560. Typically, the weapon weighed about 5 kg. (11 pounds) and fired a ball about 12 - 20 mm.  (about 0.5-0.75 inches) diameter.

The musket was simply a larger version of the arquebus, with a longer and heavier barrel. Since the barrel was heavier, a typical musketeer would also carry a couple of sticks to rest the end of the barrel on. A musket also has more recoil than an arquebus, therefore its user needed to be correspondingly stronger to withstand this recoil. Specialized troops, such as the Turkish Janissaries, Russian Streltsy and the French Musketeers, were formed to use this weapon. These soldiers were paid more than ordinary soldiers.

We will also consider early handguns in our study today.

During 1988 to 1989, staff members of Steiermärkisches Landeszeughaus (Steyr Provincial Armory)  in Graz, Austria, conducted tests using 16 firearms dating from 1571 to post-1750, with equal numbers of specimens from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. The guns were mostly mass-produced specimens, such as might be typically issued to infantry troops. Three of the weapons had rifling, the others were smoothbore guns. A couple of the guns were rejected after early inspection revealed that they had potentially dangerous weaknesses in the metal. The remaining 14 weapons were test fired 325 times under controlled conditions, in a testing range operated by the Austrian Army.

The results were summarized in a paper by Dr. Peter Krenn (Steiermärkisches Landeszeughaus) , Colonel Paul Kalaus (Austrian Army), and Dr. Bert Hall (University of Toronto), in a paper titled "Material Culture and Military History: Test-Firing Early Modern Small Arms". Dr. Krenn and Col. Kalaus conducted the firing tests and did the original study and Professor Hall edited and translated their work and added his own conclusions to the end of the paper.

The guns were mounted on rigid frames (to absorb recoil consistently), sighted on to the target, fired using electrical means (bypassing their original firing mechanisms) and velocities measured carefully using modern electronic chronographs. Modern black powder ("Koln-Rottweil Number 0" grain 0.3-0.6 mm.) was used for these tests. The exact weight of powder charge was determined to be approximately one-third of the ball weight, but this varied from piece to piece, so they determined the optimum charge of each one experimentally and reported results with that charge. As part of the tests, they also brought two modern production assault rifles and a modern pistol used by the Austrian military, so that they could compare the results against modern firearms. The modern firearms used for this test were:

1. Austrian Army Assault Rifle model 1958 (basically, a licensed version of the FN FAL rifle using the 7.62x51 mm. NATO cartridge).
2. Austrian Army Assault Rifle model 1977 (Steyr AUG A1 rifle using 5.56x45 mm. NATO cartridge).
3. Austrian Army Semi-Automatic Pistol model 1980 (Glock model 17 pistol using the 9x19 mm. cartridge)

Targets were shot at distances of 30 meters (about 100 feet) for pistols and 100 meters (330 feet) for the muskets, arquebuses and rifles. Target size was 167 cm. tall and 30 cm. wide (about 5 feet 6 inches tall and 1 foot wide), basically the frontal area of an average standing human soldier. Accuracy tests were done by measuring the scatter pattern of the bullet holes in paper targets. For penetration testing, the targets were generally made of spruce or mild steel, and additional penetration tests were also done to blocks of soap, gelatine, modern steel plate and 16th century armor plate. 

First, most of the older weapons had velocities measured at between 400 to 500 meters/sec (or about 1300 to 1640 feet/sec). Compared to this, the two modern rifles clocked in at 835 meters/sec (approximately 2740 feet/sec) and 990 meters/sec (approximately 3250 feet/sec), and the modern pistol fired at around 360 meters/sec (approximately 1180 feet/sec). Moreover, the round balls of the older weapons tended to lose velocities much more rapidly. A spherical ball loses speed about three times faster than modern bullets do on average. Therefore, the effective range of these older weapons were much less than modern weapons, as they lose penetrative power much more quickly. This is one reason why historical commanders told their soldiers to shoot at closer ranges.

Now what about accuracy of these weapons? The Graz tests showed that the smoothbore muskets were pretty inaccurate at 100 meters, with most showing about 50% chance of hitting the target at 100 meters. Only one rifled musket (an Austrian rifled musket from the second half of the 18th century) showed a "better than random chance" probability of hitting the target. The other two rifled muskets showed much poorer results. The scatter area of four out of fourteen guns tested was larger than the target area and two more had a scatter area nearly as large as the target. By comparison, the modern rifles (the FN-FAL and the Steyr AUG) both had a 100% chance of hitting the target at the same distance. 

