Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

SIGHT primarily, lug secondarily - Re: a question of aiming

Expand Messages
  • gourdidol
    Hey Guys - I m surprised no one else has directly mentioned this yet, but the term in *period* sources for that thing we are commonly calling a bayonet lug
    Message 1 of 48 , Feb 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hey Guys -
      I'm surprised no one else has directly mentioned this yet, but the term in *period* sources for that thing we are commonly calling a "bayonet lug" was a "Sight" and not the former.

      Look at the great diagram in back of the Norfolk Manual (which, I believe, is in the files section on here), or in several other period manuals.

      Or read Goldtein's superlative "The Socket Bayonet in the British Army, 1678-1783" which lists several examples of the so-called bayonet lug actually being called a Sight in the period - and it was called a sight before the socket bayonet was used (and the sight was slightly re-purposed), so that tells ya something.

      There must be a reason for why they commonly called it a sight back then. We all should acknowledge that.

      Just like we should try to use the word Hammer (and not Frizzen), let's call it a Sight.

      cheers,
      Niels
      40th


      --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, "mike" <ottercreek75@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, "kevin donaghy" <kevinmd@> wrote:
      > >
      > > ... I'm thinking of two things: first, someone told me that they fired from the shoulder and didn't actually sight down the barrel, although i am thinking this may be more of the Age of Frederick II, ...
      > >
      >
      > Kind of ironic that you mention Great Fred. I have an original Brunswick musket that has a groove on the breech and a front sight. It definitely is a front sight 'cause the bayonet lug is on the underside of the barrel--typical for northern European muskets as are sights.
      >
      > > ... Also, is it wrong to refer to a smooth bore rifle?
      > >
      >
      > Yes.
      >
      > > or is the distinction a smooth bore or a rifle musket?
      > >
      >
      > The common distinction is smooth bore or rifle but, as someone already noted, rifled muskets did exist. However, I'm not sure the term appeared in the 18th century. A collector and I had a discussion about this very topic just a couple weeks ago and he said the term is a mid-19th-century creation. It refers to a gun produced to be used as a heavy-duty military musket but with a rifled barrel. Rifles tended to be finer construction than muskets, smaller caliber, and unable to carry a bayonet. Rifled muskets took care of all those conditions. The creation of the Mini� ball that had a skirt that would expand into the rifling making the weapon as east to load as a musket.
      >
      > Mike Barbieri
      > Whitcomb's Corps
      >
    • John Welsh
      We use the word ³ball² to identify the shot from a musket (mousquette). In effect, both the words ³ball² and ³bullet² come from the French words
      Message 48 of 48 , Feb 10, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        We use the word ³ball² to identify the shot from a musket (mousquette). In
        effect, both the words ³ball² and ³bullet² come from the French words
        ³balle² and ³boulet². French military vocabulary was widely adopted by the
        British incorporated into English, including the rank structures (privat to
        general), verbs (attention, marche, charge, attaque, retraite), nouns
        (infanterie, cavalerie, artillerie), and organizations (escuade, peleton,
        compagnie, bataillon, regiment, corps, armee). It¹s said that some 40% of
        the English vocabulary came from French, due to the conquest and occupation
        of England in 1066 by king William the Conqueror (Ouillaume le Conquereur,
        duc de Normandie). The ultimate origin of French was Latin from the conquest
        by Julius Caesar as part of the Roman empire. Je vous salut.


