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

RE: [WarOf1812] Re: weapons

Expand Messages
  • Peter Catley
    Subject: [WarOf1812] Re: weapons ... Besides, aren t blank firing guns now illegal too in England? Larry Larry No, that isn t true, however you do need the
    Message 1 of 18 , May 29, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Subject: [WarOf1812] Re: weapons

      --- In WarOf1812@y..., dancingbobd@w... wrote:

      Besides, aren't blank firing guns now illegal too in England?

      Larry Larry


      No, that isn't true, however you do need the right licenses to be allowed to
      have a muzzle loading pistol and I believe that a full firearms certificate
      is required, as opposed to a shotgun certificate which is necessary for a
      musket.
      Peter.
    • BritcomHMP@aol.com
      In a message dated 5/29/2002 4:02:19 PM Central Daylight Time, ... The problem with both flint and (early) percussion pistols is that the way one fires blank
      Message 2 of 18 , May 30, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 5/29/2002 4:02:19 PM Central Daylight Time,
        bomberb17@... writes:


        > i wish i could but to pay £500-£700 for an antique pistol which then would
        > require a secure storage and a firearms licence which is quite expensive in
        > total not to mention that the misses does not want working firearms in the
        > house so i am stumped......i have only got into this this last month and
        > thus am not so knowledgeable as you lot i wanted such an item that does not
        > need a licence and i was told that blank firing and percussion type weapons
        > do not need a licence.
        >
        >

        The problem with both flint and (early) percussion pistols is that the way
        one fires blank is to simply not put a ball down the barrel. In other words
        you would need a license for anything that will actually go bang.

        Cheers

        Tim


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • BritcomHMP@aol.com
        In a message dated 5/29/2002 5:37:06 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Hmmmmm good point. Of course the idea of US cavalry breaking through (considering the
        Message 3 of 18 , May 30, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 5/29/2002 5:37:06 PM Central Daylight Time,
          dancingbobd@... writes:


          > How many OR are left behind the lines to protect the Surgeon if the
          > opposing Calvary penetrates the line?
          >
          > Warm regards,
          >
          > Bob Dorian
          > Surgeon with a flintlock pistol :-)
          >
          >
          >

          Hmmmmm good point. Of course the idea of US cavalry breaking through
          (considering the recruits we have gained from that august body) is not
          something we need worry about, and even if they did Brother Jonathan is an
          Englishman at heart. Those Frenchies on the other hand are a different kettle
          of fish, Old Trousers can be an underhand cove at times, good thought!

          Cheers

          Tim


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • lenthecooper
          Honestly, I m not sure that surgeons would have worn sashes but believe that they should as the sash is a badge which distinguishes Officers from ORs. Surgeons
          Message 4 of 18 , May 30, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Honestly, I'm not sure that surgeons would have worn sashes but
            believe that they should as the sash is a badge which distinguishes
            Officers from ORs. Surgeons such as Tiger Dunlop did indeed carry
            swords as he offered his good sword to LCol Drummond before the
            attempt to gain Fort Erie. Drummond took a bording pike instead (this
            guy was serious.)
            There is very little evidence of anyone carring pistols on their
            person, the usual location were in holsters on the saddle, or in a
            box for duelling. Remember in the movie Zulu as the enemy are coming
            through the wall, 'You there soldier! There, (nods his head) there!'
            It's a much funnier effect in front of an audience, to have a
            musketman defend you and then you go and save the wounded enemy.
            Shoot someone, patch him up and drag him out, shoot someone etc etc
            repeat, till someone has noticed the gag.
            Cheers,
            Len
            --- In WarOf1812@y..., "Larry Lozon" <lalozon@n...> wrote:
            > From: "colsjtjones2000" <colsjtjones2000@y...>
            >
            > " ... Brian Robson in his "Swords of the British Army" advises that
            > surgeon/medical officers swords and uniforms were not specific
            until
            > the Dress Regulations of 1822. Apparently regimental surgeons of
            our
            > period did not normally carry swords, but if they did it would have
            > been in the pattern of the unit to which they were attached.
            Medical
            > staff officers apparently carried the normal infantry pattern
            sword ... "
            > _______________
            >
            > I was lead to believe that Surgeons and Assistant Surgeons were
            > non combatants and did not have field command. Thus they wore
            > no sash or swords. Also, that Field officers would only have
            pistols
            > if mounted, then a brace or pair was holstered at the saddle pommel.
            > Thus the medical team would have no armement.
            >
            > Also, that the Surgeons and Assistant Surgeons would be behind the
            lines,
            > in shirt sleeves, at the amputation table, and not combing the
            fields for
            > patients. That was a job left to the drummers.
            >
            >
            > Imho
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.