The ancient pistols fared much better in the tests: they were much more accurate at 30 meters, scoring hits with 85% and 99% probability (by comparison, the modern Glock pistol scored at 99.5%). Of course, bear in mind that these tests were done at 30 meters, rather than 100 meters, so the accuracy of older weapons seems to depend on the distance to the target.

It is interesting to note that these tests show that the accuracy of these firearms did not significantly improve between the 16th to the 18th centuries. Note that human error was completely eliminated in these tests, as the guns were all fitted to rigid frames and sighted into the target and the ignition was done by electrical means. Also, the gunpowder used for testing was made with modern methods, so it was much more stable and consistent than the gunpowder used in the 16th to 18th centuries. So what was the cause of this inaccuracy over longer distances then? Well, one of the primary causes is the Magnus effect, named after Gustav Magnus, a German physicist who studied it in 1852.

The Magnus effect, on a backspinning ball in an airstream. Image licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

The Magnus effect causes the round spinning sphere to experience an aerodynamic lift, which changes the direction of travel of the sphere. Anyone who has watched or played ball sports such as tennis, golf, baseball, paintball etc. has observed this effect. For instance, any time a tennis player or golfer hooks or slices a shot, the ball will start curving in some direction. Baseball pitchers use this same effect to throw curve balls. The effect becomes more apparent, the further the sphere moves.

For a smoothbore weapon, nothing can be done to eliminate the Magnus effect. Other features in the gun can make it more inaccurate, but even the best quality smoothbore weapon cannot overcome this fundamental problem. The inherent ballistic qualities of such smoothbore weapons meant that they were only effective when used in mass formations and at close ranges. 

In our next post, we will also study the results of the penetration tests conducted for the same weapons. As it happens, the penetration tests also have a factor in determining the effectiveness of a weapon.

Weapons of Pirates

In our last post about Queen Anne pistols, we mentioned that they were carried by some pirates, notably the famous pirate captain, Edward Teach, better known to the world as "Blackbeard". In today's post, we will study the world of the pirates and the weapons they carried.

First, pirates have been around practically since man learned to build boats. Pirates have been mentioned in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian texts dating back to 1400 BC. The Greeks and Romans battled pirates in the Mediterranean sea. In fact, the word "pirate" is from the Greek word, pieraomai which means "attempt" (i.e. "attempt to rob for personal gain"), which morphed to the Greek word pierates which means "bandit" or "brigand", from which we get the Latin word pirata, from which we get the English word "pirate".  In the middle ages, the Vikings roamed the northern seas, but also sailed as far south as North Africa and Italy and sailed up rivers all the way up to the Black sea. The South China sea and the area between Malaysia and the Indonesian islands have had incidents of piracy since about 900 AD. In modern times, we have pirates off the coast of Somalia and in the strait of Malacca.

However, we will concentrate mainly on the weapons used by pirates during the so-called "Golden Age of Piracy", which happened around 1650-1730 AD. This was around the time that various European powers were competing with each other to build colonies and trade routes around the world. During this time, several notorious pirates were based off the Caribbean islands, but there were others who sailed around the coast of Africa and even as far as India. In fact, the biggest robbery ever made during the Golden Age of Piracy was by English pirate Henry Every (also called Henry Avery or Long Ben Every), who captured a couple of the Indian Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's ships in the Arabian sea, sailing back from Mecca to India loaded with jewels. With this single act of piracy, Henry Every became the richest pirate captain in the world, but he is not as well known as other pirates such as Blackbeard, Calico Jack Rackham, Bartholomew Roberts (a.k.a Black Bart), Henry Morgan, Captain Kidd etc. We will study the weapons used by pirates living in this era. By the way, not all pirates were English. Many were Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Danish, Swedish, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, German, American, Italian, Moors, Algerians, Africans, Turks, Arabs, Native Americans, Chinese, Malays etc.

