Could any small-arms historian tell me about the Baker rifle and its use-- the precise drill by which it ws loaded and fired, the type of cartidges and so on. And, for that matter, is it true of the Brown Bess that after pouring the powder down the muzzle, you could simply spit in the bullet, tap the butt on the ground and fire..Would love to hear from anyone who is knowledgeable about these things.
shareRead any Sharpe book by Cornwell - especially Eagle - and you'll find it all there. He's pretty accurate.
shareDear c-huddleston,
Forgive me, but your " name" sounds familiar ...
But, thank you; what I wanted to know was whether or not Cornwell's details were accurate. I take it that, for it's time, it was as good a weapon as represented in his books.
Yours,
TGOC
Possibly we've met on the NCIS boards?
Cornwell is pretty good in sticking to the truth in terms of the minutiae. The Baker Rifle was pretty much as described - in the hands of a reasonably competent soldier, accurate to around 200 yards. Unheard of in Europe in those days.
However, a better shot could produce something more: Cornwell describes Hagman carrying out a 700 yard shot, which was based on an actual event - a rifleman carrying out a successful 800 yard shot. Pretty scary for the time, and it must have had a really unnerving effect on the enemy: suddenly no one was safe from those damned "grasshoppers".
Dear c-huddleston,
Thank you for this new message. You're probably right about where I have seen your call-sign before.
What you say about the Baker pretty much matches what I have read -- in non-fiction sources-- but I was interested to know if anyone else out there had any comments to make, and I 'm glad that you do and did.
( I must say that I always had rather an affection for Rifleman Hagman and his chum Harris. Do you think that the latter's character was in any way based on the author of the "Memoirs of Rifleman Harris"? I have never read the book, but have seen references to it for years.)
My own knowledge of infantry weapons rests primarily on the published work of Maj. F. Myatt MC, whose history of small arms is one of my most cherished books-- where guns are concerned at least. But I don't think I have ever read about the 800-yard shot, and would be interested to know if you can suggest other sources of information-- preferably books-- that deal with these things. My period of interest could be described as infantry weapons between 1800 and 1945.
I have shared this story with a number of American gun-enthusiasts, but none of them seemed to find it worthy of comment, so I wll try it on you -- in the hope that you are not one I have tried it on previously. ( One either keeps meticulous records or relies on an unreliable memory.) The Canadian Army, as you can imagine, does a certain amount of Arctic training, and for this purpose, they employ a reserve unit of Inuit trackers and guides. These latter refuse to carry anything but the Lee-Enfield Rifle No.4, or an older model if they can get one, because it is the only rifle that will always work in the arctic, no matter what. Would be interested in your thoughts.
Yours,
TGOC
I'm more of an avid reader of the development of small arms, much of which happened from around 1850, so my info on the Baker is very limited. I've done some more checking since and found that estimates vary on Rifleman Plunkett's shot but come down to anything from around 400 yards up to the 800 yards I mentioned before. Most references seem to agree that whatever the distance it was well over the expected 200 yard performance of the Baker.
It might be worth looking at these:
Bailey, D. W. British Military Flintlock Rifles 1740-1840. Andrew Mowbray Publishers, 2002. ISBN 1-931464-03-0.
Blackmore, Howard L. British Military Firearms, 1650-1850. Greenhill Books, 1994. ISBN 1-85367-172-X.
I think I have seen your Lee-Enfield comment before - and it's an interesting story. I've not come across it before but I wouldn't be surprised: the only other rifle that mught have a chance of matching it would be the Mosin-Nagant, but I would further add that the ammunition is an issue - .303 would have been in ready supply in Canada where the Mosin-Nagant 7.92 would not. Interestingly, if you read American texts or magazines, there is a tendency to stick to the view that the only good bolt action is that of a Mauser (based on the 1898 design) as it is supposedly a more accurate and reliable design. I doubt that the Inuit (or any British "Tommy") would have noted any lack of accuracy or reliability in the Lee design!
Dear c-huddleston,
Many thanks.
Yes, I've read that argument about the Mauser action, or locking method, vs. The Lee-Enfield. As for the accuracy question, it is probably one that could be debated round and round, but I think it interesting that until recently, at least, the British army still used specially selected, "tweaked", accessorized Lee-Enfields as their basic sniper rifle.
Thanks as well for the reading list; I will look out for them. The books I have, chiefly Myatt and "Military Small Arms" edited by G. Smith are beautifully illustrated and informative as far as they go, but the space for text is limited.
