Post by Paul Sylvain on Aug 7, 2013 11:43:52 GMT -5
Rather than hijack the thread on powder and shot available and used at the Alamo, I thought I'd open a discussion about how quickly someone could realistically expect to reload and fire a Brown Bess or long rifle during the March 6 assault.
I'm not a weapons expert, so in my mind it would take some time to stop reload, fire, and so on. But I understand that many of the defenders had more than one pre-loaded rife standing by when the final battle started. Even for the advancing Mexicans, it would have been a task to do while charging -- especially with a bayonette fixed to a Brown Bess. More than likely they would had to stop to reload, or simply go forward and use the bayonette without reloading.
Considering the darkness, confusion, noise and so on, just how many rounds could a Mexican soldier or Alamo defender be expected to shoot? Kind of hard to stay focussed when the enemy is within the walls and running towards you.
So when the question was asked about how much ammunition did the defenders have, probably too little but it probably didn't matter since there probably wasn't much time to keep firing and reloading.
Anyway, I want to share a response I found online to a similar, but more general, question about reloading times. It does shed some light on weaponry and ammunition of the time including the weapons used by both sides at the Alamo.
Paul
"A few comments.
Three shots a minute with a flintlock was going some; two was more common and the average soldier took even longer. Three shots a minute was fairly common with a percussion musket, but those were not in use in the 18th century (1700's).
There were hunting rifles available in the period and even a few rifled military arms, but they were not general issue. There were even breech-loading military rifles (e.g., the Ferguson), but they were issued to special units who were trained to use them, sort of like the Special Forces of today.
By the 18th century, wheellocks were considered museum pieces. They were expensive, hard to keep in repair, and had usually been the hunting arms of the rich. Some were issued to elite cavalry troops, but did not stand up well to the rigors of military service.
Matchlocks, likewise, were in use into the period, but were superseded by flintlocks of one kind or another early on, as soon as the user could afford a more modern weapon.
Most military flintlocks were smoothbored ("common musket" was the term) and not accurate even by the standards of that day. That, and the near impossibility of loading the musket from any position other than standing, dictated the tactics of the time, with lines of troops firing at one another, then charging with the bayonet.
In the early period, the "plug" bayonet was common. This was simply a wood handled spike which was inserted into the barrel. Since the plug bayonet prevented loading the firearm, it was superseded by a bayonet with a band that went around the barrel, and this is the type used in the latter 18th century and well into the 19th century.
Hunters usually used a flask to carry powder, two flasks being common. A small one held the fine priming powder, which was easily ignited; the larger held the propelling powder, which was coarser but burned slower and was safer than priming powder. (Fine priming powder in the bore could burst the barrel.) Balls were carried in a separate bag, usually a simple leather pouch, or even in the pocket.
Hunting rifles were commonly used with a patch, which was a piece of cloth or leather which went around the bullet (ball) and served to seal off the bore and allow more of the force of the charge to be used to propel the ball. Patches were usually greased with animal fat for lubrication and to keep the powder residue soft. While the rifle was more accurate than the military musket, it was not considered suitable for military use because of slow reloading and because it (usually) could not take a bayonet.
Soldiers carried cartridges, which consisted of the powder charge wrapped in a paper container. When firing, the paper was torn or bitten off, and the powder poured down the barrel, followed by the round ball (from which we get the term "ball" ammunition, meaning a simple inert bullet). In the early period, the concept of placing the ball inside the paper had not yet come into use. This cartridge supplanted the wooden cartridges or powder containers in use earlier; these latter are often seen hanging from the shoulder strap in pictures of the Pilgrims or other 17th century fighters. The paper was not normally put down the barrel because it would catch fire and ignite the grass in the area.
Soldiers did not carry priming powder; part of the main charge from the cartridge was dumped into the priming pan. Since this meant that the main charge varied, it was another cause of inaccuracy. One trick used by both soldiers and civilians was to load the barrel, then "bump" the gun to jar some of the powder from the main charge out through the touchhole and into the pan, so it would become the priming powder. While often written about, this was strictly an emergency procedure and quite uncertain of function.
