3 Minute Myth | Muskets Were So Heavy! They had to be Propped Up

[@MM22966]

I guess a more accurate summation might be: "It isn't heavy until you try to keep the barrel from wandering all over the place while you aim."

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

Lots of late-16th-century military treatises note that muskets were quite heavy. Sir John Smythe did specifically write that no soldiers, no matter how strong, could shoot a musket accurately without a rest because of the difficulty you mention: "if his peece be any thing too heauie for him with facilitie & ease to mannage, it is not possible for him to performe, although it were at a firme and steadie marke, by reason that he striuing with all his force to beare the end of his peece, to discharge the same with some steadinesse and certentie, the same ouermaistring his forces with extreame heueth, doth make him to shoot iust either at the centre of the earth, or else at the seuen stars without dooing any hurt to the enemie."

[@JamesWatkins-fm5pd]

@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Sir John Smythe also still thought the longbow was advantageous over firearms and argued that archery still had a place on a modernizing battlefield, despite contemporaries like Sir Roger Williams basically laughing at the uselessness of archers on a modern battlefield. Take individual perspectives with a grain of salt, just cause they were around then doesn't always mean they knew what they were talking about.

[@zombywoof1072]

"Mythbusting" has become fashionable. And it seems to me to contain more than a particle of a superior attitude. The thing is not too heavy to hold... It's too heavy to hold steady, while also dealing with the match and the lock... for someone who is not fully trained... before the methods were really worked out... when people were very conservative... and perhaps the musketeers were expected to stand at the ready for some time before firing... with an earlier piece that was heavier than the particular one you are displaying... Myth sort of not busted. Instead of the rather arrogant "mythbusting" format, I think some more reasoned and nuanced discussion would be better.

[@richardglady3009]

Loved the ending. As an archaeologist (40 years ago), you always appreciate useful and informative items left in “fill.” I love the match…you see smoke drifting up and wonder what it is…wait, it is the match. Great video as always. You bring such joy to the heart of a military historian stuck in Arizona.

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you! And we love archaeologists.

[@Corvinuswargaming1444]

I am a historian of this period, although dealing with the other side of the world, and there is still a lot of mythology built up around matchlock musketry and their general effectiveness without dealing with the context of the time in which they were used. Thanks for this!

[@JYFMuseums]

You're welcome. We're glad you enjoyed it!

[@michelehumphrey852]

Always enjoy learning something new from Brian 😊

[@JYFMuseums]

Thanks!! 😊

[@cecilsowers8242]

Loved every minute of it especially tossing the rest.

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you!

[@thrifikionor7603]

I think its a bit of both. The (early) muskets were heavy, the 15pounds you mention were common around 1600. Not too heavy to handle but too heavy to stay at the ready position and keep tending to the match. Keep in mind at what exact step you put it on the rest, when your body would not be at an ideal position to support a heavy weight for a longer period of time (compare the difference in de gheyn between the first and last plates, 35 onwards, the first are more of a immediate going to firing so they dont bother with using the fork until shooting while in the latter plates they stay longer at the ready, even waving their hat in plate 38, the manual mentions these last plates are for guard duty). The position where you one hand the musket is on the right (and mostly stronger) side, without much extension of the arm and only for a short time, also the musket is vertical so the weight rests easy on your arm. And yes of course during aiming it was immensly useful because the damn thing was heavy. If the weight wasnt the issue, why then didnt they use the rests on the lighter arquebus? Why did they stop using the rest after the muskets got lighter in the mid 17th century with improvements in metallurgy? Also with replica muskets they do tend to stay on the lighter side, its very rare to see these heavy late 16th or early 17th century barrels and more the lighter mid 17th century and onward ones.

[@zombywoof1072]

@thrifikionor7603 - Thank you for the nuance. "Mythbusting" has become fashionable on YT. And it seems to me to contain more than a particle of a superior attitude. This might be a strawman argument in the first place, aimed at an imagined mass of ignorant boneheads. Instead of the rather arrogant "mythbusting" format, I think some more reasoned and nuanced discussion would be better. Teachers should be patient and supportive. Knowledge shouldn't be used as a weapon to shame people who haven't yet learned it. Even if aimed at an imaginary group.