It may come as a surprise to readers to find out that during the Golden Age of Piracy, many pirate ships actually operated more democratically than most countries. Every man on board a pirate ship had an equal vote and the pirate captain was elected by the members of the ship. If the pirate captain didn't perform his duties well, he could be voted out of his position as well. The quartermaster was also voted into power by the crew. One more interesting thing was that the pirate captain only commanded the ship when they were in combat. If they were not in combat, it was the quartermaster and not the captain, that decided where the ship would sail next. Pirate crews were generally promoted based on merit (unlike European navies, where most officers bought their positions). Pirates also came from different countries, races and religions, but they all had an equal right to vote and an equal share of the treasure. At a time where most people worked as slaves or as indentured servants, pirates actually signed work contracts when they joined a pirate ship. The contracts specified how much share of the plunder each man would receive (skilled sailors received more than unskilled men, as did specialized jobs such as captain, quartermaster, carpenter, surgeon, navigator, boatswain, gunner etc.), compensation to be paid in case a man was injured  or killed while performing his duties (workman's injury compensation in the 17th century!), how prizes were to be divided, awarding of bonuses for good work, the rules of conduct expected of each man and the penalties that would occur, if a man was to break the rules.

In many Hollywood movies, we see pirates fighting each other with sabers and showing some real fancy sword fighting skills. And while pirate ships are approaching merchant ships, they engage in heavy gun battles with cannons until the pirates can swing over to the other ship on ropes. So, is what we see in Hollywood movies really how pirates fought? The answers are very different.

Some of the laws and rules followed by pirates have been recorded by historians. From the contract signed by pirates who sailed under Bartholomew Roberts, we have the following section:

Article V - Every man shall keep his piece, pistols and cutlass at all times, clean and ready for action.

So what does the above sentence mean, particularly the three words in bold font? It gives us a clue as to what weapons pirates actually used. Notice that the cutlass (a short sword) comes third in the list, while "piece" is listed first. We will see what this means in the next few paragraphs.

First, let's deal with the question of swords. Pirate ships and merchant ships were very crowded at all times, with boxes and ropes all over the deck. Therefore a long sword was usually not very useful in combat aboard a ship, because there was usually no room to swing a long sword properly. Secondly, it takes a long time to train a person to use a sword well and only members of the aristocracy could afford to take sword fighting lessons (i.e. fencing lessons). Only a rich person could afford to buy a high quality long sword anyway. Third, long swords are heavy and can make a man tired much more quickly. Therefore, real pirates usually carried a short sword, such as a cutlass, which was much more suitable for fighting in close quarters. Alternatively, they carried axes or knives, since both were cheaper than swords and could also be used well in crowded spaces. However, none of these bladed weapons were usually their first choice of weapon either.

Now let's talk about cannon on ships. Most pirate ships were relatively small and could therefore carry small cannon only. Pirates would usually try to capture ships with as little damage as possible, so that they could take the captured ship and its supplies for themselves. So when they fired cannon at merchant ships, they usually fired small caliber shot to try and disable the crew, or fired chain shot to try and destroy some of the sails, to slow the ship down. They would also shoot warning shots away from the target, to try to get the merchant ships to surrender quietly. They usually never shot large solid cannon balls directly at ships, because this could cause the ship to sink before they captured it. If possible, pirates preferred to capture ships as undamaged as possible, so that they could use them in their own fleets.

Now let's talk about the word "piece" that we saw earlier. The word "piece" refers to a "fowling piece" or a "hunting piece", i.e. a musket used for hunting birds and animals. In general, a "piece" in pirate language, could refer to any long arm, whether musket, rifle, arquebus or blunderbuss. These were usually the first weapon of choice for pirates.

The musket was generally available to the common man during the Golden Age of Piracy era, so it was pretty easy for pirates to get their hands on them. A well trained pirate crew could injure or kill several defenders from longer ranges, so that there would be less resistance by the time they boarded the ship. They would target officers, sailors operating the sails and those near the gun ports. Well aimed musket fire in volleys could inflict maximum damage to their opposition, without sinking their ship, which is why pirates preferred using muskets to cannon.

A typical flintlock musket. Click on the image to enlarge. Public domain image.

