www.gunsamerica.com
The Musket that Changed the World: The Land Pattern 'Brown Bess'The Land Pattern Musket and its derivatives were in use for 116 years of official service and close to 160 years of actual use with many incremental changes in its design. It remained in production for 140 years, making the Brown Bess' production one of the longest production runs for a firearm in history.
-Small Arms of the British Forces in America 1664-1815 by De Witt Bailey.
-British Military Flintlock Rifles 1740-1840 by De Witt Bailey.
-French Military Small Arms by Didier Bianchi.
-French Military Arms and Armor in America 1503-1783 by Rene Chartrand.
-Weapons of the American Revolution by Warren Moore.
-Arms and Armor in Colonial America 1526-1783 by Harold Peterson.
-Book of the Continental Soldier by Harold Peterson.
-Springfield Armory Infantry Muskets 1795-1844 by Kent Johns.
The author has no clue what he is speaking about - he obviously did not look into muskets of other armies at all, the Brown Bess musket was quite an ordinary musket, it didn't even have a front side, the ramrod still had to be wielded and the pan wasn't self priming.
In case one would talk about a legendary model of Brown Bess - then why the Land Pattern and not the India pattern?
Back to the article. The author says the series of muskets he is characterising as one article changed the world. He does not say it is the best, or even significantly technically superior to others of its type. If we take a glance at a world map of 1722 and 1838 I think it’s reasonable to detect a change in international influence by the state that used it, particularly if you attribute empire building at least in part to feats of arms. If you then fast forward from those foundations to the greatest global empire the world has ever seen, the comment looks a little less inflated. It’s also worth considering the publication it is in. American gun magazines are rather notorious for their hyperbole, “Gun That Won The West”, that sort of thing. What is obvious is that the author is more of a gun enthusiast than historian. Some useful basic information therefore, but certainly no worse than some of what is written by non specialist historians about say, artillery.
History has always been about evidence and interpretation. The author reports anecdotes of American casualties from buckshot as evidence confirming the use of captured ammunition by the British. I merely observe that friendly fire is not a new phenomenon to the continent of North America or that not all Americans fought against the crown.
Well, if you insist in calling it a revolution, when it wasn’t, counterinsurgency is a pretty understandable misinterpretation. Call it a war of independence, the correct title, and this doesn’t happen.
'Considered the most advanced military firearm of her day...'
By whom and during what period 'of her day'?
And if it was 'the most advanced' why did the American Continental Army prefer the French model musket (1766), called the Charleville by the Americans, to the British Brown Bess?
And to amplify that choice, the United States copied the French musket for its regulation musket in 1795-the 1795 Springfield.
And classifying the War of the American Revolution as merely a 'counterinsurgency' is way off the mark.