[@robertfisher8359]

As a general agreement for the accuracy, from what I've read on the Thirty Years' War, I feel it's worth mentioning that muskets had an approximate caliber of 20mm. When I first read that, the image of a WWII German flak gun from Saving Private Ryan clearing US paratroopers off a Tiger tank popped in my head. Computing that the AA gun and 17th century muskets were firing projectiles of the same size, a musket rest would - of course - provide a much more stable firing position from which to shoot. That said, if small unit engagements, especially at closer ranges than the battlefields of Europe, were the order of the day for early colonies, it makes sense to sacrifice the stable firing position for (probably only slightly) faster movement and firing. Great video and - as I've been finding with this channel - very informative! Thanks for posting!!!

[@JYFMuseums]

Sure. A musket ball may be about .75 caliber while 20mm is approximately .78 caliber. But a 20mm projectile may generally weigh 3.5 ounces or 1,500 grains while the musket ball will weigh about 583 grains or 1.3 ounces.

[@LafayetteCCurtis]

@@robertfisher8359 Also worth noting that musket rests would have been less essential in places where it would have been easier to find expedient rests for one’s firearm like a tree stump or the crook of a branch.

[@jksandman000]

Hunters still use shooting sticks with modern scoped rifles.

[@Bayan1905]

My son has been shooting my full length English matchlock, identical to this one in the video since he was 13 years old and has been shooting my other muskets, including my doglock, Brown Bess and my Indian Trade muskets since he was 11-12 years old and a Kentucky rifle since he was ten years old. These guns are long and yes, they LOOK like they're not very manageable, but in fact, it's the opposite.

[@JYFMuseums]

Yes, they are certainly manageable.

[@williamolliges2622]

I love walking through military museums that feature firearms and uniforms/clothing from the various periods. The firearms are huge whilst the uniforms (ostensibly) for full grown men might’ve fit me when I was 12, and I’m not that big of a guy by modern standards.

[@mortarboss]

Truly interesting. I do flintlocks, so find earlier guns fascinating, but not familiar.

[@snorribjorn5074]

Well done!

[@JYFMuseums]

Thank you!

[@nicktrueman224]

Excellent display

[@JYFMuseums]

Thanks!

[@nicktrueman224]

@@JYFMuseums well I am naughty I never use a fork! But I reenact a filthy Pole we do things differently;)

[@JYFMuseums]

We'd never think of anyone being filthy, and the first Poles arrived in Virginia in 1608 as potash and glass makers.

[@nicktrueman224]

@@JYFMuseums I was joking! I am a Pole so I know exactly what we are like

[@JYFMuseums]

@nicktrueman224 You may be interested in this little bit of archaeological news -- www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/400-year-old-battle-gear-discovered-metal-detectorist-poland-unique-find

[@mothmagic1]

It is basically a monopod.

[@cromwell.is.awesome]

Muskets are so cool, I would like to own one one day

[@momoido4681]

My opinion exactly. Sadly I live in Europe so...

[@popps5022]

@@momoido4681 Muskets and older guns are legal in many european countries, i dont know where you live but its still possible that you could get one without any real issues

[@tedarcher9120]

Just go buy one. Most are legal

[@findlaech]

My other personal theory is that rests were used when a block of shot might be holding a position on the battlefield for some period of time, needing to remain at the ready indefinitely. My 9-pound musket is easy to handle, but after a couple of minutes holding at the ready it gains weight quickly. 😊

[@dougearnest7590]

If you need some sort of justification to have one (required by a government, or a spouse) then consider joining a reenactment group. @@momoido4681

[@thomasbeach905]

Yes, compare your rifle accuracy prone vs. standing. The musket rest would convey prone stability/accuracy (well, almost) to a more mobile standing position.

[@REBELSCL]

I use both bipod and tripods regularly when shooting beyond 50 yards…. My results are much more consistent..

[@fredscholpp5838]

You know, it would be fascinating to see if the rest does improve accuracy at longer ranges.

[@freddienunnelley9234]

If only there was somewhere it could be tested

[@johnchandler1687]

It might help to keep it steady while you aim, but nothing will improve accuracy of a smooth bore round ball musket. Like a British armaments officer once said. At 150 yards no one has ever hit what he aimed at with a musket. Even at 100 yards it's an accident.😊

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

@@johnchandler1687 Various records indicate some armies shot the true heavy muskets of the late 16th century at 400-600+ yards. These would be volleys at large enemy formations & were quite controversial, but they appear in military treatises.