These muskets were originally designed to hunt bird and animals and were pretty sturdy, with long heavy barrels. While many of them were originally smoothbore, they were still capable of relatively accurate fire. Pirates would sometimes load them with one larger ball about the size of the barrel bore and two smaller balls about half the bore size. This was done to increase the probability of hitting the target. Successful pirate crews carried multiple muskets for each pirate, up to four or five per pirate, and they would all be loaded and ready to go, as they approached their prey. This allowed the pirates to keep shooting rapidly at their prey as they approached it. They would also work in teams, where one pirate would fire muskets, while the other pirates would reload them.

The musketoon is a shorter barreled version of the musket and were more preferred, because they were easier to handle in confined spaces, such as those found on ships. Some musketoons had flared barrels like the next weapon, the blunderbuss, although the blunderbuss was generally even shorter.

A Blunderbuss. Note the flared muzzle.

The original term for this weapon was donderbuss and this name appears to be Dutch. The word "donder" means "thunder" and "buss" means "pipe" in Dutch and German languages. They were generally made with brass or bronze barrels, since these resisted corrosion from seawater better than iron barrels. The flared muzzle allowed the user to quickly pour powder and shot down the barrel and load the weapon easier on a moving platform. Pirates would load blunderbusses with multiple shot pellets, scrap nails, rocks etc., and use them at closer ranges. On a crowded deck, a single shot could disable a group of enemies, so they were used to clear a path so that the pirates could board.

As they boarded their enemy's ship, pirates often carried multiple pistols with them. Many of these were single shot flintlock models and quite a few of them were built with flared barrels like a blunderbuss. to enable quicker reloading.

These pistols often had decorations around the muzzle that looked like a dragon's mouth and hence, these pistols were called "dragons". Military troops that carried such pistols were called "dragoons" and the pistols were then referred to as "dragoon pistols".

There were also general purpose flintlock pistols that many pirates carried, as these were also easily available.

A typical British flintlock pistol designed for naval service. Click on the image to enlarge. Public domain image.

In addition to these, some pirates also carried Queen Anne pistols, which we saw in the previous post. This is because Queen Anne pistols were designed to hold the ball inside the barrel without any wadding and there was much less risk of the ball or powder falling out of the pistol.

These pistols were used practically at point-blank range. Since they were all single shot models, pirates usually carried several of them, either tied around their necks with short pieces of rope, or tucked into a belt. The butt of the pistol handle was often a heavy brass plate (as the two examples above show), so after the pistol was fired, the user could turn it around and use it as a club.

In some cases, they would carry multi-barrel pistols. Some of these were just pistols with multiple barrels and separate triggers to fire each barrel separately. Other models featured a single trigger and multiple barrels that could be turned into position as needed.

A pistol with two separate barrels, two flintlocks and two triggers. Click on the image to enlarge.

An over under pistol with two barrels, two pans, but a single flintlock and single trigger. Each barrel was rotated into position by hand and then fired.

There were also volley fire weapons that could fire multiple pellets in different directions simultaneously, so as to spread the damage with a single shot. An example of such a pistol is shown below.

A duckfoot pistol. Click on the image to enlarge. Public domain image.

The example shown above is a duckfoot pistol using a flintlock firing mechanism. It is called a "duckfoot" because it resembles the foot of a duck. In general, multi-barrel pistols were less reliable than single barrel pistols and therefore, they were not frequently used.

Finally, there was the pirate short sword, the cutlass. This was usually the third weapon of choice and pirates usually didn't use them unless they really needed to. Forget the long drawn out sword battles shown in Hollywood movies, real pirates kept the fighting time down to a minimum. Real pirates would carry a cutlass with one hand and a pistol with the other. The cutlass would be used to block the opponents sword, while the pirate's other hand would fire the pistol at point-blank range. Sometimes, the pirate would use a combination weapon that combined a cutlass and pistol together.

A combination of cutlass and pistol. Click on the image to enlarge.

This allowed the pirate to both shoot and cut with a single arm, while the other arm could carry another pistol or a grenade or some such object.

Besides these three weapons, pirates often carried axes, knives, grenades, stink pots etc. However, most pirates preferred using (in order of preference): long guns (such as muskets, rifles and arquebuses), close range powerful shotgun type weapons (musketoons, blunderbusses), pistols and finally swords, axes and knives. Therefore, the Hollywood myth of pirates preferring to use swords and fighting long duels on decks with swords is completely false. They preferred using firearms to bladed weapons.