        On 2/6/12 3:57 PM, "John Welsh" <jbwelsh@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Smooth bore muskets were deadly if fired by volley in line all at once, as
        > the windages overlapped to create a shotgun effect, a sheer wall of lead.
        > Hence marching, and linear conflict under officer control.
        >
        > On 2/6/12 3:14 PM, "ebolton123" <ebolton123@...
        > <mailto:ebolton123%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
        >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> > Matt,
        >> > Did he actually use the word "vast"?
        >> > I always thought the "vast majority of history", man was fighting with
        >> > knives, and swords and spears. Does this guy really know his historical
        >> > timeline? If one only postured on an Ancient or Medievel battlefield, one
        >> was
        >> > likely (read guaranteed) to get one's head cleaved open.
        >> > During that "vast" majority of time there was no area to skulk on a
        >> > battlefield. There were very few rear area's to do said skulking. Battles
        >> > were bloodletting melee's. Skulking would have meant instant death by your
        >> > own side. Is this guy serious? With respect, I am beginning to think I
        >> > really don't need to read this book after all.
        >> > I think that if every man in the Continental Army had an '61 Springfield
        >> or a
        >> > Lee-Enfield, there would have been a helluva lot more dead Brits. I reject
        >> > that a change in doctrine had anything to do with it. The bloody
        >> smoothbore
        >> > just could'nt hit the broad side of a barn! When your standing 40 yards
        >> away
        >> > from a line of men that's trying to kill you, a person would have to have a
        >> > death wish or be a moron not to try to deliberatly shoot them first.
        >> > But that's just my opinion.
        >> > Cheers,
        >> > Bob Bolton
        >> > Pa. Associators
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> > --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Revlist%40yahoogroups.com>
        >> <mailto:Revlist%40yahoogroups.com> , Matthew
        >> > Ehrlich <matt@...> wrote:
        >>>> >> >
        >>>> >> > Dear Bob, et al.
        >>>> >> >
        >>>> >> > *---I gotta get this book cause frankly I just don't get it? Does the
        >>>> LTC.,
        >>>> >> > have a combat background?*
        >>>> >> >
        >>>> >> > If I recall correctly, the good LTC does not have combat experience,
        >>>> >> > admitting as much in the introduction. Nevertheless I think you'll
        find
        >>>> >> > the book is well-stocked with contemporary quotes and interviews, as
        well
        >>>> >> > as utilizing a great variety of more historical sources.
        >>>> >> >
        >>>> >> > *--In the age of musketry I can see where an individual may be able to
        get
        >>>> >> > away with firing high if they so desired given the volley fire
        >>>> system...But
        >>>> >> > why would you? If you don't put that man down on the other side he
        will
        >>>> >> > likely put you down.....In later time periods, I have spoken to many
        >>>> >> > veterans from WWII-Iraq
        >>>> >> > *
        >>>> >> > It's a pity that I don't have the book in front of me (it's in
        >>>> California,
        >>>> >> > I'm in NY) but I found this article by him <<
        >>>> >> >
        >>>> http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield/>> and
        >>>> >> > it seems to be something of a summary of his central thesis. He posits
        that
        >>>> >> > throughout the vast majority of history, killing in wars was done by a
        >>>> >> > small minority whilst the rest 'postured,' by firing, making noise, or
        >>>> >> > engaging other useful front-line tasks. He cites a good deal of
        >>>> interesting
        >>>> >> > figures from the age of musketry through the Second World War (e.g.
        >>>> S.L.A.
        >>>> >> > Marshall's study of WWII front line combatants) and then claims that
        >>>> the US
        >>>> >> > army particularly was able to highly increase the rate of accurate and
        >>>> >> > deadly fire from troops by changing the psychology behind their
        >>>> training
        >>>> >> > methods prior to Vietnam, which would explain why many of the people
        >>>> you've
        >>>> >> > spoken to would have been more 'effective' in the field than a soldier
        of
        >>>> >> > the Revolutionary War.
        >>>> >> >
        >>>> >> > At any rate, I cannot do adequate justice to his thesis. Whether you
        >>>> >> > eventually agree with it or disagree with it, I still think it's worth
        the
        >>>> >> > read!
        >>>> >> >
        >>>> >> > Cheers!
        >>>> >> > Matt Ehrlich
        >>>> >> > (Pte. McGee,
        >>>> >> > HM 33rd Regiment
        >>>> >> > Cols. Coy)
        >>>> >> >
        >>>> >> >
        >>>> >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>> >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.