[@JYFMuseums]

@johnchandler1687 The quote you are thinking of is from Col. George Hanger (c. 1750-1824) and his book “To All Sportsmen and Particularly to Farmers, and Gamekeepers” 1814, pg. 205. He served during the Revolution as a captain in German Jäger company, and later as a major in Tarleton's Legion. “A soldier’s musket, if not exceedingly ill-bored (as many of them are), will strike the figure of a man at eighty yards; it may even at 100; but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded by a common musket at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him; and as to firing at a man at 200 yards with a common musket, you may as well fire at the moon and have the same hopes of hitting your object.” There is a want to either over praise the accuracy or exaggerate the inaccuracy of muskets, and our views are often colored by our modern experiences and expectations of accuracy. The effectiveness of smoothbore arms were affected by the quality of propellant, the fit of the projectile and the stresses of the user in battle. There are 18th century accounts of British and German officers complaining about the quality of government contracted ammunition, their selling it off and using the proceeds to purchase better ammunition.

[@LafayetteCCurtis]

Also worth noting that the balls prescribed for 18th- and 19th-century smoothbore muskets often had more windage to the bore than 16th- and 17th-century ones. The tighter balls for earlier muskets and calivers would have taken longer to load but arguably been more accurate, and these characteristics would also have incentivised spending a few extra seconds to get a better aim. In such circumstances a rest might have made a real difference.

[@christianx8494]

When I fumbled my match into the serpentine I was happy to have that rest.One hand holds the match, one hand holds the musket and which hand tightens the screw that holds the match in the serpentine?

[@ejb6822]

same happened during the 30 years war, when gustavus adolphus dropped the musket rest after his polish war. he first invented a combination of a musket rest and a pike for the polish war, but since pikes bekame pretty much useless, since the musket peloton was capable to stop cavalry - as famously proven at the battle for breitenfeld 1631 against pappenheim -, there wasn't any need for pikes anymore, so there was no need for a musket-rest-pike combination, and for the reasons stated above no need for a pike rest as well, because the swedes were properly trained in shooting so accuracy wasn't amplified via the unhandy musket-rest anymore.

[@LafayetteCCurtis]

The pike was hardly useless in the 30YW -- it was still an effective weapon for leading assaults against infantry, and in fact Sweden was among the last few powers to drop the pike in the 1710s/20s since they believed that having a few pikes in an infantry battalion made it easier to get the firelocks to behave more aggressively against enemy infantry. But yeah, their usefulness _against cavalry_ has generally been exaggerated -- there were instances of Shot repelling cavalry solely with their fire as early as the 1540s if we believe Montluc's recollections of his youth.

[@ejb6822]

@@LafayetteCCurtis even grimmelshausen joked about it, that someone who killed a pikeman killed an innocent men, because he'd never seen a pikeman kill anyone. this only happened in very few occasions where out of last-resort-necessities pikemen engaged other infantry. they were simply there in order to hide behind if a unit got detached during battle and became vulnerable to cavalry. it was not an offensive weapon and never used as such if not as a consequence of bad luck during battle itself. feel free to prove me wrong by explicitly stating source material of any attempt to attack infantry via pike, primary source of course. apart from that, they were usefull against cavalry - absolutely. since there is no record of any sort of cavalry trying to charge straight into a tercio. that's why they invented the extremely useless caracolla, which also was abandoned first by gustavus adolphus and by wallenstein straight after lützen.

[@Condottiero_Magno]

@@ejb6822 Why don't you state source material?

[@Condottiero_Magno]

@@LafayetteCCurtis Exactly...

[@ejb6822]

@@Condottiero_Magno en exhaustive collection of source material is referred to in schrüges disseration - which you absolutely are familliar with, since you open your mouth to this topic.

[@ElZilchoYo]

Did they ever shorten their muskets in this period for ease of use?

[@JYFMuseums]

Probably not. The musket evolved from smaller lighter weight firearms -- the arquebus and caliver -- as the answer to more reliably pierce armor. The larger & longer bore propelled a larger bullet and allowed a more complete burning of the gunpowder and development of energy. Muskets of the 1550s were heavier than those of the 1610s, and rather than cutting down muskets, use the caliver.

[@LafayetteCCurtis]

They already had shorter firearms for such purposes, such as the 17th-century arquebus (by then a cavalry weapon) or “carabine” (again, primarily a cavalry weapon).