Now, let us look at a curious paragraph in the contracts signed by pirates that sailed with the pirate captains Edward Low and George Lowther around 1720 AD.

Article VIII - He that sees a sail first, shall have the best Pistol or Small Arm aboard of her.

As you can see, the contract clearly states that the first pirate to see the sail of a merchant ship, would be rewarded with the best firearm found on the captured ship, not the best sword. Therefore, they clearly valued firearms more than swords.

The Charleville Musket

After our last couple of posts where we studied the development of the first truly American rifles, we will study an influential French musket called the Charleville Musket. Don't worry, there's an American connection to this as well, which will be mentioned later down this article.

The Charlevilles were actually a family of muskets that were used by the French military. The first in the series was the Model 1717, which was adopted (as you may already have guessed) in the year 1717 AD. This model was the first in the French military to be built to a standard pattern specification. It was a musket with a flintlock firing mechanism, a smooth bore barrel of .69 caliber (17.5 mm. diameter) and weighed somewhere between 9-10 lbs. (4-4.5 kg.). While the concept of rifling was already understood at this time, the decision to use a smooth bore barrel over a rifled one was deliberate. In those days, the fouling in the barrel caused by black powder took a while to clean and infantry commanders noted that the smoke produced by the firearms tended to negate the rifle's longer range and accuracy anyway. Also, rifling was more expensive to manufacture as well. Therefore, the designers chose to use a smooth bore barrel with this firearm. However, the smooth bore barrel lacked accuracy beyond 50-100 yards or so, therefore the solution was to line up men in a massed formation and tell them to fire at a target, hoping that at least some of them would hit something. A good trained person could fire only about three times in a minute, therefore there was a bayonet included for close range fighting. The stock was made of walnut wood and the butt was shaped so that it could be used as a club at close ranges.

Improvements to the musket led to new models in 1728, 1743, 1746, 1763, 1766, 1770-1776, 1777 etc. and they were produced until the 1840s or so, when they were replaced with firearms using percussion locks. They were used during the French revolution and also by Napoleon's soldiers.

Model 1866 musket. Click on image to enlarge.

Image licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic from wikipedia.org

These muskets were officially called the French infantry musket, but the reason we know them as "Charlevilles" is because of America. These muskets were originally produced by firearm factories located in various towns of France, notably St. Etienne, Tulle, Maubeuge and Charleville (in the Ardennes region of France). Although St. Etienne was the factory that produced the most muskets, it was the factory at the town of Charleville that contributed to this series of firearms being labelled as "Charlevilles". The reason was that during the American revolution, the French decided to aid the Americans. Due to the influence of the Marquis de Lafayette, large numbers of French muskets were shipped over to America during the early days of the revolution. Many of the US troops fighting in the revolution were armed with the model 1773 and 1776 muskets and the French forces aiding the US troops were armed with model 1777 muskets. It is a common misconception that American forces were mainly using Kentucky rifles that we studied about in the previous post. In reality, the majority of the firearms used by US soldiers during the American revolution were French in origin. Some of these muskets were made by the Charleville factory and had markings that indicated where they were made. Pretty soon, American soldiers started to call all muskets as "Charleville" whether they were made by the Charleville factory or not, and the name stuck.

The Charleville musket later went on to heavily influence the design of the Springfield Model 1795, which was the first firearm officially produced by the US Government for use by American soldiers. Like the Charleville, the Springfield Model 1795 was a .69 caliber muzzle-loader with a smooth bore barrel and a flintlock firing mechanism and weighed between 9-10 lbs. Interestingly, one of the contracts to manufacture this model was given to Eli Whitney in 1798 and led to him developing the concept of interchangeable parts and modern production techniques.

The Charleville musket design was also copied by Austria, Belgium, Prussia and Russia and they remained in service until around 1845. There are modern replicas still being produced today by various companies.

History of the American Rifle - II

In our last post, we left off at the beginnings of a rifle designed for American frontiersmen. We will continue our study in this post.