Given your period of interest, I wonder what you might have heard about the "Snider Conversion" of the Enfield muzzle-loaded rifle. As far as I know, it was only ever used in one campaign, the conquest of Magdala, Abyssinia, 1868. Of course the rifle itself, in its original form, was widely used in the American Civil War, and in the Crimea, where it was said to be accurate to over a thousand yards.
As I said, I find "early" small arms to be the most interesting. Did you ever see the film "Zulu'?-- or did I ask you that?
With thanks again,
Yours,
Tom O'Connor
TGOC
"I think it interesting that until recently, at least, the British army still used specially selected, "tweaked", accessorized Lee-Enfields as their basic sniper rifle."
And I've heard no complaints about it, either.
"I wonder what you might have heard about the "Snider Conversion" of the Enfield muzzle-loaded rifle. As far as I know, it was only ever used in one campaign, the conquest of Magdala, Abyssinia, 1868. Of course the rifle itself, in its original form, was widely used in the American Civil War, and in the Crimea, where it was said to be accurate to over a thousand yards."
The muzzle-loading Enfield rifle was not especially accurate - you had a chance of hitting your target at 200 yards, but that was really no better than any other military rifle. However, the Army had tens of thousands of them and did not want to replace them with a breech-loader on cost grounds. In 1867, Jacob Snider's conversion proposal was accepted. It was a fairly typical conversion in that it made the minimum number of changes to the original weapon. Cheaper that way. It worked well enough but the ammunition Snider designed to work with it was not so good - accuracy was much reduced - and a Colonel Boxer redesigned it. Ian V. Hogg is a good source for this period. He wrote a number of books on the subject of firearms development.
"Did you ever see the film "Zulu'?-- or did I ask you that?"
It is one of my favourite movies. It may not be strictly accurate, but one of my favourite scenes is the "Men of Harlech" scene. Shame it didn't happen like that!
Dear c-huddleston,
"Zulu" is, in fact one of my desert island films. And as far as I know --"Men of Harlech" not withstanding-- the worst that can be said about it in terms of accuracy is that it rather exaggerates the number of British dead.
As for the Enfield rifle--pre-conversion-- Maj. Myatt quotes a young officer's letter home from the Crimea about how they used to pick off Russians, going to the latrine, at over a thousand yards, but it is very possible tht the young officer was "shooting a line."
Yours,
TGOC
A recent test by the National Rifle Association (UK variant) of the Enfield rifle compared with the Whitworth rifle showed that accuracy between the two was wildly different. At the same distance - 200 yards, I think - the Enfield's group was wide enough to walk through and have a chance of not getting hit. The Whitworth's group was about 9". That having been said, production variations mean that a different rifle and a different shooter could have a much different outcome I suppose. But consistency is difficult even then because of variations in powder quality.
shareDeqr c-huddleston,
I am working from memory here so may well be open to correction, but I seem to recall that the Whitworth was designed as a target rifle, and was much-favoured as such by enthusiasts of target shooting. But it was considered insufficiently robust for service conditions, and slow to load. The Enfield, on the other hand was sturdy and used a minie-type round that was quickly loaded. I am quite sure that I have read accounts -- which may, of course have been boastful-- of marksmen using the Enfield to pick off Russians at great distances during the Crimean war. It seemed that latrines were favourite targets for snipers. Obviously, even with the finest weapons available today, a certain amount of practice and training was and is called for.
Still wondering if you know anything of the Snider.
Thanks your your message.
Yours,
TGOC
Whitworth tried to sell his design to the military - but the hexagonal bullet firing out of a twisted hexagonal barrel made for a more expensive rifle and conversion from one to the other, with no obvious gain in reliability. I doubt that the Whitworth would have coped with the ravages of the Crimea!
As far as the Snider is concerned, so far I have only been able to confirm what I put in an earlier post. If I find anything else I'll let you know.
Haven't yet found any published info that goes into more detail than I gave earlier. However, found this on the REME website.
http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/rifles/armbsr.htm
"In 1864 a committee was set up to consider the practicability of introducing breech loading, and designers were encouraged to concentrate their attention on perfecting a method. After exhausting trials at Woolwich Arsenal. during which some fifty different systems were tested, this one by the American, Jacob Snider of New York was chosen (1866). Muzzle loading rifles of the .577 inch Enfield pattern 1853 were converted and re-designated Mk I Snider/Enfield. This system was also adopted by Denmark and the United States. Most of the success of this system was due to the introduction of the brass cased boxer cartridge, which expanded on firing to provide a gas seal to the rear of the bullet, the first British official arm where the cartridge was designed to do the work of stopping the escape of gas at the breech."
The same page also has info on the Enfield Rifle that gives much better information about its accuracy - which reflects the information you gave.