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

This myth is not a myth but specific to the 16th-century heavy musket designed to blow through armor. They were heavier than 10-15lbs. A 16th-century arquebus might be 10lbs, & it was the smallest of the long firearms used in the late 16th century. The caliver was larger than the arquebus & the musket was larger than the caliver. Later muskets became lighter & shorter - more like the caliver - making them more manageable to shoot without a rest. Sir John Smythe addressed this explicitly. Other military treatises from the same period likewise stress that muskets were heavy & musketeers had to be reasonably strong to manage them. Here are a few relevant passages from Smythe: "Howbeit if any man will saie that mosquetiers might without their rests likewise reduce themselues into many little societies, and greater and smaller troupes, and so with great aduauntage in respect that their peeces wil carrie point and blanke a great deale surder, then harquebuzes, skirmish with the harquebuziers: Thereunto it is to be aunswered, that it is not possible that mosquitiers, although they were al men of great force and strength, should be able with their forehandes to support and beare their so heauie peeces to discharge, and shoote with any steadines or certentie: Considering that for any man to discharge any peece either harquebuze, Currier, or mosquet without a rest effectual[...]lie it doth behooue him to haue his peece of such lightnesse, as he may be Maister of his peece, and not his peece through the great heueth thereof maister of him; that is, that hee may with dexterity discharge it steadily and with ease from his forehand, taking his sight either from point at blanke, or at least from the end of his peece with some kind of certentie: which if his peece be any thing too heauie for him with facilitie & ease to mannage, it is not possible for him to performe, although it were at a firme and steadie marke, by reason that he striuing with all his force to beare the end of his peece, to discharge the same with some steadinesse and certentie, the same ouermaistring his forces with extreame heueth, doth make him to shoot iust either at the centre of the earth, or else at the seuen stars without dooing any hurt to the enemie" "mosquetiers are not to worke any effect in the open fieldes but from their restes fixed in the ground, or some other accidentall or naturall rests and themselues standing still to take some sight from point at blanke, at their enemies when they discharge, which at men in motion with any certentie it is not possible for them to performe, and if they faile in taking their sightes at point and blanke, then their bullets do flie straight at the Cloudes without doing any other hurt; besides that when they haue once discharged their first charges of full bullets, or haileshot of warre from their rests incase they be forced vpon the vncerten comming of the Enemie to remoue and new place their rests and charge againe, their peeces are so exceeding heauie, and they therewithall so troubled with their rests hanging vpon their fingers, that they are driuen to a verie long recharging of their mosquets againe, which recharging if it be not in such particuler sort and perfection, as I haue before set downe, the bullets of their second volee will scarce go within the compasse of the height of piques vprighted, or rather of younge trees, as all skilfull soldiors that do know their wonderfull vncerten effects in seruices of the field will confesse"

[@JYFMuseums]

The Spanish developed the musket in the 1550s. It was a heavy weapon requiring the use of a rest, firing a heavy ball that could easily penetrate armor and unhorse a cavalryman. Sir Roger Williams writing in 1590 advocates for the musket and says that soldiers using it are less burdened than troops wearing armor. He does say that the rest helps with the weight of the musket. “Armed men are heauier loaden than the Musketiers, and more cumbersome in carriage: lightlie no great troupe matches ten miles without resting, although it be but a little at euerie stand and nere the enemie: the Musketiers are suffered to quit their weight, leauing their Muskets in their rests: the armed men will not be suffered to disarme themselues in their march” Additionally he says that the rest helps with aiming “For their weight and sure shooting, the Muskets haue aduantage on all the other small shot, by reason they shoote in their rests” Sir John Smythe says in 1590 that musket rest is essential. If you don’t use it, you will become lame, “And to vse their peeces without restes (as some of our such men of warre doo permit them, when they come newe to the field lustie and strong) is contrarie to the vse of that weapon, because they performe no effect against the Enemie, by reason they are not able (how strong soeuer they bee) to beare their Mosquets with their left armes at anie point and blancke, being in continuall motions; besides that, it is the next way to make them lame in their armes, shoulders, and backes.” Here is a 1575-1580 musket. It weighs 19 pounds. www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?p=167030 Here is a circa 1600 musket. Although large, it only weights 12 pounds. worcester.emuseum.com/objects/48040/matchlock-musket?ctx=91cb2b79e06d1bf9a58d5e0c0dfdeedd084ad734&idx=0 Here are some 1640s muskets. Weight 10 pounds. royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-1535 In Harold Peterson’s “Arms and Armor in Colonial American 1526-1783”, he describes the musket as a heavy military gun that in the 16th and early 17th centuries required a rest for firing. Additionally, he states, “It is generally believed the word ‘musket’ (mosquette) was first used by the Spanish to denote a heavy military firearm which they developed about the middle of the 16th century, and which was introduced into the Spanish military service by the Duke of Alba. This weapon weighed about 20 pounds, and possessed a bore of 8 or 10 gauge….As the years passed, the weight of the musket was reduced”(page 14). Bert Hall wrote the classic “Weapons & Warfare in Renaissance Europe”. On 16th century muskets he says, “The late-sixteenth-century term musket commonly referred to a weapon of some .80 calibers, having a barrel 115-40 cm long, weighing 7-9 kg, and standing some 170-90 cm from butt to muzzle…This very heavy weapon was difficult to carry and caused a heavy recoil when it was fired.” P. 176. He goes on to say “The musket left behind a legacy of terminological confusion, however, for the name was given to all shoulder arms larger than a pistol, effectively displacing the older term arquebus. Yet by the mid-seventeenth century the “musket” was in almost every respect exactly the same as the sixteenth-century “arquebus”(i.e, a shoulder arm firing a 15-20g shot from a gun weighing less than 5 kg)”. p. 177 In the 16th century, the musket was a substantial weapon that required the use of a rest. By the mid 17th century, the weight of the musket had been reduced, the rest was no longer required and the term musket was used for firearms that in the 16th century would have been called calivers or arqubuses, a legacy of “terminological confusion”.