As was mentioned in our last post, the first true rifle designed for the American frontier came out of Pennsylvania around 1738-1739. The area around Lancaster county, Pennsylvania, is regarded as the birth-place of such firearms and for a long time, it was the Pennsylvania Germans (also called the "Pennsylvania Dutch", even though they didn't speak Dutch!) who dominated the manufacturing of rifles in America. From them, the knowledge spread to the frontiersmen of New York, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and North Carolina and by 1750, it was widespread among all the frontier areas of the Allegheny Mountain range.

It is commonly believed that these rifles were first used in war during the American revolution, but this is not the case. The first time they were used in war was by Pennsylvania frontiersmen against the French fort of Louisburg, on Cape Breton Island.

In New England, these rifles were practically unknown until two groups of men from Pennsylvania and Virginia arrived at the siege of Boston, during the American revolution. The first troops raised by Continental Congress was six companies of men from Pennsylvania, two companies from Maryland and two from Virginia. These men all brought their own firearms along with them. In fact, it wasn't until much later that the United States Government officially started manufacturing rifles for its army. These rifles were popularly known as the Kentucky rifle, even though the design was originally from Pennsylvania.

Soon after the American revolution, the Rev. Alexander Forsyth invented the percussion lock system over in England. It took a while for the mechanism to reach American shores, but once it got here in around 1835 or so, it was quickly adopted here in America. It was also around this time (1840s or so) when the exploration of the American West started.

American long rifles. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License from Wikipedia.

The top rifle is a percussion lock and the bottom is a flintlock.

This created two forms of the American long rifle. For the Eastern frontiersman, the Kentucky rifle design called for a smaller bore weapon, because the Eastern rifleman normally carried his ammunition in his own backpack and usually made his long journeys on foot. These rifles were sometimes called "pea rifles" because they fired .32 to .38 caliber balls, about the size of a pea. Usually, these rifles started out as .32 caliber and as they got older and wore down, they would be taken back to a gunsmith to be rebored and that would increase their caliber. The barrel was long and heavy and the total weight of the rifle was around 12-15 pounds or so. The butt-plate and patch box were made of brass and usually engraved.

In contrast, a person hunting or exploring in the Western United States demanded a different kind of firearm. For one, they needed something of bigger bore to hunt larger animals like moose, elk, buffalo, grizzly bear etc.  Also, the Western hunter found long barrels somewhat more inconvenient to use on horse back. Finally,  the weight of ammunition was not a problem because the Westerner carried his ammunition boxes on his mule rather than on his back. So they used .40 to .60 caliber ammunition and a shorter barrel, the other features of the rifle being retained from the Kentucky rifle design.

We will study more in subsequent posts.

History of the American Rifle - I

When we first studied the concepts of rifling many months ago, we mentioned that this was known to German speaking people and the names, Gaspard Kollner of Vienna and Augustus Kotter of Nuremberg were mentioned as pioneers in the 1500s. In 17th and 18th century Europe, the German Palatinate region (in south-western Germany) and part of Switzerland were devastated by frequent warring, such as the Nine Year War, the War of Spanish Succession and several invasions by the French military. Between May and November 1709, about 13,000 refugees from this region came over to England to settle down. The English tried to settle some of them in the New World, in exchange for producing stores for the British Navy (tar, wood etc.) and acting as a security buffer between the settlements and the Native American tribes.

Some of these Germans and Swiss were settled in the Pennsylvania area in 1683 and were known as the Pennsylvania Dutch (even though they spoke German rather than Dutch!). Among them were a few experienced gun-makers. The original rifles that they introduced were what they were used to in Europe. These were short, heavy rifles with large bores of approximately an inch. As can be expected of such a large bore firearm, the recoil was terrific. The lead ball was required to be loaded with the aid of a mallet and an iron ramrod. The fouling in the barrel was so bad that after firing the first shot, the user would have to spend several minutes cleaning the barrel before they could reload. This is because the rifle in Europe was a weapon of war mainly and the only people who hunted animals for sport in settled European villages were members of the aristocracy, who didn't have to care too much about missing a shot. However, in America, the settlers soon found themselves living in the wilderness and depending on their rifles for their survival. So they began modifying their weapons to suit their new environment.