The musket ball, unlike the patched rifle ball, was considerably smaller than the bore of the gun, making loading easier even when the barrel was fouled by powder residue, but also making the musket inaccurate as the ball literally "bounced" down the bore when fired and the direction it was heading when it came out was up to "Lady Luck.'"
I'm not a weapons expert, so in my mind it would take some time to stop reload, fire, and so on. But I understand that many of the defenders had more than one pre-loaded rife standing by when the final battle started. Even for the advancing Mexicans, it would have been a task to do while charging -- especially with a bayonette fixed to a Brown Bess. More than likely they would had to stop to reload, or simply go forward and use the bayonette without reloading.
Considering the darkness, confusion, noise and so on, just how many rounds could a Mexican soldier or Alamo defender be expected to shoot? Kind of hard to stay focussed when the enemy is within the walls and running towards you.
So when the question was asked about how much ammunition did the defenders have, probably too little but it probably didn't matter since there probably wasn't much time to keep firing and reloading.
Anyway, I want to share a response I found online to a similar, but more general, question about reloading times. It does shed some light on weaponry and ammunition of the time including the weapons used by both sides at the Alamo.
Paul
"A few comments.
Three shots a minute with a flintlock was going some; two was more common and the average soldier took even longer. Three shots a minute was fairly common with a percussion musket, but those were not in use in the 18th century (1700's).
There were hunting rifles available in the period and even a few rifled military arms, but they were not general issue. There were even breech-loading military rifles (e.g., the Ferguson), but they were issued to special units who were trained to use them, sort of like the Special Forces of today.
By the 18th century, wheellocks were considered museum pieces. They were expensive, hard to keep in repair, and had usually been the hunting arms of the rich. Some were issued to elite cavalry troops, but did not stand up well to the rigors of military service.
Matchlocks, likewise, were in use into the period, but were superseded by flintlocks of one kind or another early on, as soon as the user could afford a more modern weapon.
Most military flintlocks were smoothbored ("common musket" was the term) and not accurate even by the standards of that day. That, and the near impossibility of loading the musket from any position other than standing, dictated the tactics of the time, with lines of troops firing at one another, then charging with the bayonet.
In the early period, the "plug" bayonet was common. This was simply a wood handled spike which was inserted into the barrel. Since the plug bayonet prevented loading the firearm, it was superseded by a bayonet with a band that went around the barrel, and this is the type used in the latter 18th century and well into the 19th century.
Hunters usually used a flask to carry powder, two flasks being common. A small one held the fine priming powder, which was easily ignited; the larger held the propelling powder, which was coarser but burned slower and was safer than priming powder. (Fine priming powder in the bore could burst the barrel.) Balls were carried in a separate bag, usually a simple leather pouch, or even in the pocket.
Hunting rifles were commonly used with a patch, which was a piece of cloth or leather which went around the bullet (ball) and served to seal off the bore and allow more of the force of the charge to be used to propel the ball. Patches were usually greased with animal fat for lubrication and to keep the powder residue soft. While the rifle was more accurate than the military musket, it was not considered suitable for military use because of slow reloading and because it (usually) could not take a bayonet.
Soldiers carried cartridges, which consisted of the powder charge wrapped in a paper container. When firing, the paper was torn or bitten off, and the powder poured down the barrel, followed by the round ball (from which we get the term "ball" ammunition, meaning a simple inert bullet). In the early period, the concept of placing the ball inside the paper had not yet come into use. This cartridge supplanted the wooden cartridges or powder containers in use earlier; these latter are often seen hanging from the shoulder strap in pictures of the Pilgrims or other 17th century fighters. The paper was not normally put down the barrel because it would catch fire and ignite the grass in the area.
Soldiers did not carry priming powder; part of the main charge from the cartridge was dumped into the priming pan. Since this meant that the main charge varied, it was another cause of inaccuracy. One trick used by both soldiers and civilians was to load the barrel, then "bump" the gun to jar some of the powder from the main charge out through the touchhole and into the pan, so it would become the priming powder. While often written about, this was strictly an emergency procedure and quite uncertain of function.
The musket ball, unlike the patched rifle ball, was considerably smaller than the bore of the gun, making loading easier even when the barrel was fouled by powder residue, but also making the musket inaccurate as the ball literally "bounced" down the bore when fired and the direction it was heading when it came out was up to "Lady Luck.'"