[@LafayetteCCurtis]

Worth noting that Smythe was advocating for the armies of his time to keep the heavy Spanish musket that was going out of fashion instead of lighter “Dutch” variants as shown in De Gheyn. Williams, on the other hand, seems to have had a more favourable view of the musket’s handling qualities because he was mainly discussing the lighter muskets coming into fashion in his time (and while it’s not stated outright in his works, I’m getting the impression that he liked the idea of an intermediate weapon between the overpowered “Spanish” musket and the underpowered arquebus).

[@JakeSibley-ql9sq]

I would think its real purpose was for long engagements where its beneficial to have your army weapons at the ready for a length of time like the beginning of a battle or siege imagine standing in formation the blazing sun on you for hours as you closely watch the enemy calvery waiting in the distance for you to make a mistake ibwould want a stick. And it wouldn't take more than one battle to come up with it. Hold a broom out 30 minutes if you really need to see the point first hand.

[@joesmith-t2z]

The original musket, the true musket, was very long and heavy and was about .90. it was actually considered a cannon It came in about 1450. By the mid 1600's they had waht you call a musket, 10 or 12 pounds at most and about 12 guage or .75"

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

Mid-17th-century muskets may have weighed a bit more than that, but this is correct. The true heavy musket did require a rest to shoot accurately according to Sir John Smythe, & lots of military manuals of the period note how muskets were very heavy & musketeers had to be reasonably strong to manage them. According to Spanish records, even an arquebus might weigh 9-10lbs in the 16th century, & muskets were much larger & more powerful.

[@JamesWatkins-fm5pd]

Muskets didn't exist in the 1450s. You're conflating the earliest "hand cannons" or "handguns". They generally had very short barrels and enormous stocks and were few and far between. Arquebuses (Harquebuses) and similar weapons evolved as the first more practical firearms with matchlock mechanisms at the very end of the 1400s and were wildly unstandardized. Some were large bore, some were not. Some were heavy, some were not. They mostly all still had pretty short barrels, which limited their muzzle velocity and therefore their range and accuracy. Muskets were a direct response to armourers making bullet resistant armour, and the arquebuses being found to be less effective as a result. So we don't see muskets until the latter half of the 1500s.

[@JamesWatkins-fm5pd]

@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 Everybody likes to quote Sir John Smythe on this, but nobody ever seems to point out that a lot of his other ideas about warfare were considered pretty cooky by some of his contemporaries... maybe take him with a grain of salt?

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

@@JamesWatkins-fm5pd Smythe was an experienced soldier. He definitely underestimated firearms & overestimated bows, but I don't see why he'd be unreliable about the difficulty of shooting muskets without a rest or that muskets were very long & heavy. Lots of other sources from the same time are clear that muskets were difficult to manage because of their weight & length, & that they were very powerful. Are the any period sources that say to shoot the musket (the true heavy musket) without a rest? Muskets gradually became shorter & light after Smythe's era.

[@LafayetteCCurtis]

@@JamesWatkins-fm5pd Smythe’s ideas about firearms were less kooky than cherry-picked. He specifically chose the old heavy Spanish musket to draw an unfavourable contrast with the longbow, so his description of the musket was pretty accurate. The conclusions he wanted the reader to draw from it, not so much.