The first requirement was that the firearm must be accurate. The second requirement was that the weapon should not waste any of its powder charge, because of powder supply problems. Hence, this led to the lengthening of the barrel so that accuracy was improved and the entire powder charge that was placed in it would burn before the bullet left the barrel. Since many of the settlers often went on hunting expeditions for several days travelling by themselves, carrying larger heavy bullets meant that they would have to carry less of other useful supplies. Hence, they began to reduce the bore of their rifles so that the bullets would be smaller and weigh less. Smaller bullets and powder charges also meant less recoil from the rifle, thereby improving the accuracy of it. The ability to reload quickly was essential in life and death situations, hence the invention of the greased patch by some unknown settler. The sound of the rifle firing could attract the attention of unfriendly Native American tribes in the area, hence the settlers modified their rifles to have heavier barrels so that the sound produced by a firing rifle was minimized. Finally, since the barrel was heavier, someone came up with the idea of using light hickory wood instead of iron for the ram-rod, so that the overall weight of the rifle was not excessive.

Several of the gun-smiths met and discussed their innovations with each other and the first truly American frontiersman rifle which contained all the above features was born around 1738 or 1739 in Pennsylvania.

Early American Flintlock from 1739, made by Matthew Roesser of Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Weight: 8 lbs, caliber: 0.40 inches. Public domain image.

A typical frontiersman rifle consisted of a muzzle-loading firearm with a  flintlock firing mechanism, fired a lead ball of anything between 1/2 oz. to 1 oz. in weight, on the side of the stock was a small box where the user could keep extra greased patches and small cleaning tools. The barrel was heavy and rifled. The powder was stored in a powder horn, which was usually made from cattle horn, hollowed out and decorated.

To reload such a firearm, the user would pour some powder from the powder horn into a measuring flask, or even the palm of their hand, then this powder was poured down the barrel of the firearm. Next a greased patch made of leather or linen cloth was placed on top of the muzzle and a bullet was placed on top of it. Next, the user would pull the light hickory ramrod out from under the rifle barrel and use it to push the patch and ball down the barrel. Since the patch was greased, it took less effort to do this. Then the ramrod was returned back to its storage under the barrel and the pan was carefully primed with a few grains of powder and the flintlock mechanism was cocked and the rifle was ready to shoot. An experienced hunter could do all of this in about 30 seconds and some of them were so skillful that they could do it while running. These rifles were accurate up to around 100 yards or so and a good hunter could keep his shots inside a 1.5 inch diameter circle at this distance.

In our next post, we will study more about the development of the American rifle.

Loading Mechanisms: Muzzleloader

Now we will move on to loading mechanisms. The first loading mechanism we will consider is the muzzleloader (i.e.) a weapon that is loaded from the muzzle end (the open end) of the weapon. Since muzzleloaders were easier to manufacture, early firearms were virtually all muzzleloaders. The diagram below shows a typical flintlock muzzleloader weapon.
To load the weapon:

1. The user first enables the weapon's safety mechanism so that it cannot go off when loading. In the case of a flintlock, the user puts the mechanism at half cock and pushes the safety lever. In the case of a matchlock, the user makes sure the lit match is kept well away from gunpowder.
   
2. The user places the butt of the gun on the ground, taking care that the barrel is pointed away from the user.
3. The user takes their powder from their powder horn (a conical container hanging from the waist that contains gunpowder) and pours out a certain amount of gunpowder into a measuring tube or measuring flask.
4. The user then closes the powder horn and returns to their waist. The user then pours the powder from the measuring tube into the top of the muzzle (or barrel). The user also taps the barrel a bit to make sure the powder has settled in the bottom of the barrel near the pan.
   
5. The user then takes a bullet (in those days, it was a ball) and wraps it in a patch of lubricated paper or cloth to surround the bullet. Since the diameter of the bullet is usually smaller than the barrel, the patch surrounding it ensures a tighter fit.
   
6. The user then pulls out the ramrod which is a long thin rod stored under the barrel and uses it to push the bullet all the way into the barrel, so it is sitting on top of the gunpowder. The user then returns the ramrod to its storage tube under the muzzle.
7. The user now lifts the weapon off the ground and opens the cover over the pan (called the frizzen for flintlocks and pan cover for matchlocks and wheel-locks). The user then adds some priming gunpowder into the pan and closes it. In the early days of firearms, the priming gunpowder was finer than the main gunpowder in the barrel.
   
8. The user then cocks the rifle to full cock and disables the safety mechanism. Now the weapon is ready to fire.
   

This procedure is a bit cumbersome and many developments were done to speed this up. For instance, in the above diagram, you may note that the gun has a compartment (patch box) in the side to store patches of lubricated paper or cloth, so that's one less thing that the user has to fumble around to find.

In later flintlocks, the gunpowder was developed so that there was no need to carry around any separate priming gunpowder. The user would simply pour gunpowder down the barrel and a little would dribble out of the bottom of the barrel through the touch hole into the pan and the user would top it off with a little more from their powder horn. The same gunpowder was fine enough to be used as both a priming powder, as well as the main powder charge.

Then came the invention of the paper cartridge. Instead of the user carrying around a powder horn, a bag of bullets, another bag of patches, a separate horn of priming powder and a measuring flask or two, the user would simply carry paper cartridges, each containing a bullet and a pre-measured quantity of gunpowder. The outer paper casing of the cartridge would be lubricated with grease, lard or beeswax so that it could be used as a patch. The greasy outer casing also had a couple more advantages: it made the cartridge somewhat water-resistant and on firing, the grease or wax would melt and mix with the gunpowder residue, making it easier to clean the barrel. All the user had to do was tear off the top of the paper packet with their teeth, pour the gunpowder in the cartridge into the muzzle, then use the paper to wrap the bullet and push it down the tube with the ramrod. A little bit of the left over powder could be used to fill the pan if needed.

These advances made loading muzzleloaders much faster. The new cartridges were also one of the causes of the Great Indian Mutiny. A rumor that spread among the Sepoys (i.e. Native Indian soldiers) was that the cartridges were greased with the fat of cows and pigs (which were animals revered by the Hindus and treated as offensive by the Muslims) and by tearing the cartridges with their teeth, they would defile themselves.

Muzzle loading weapons stayed popular for quite a while. Famous weapons such as the Brown Bess musket served the British infantry for over 100 years.

Matchlock Technology: The Arquebus

The Arquebus was a type of firearm that was commonly used between the 14th and 17th century. It was a type of matchlock, the barrel was generally a smoothbore (i.e. it had no rifling) and it was loaded from the muzzle end (i.e. a muzzle-loader). The user was called an Arquebusier or a Harquebusier. The word is derived from Dutch Harkbuss which means a Hook-gun.

The Arquebus was first employed by the Chinese towards the middle of the 14th century and by early 1500, they had spread to Europe and were being used by Hungarian troops. Images of arquebusiers can be found in Rembrandt's famous painting titled The Night Watch.

Most early arquebusiers were usually knowledgeable about the construction of their weapon. Quite a few of them were the actual makers of their own weapons as well. The weapons weren't known for their accuracy, given the smoothbore barrel and primitive sights. A crossbowman or longbowman could fire with greater accuracy and range. However, firing a crossbow or longbow took literally years of practice to become proficient with the weapon, whereas an arquebus could be mastered by anyone in a lot less time. Once people had mastered the art of producing gunpowder and shot, it was easier to mass produce ammunition for an arquebus as well, whereas fletching (the art of making arrows) was still a craft that needed highly skilled labor to produce.

On the other hand, an arquebus was vulnerable to heavy fog and rain, since the user needed to keep his slow match lit. This is a problem with all matchlocks, as the article on matchlocks indicates. There was also a danger that the sparks from one person's arquebus could set fire to the powder supply of the person next to him. Unlike a longbowman, an arquebusier was generally helpless after his shot was fired and his weapon was heavier to carry, so it was not surprising that the bow was considered a superior weapon for many years.

To compensate for the arquebus's weaknesses, some strategies were evolved. For one, an arquebusier was sometimes accompanied by an assistant called a varlet, whose job was to help the arquebusier carry all his gear and keep a fire going. Since reloading took some time, tactics involved placing the arquebusiers in lines of three, so that when one line was done shooting, they could move to the back and reload, while the next two lines fired a volley each. Arquebusiers were also equipped with a sword as a second line of defence, if they couldn't reload in time. In order to compensate for inaccuracies of the weapon, commanders would line up several men next to each other and order them to shoot at the same time, in the hopes that at least some of them would hit the enemy troops.