Old school fighting

[jkelly1229]

Watching something on andrew jackson this evening and watching the indian wars stuff and the fighting they depict.

And the way they use the rifle to block other weapons in hand to hand combat seems counter intuitive

I know mass production was a thing at this point but still seems like you arent getting more guns in the middle of alabama easily in 1814

So why would you risk your main weapon being broken or damaged by using it in hand to hand combat

 

[Dench]

So why would you risk your main weapon being broken or damaged by using it in hand to hand cocombat

Because if you lose the fight ur ded.

 

[1sern]

Why did British highlanders get rid of their crap pistols and swords?

They were excess weight and usually useless. so you fight with what you have

And Dench made the point. Muskets were the best in most cases, but not all, but if that is all you have you use it.

And they were used that way in Europe

 

[jkelly1229]

Because if you lose the fight ur ded.

Yea i get that lol just feel like a sword or tomahawk was the play... wood recievers getting smashed by metal seems like not what you want to do

 

[jkelly1229]

Why did British highlanders get rid of their crap pistols and swords?

They were excess weight and usually useless. so you fight with what you have

And Dench made the point. Muskets were the best in most cases, but not all, but if that is all you have you use it.

And they were used that way in Europe

Fair but do you think you were trying to kill me with a tomahawk and you put everything into a swing could you crack the reciever on a musket? Im pretty sure i could make one inoperable after one hit...at best 3 .

So if you were going into the deep woods of al in 1815 wouldn't you find something not your gun to take that blow

Because who knows when you get another gun

 

[1sern]

Fair but do you think you were trying to kill me with a tomahawk and you put everything into a swing could you crack the reciever on a musket? Im pretty sure i could make one inoperable after one hit...at best 3 .

So if you were going into the deep woods of al in 1815 wouldn't you find something not your gun to take that blow

Because who knows when you get another gun

Hmmm. There was one of those half silly Osprey books that quoted something IIRC around 1700 about irish mercenaries killing 1,000 Savoyards (N Italians) in the space of 1/2 a league with clubbed muskets and sword thrusts (at the time the swords common soldiers had would be "hangers", not much more than machete sized). So it wouldn't be out of the question to use them as a club weapon and as defense from so. I'm guessing it was because in woods, they weren't able to use a formation of muskets with bayonets to stop enemies. Doubt they wanted excess weight

 

[AmeriKHAN]

Watching something on andrew jackson this evening and watching the indian wars stuff and the fighting they depict.

And the way they use the rifle to block other weapons in hand to hand combat seems counter intuitive

I know mass production was a thing at this point but still seems like you arent getting more guns in the middle of alabama easily in 1814

So why would you risk your main weapon being broken or damaged by using it in hand to hand combat

Guns back then were quite literally built to be weapons in it of themselves. Thick stocks with brass or iron butt plates. The buttstocks were cut from the matchlock days to resemble axe heads and could even used as oars in a pinch. Why? Because en lieu of a bayonet and unable the time to reload, the weapon system as whole could be used as a melee weapon. Pistols had metal fittings upon the heel to be used as clubs after firing. They were functional weapons even after firing their sole shot.

 

[jkelly1229]

Hmmm. There was one of those half silly Osprey books that quoted something IIRC around 1700 about irish mercenaries killing 1,000 Savoyards (N Italians) in the space of 1/2 a league with clubbed muskets and sword thrusts (at the time the swords common soldiers had would be "hangers", not much more than machete sized). So it wouldn't be out of the question to use them as a club weapon and as defense from so. I'm guessing it was because in woods, they weren't able to use a formation of muskets with bayonets to stop enemies. Doubt they wanted excess weight

Just seems odd... i know they did it

For some reason though today it just stuck as a good way break your gun

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Fair but do you think you were trying to kill me with a tomahawk and you put everything into a swing could you crack the reciever on a musket? Im pretty sure i could make one inoperable after one hit...at best 3 .

So if you were going into the deep woods of al in 1815 wouldn't you find something not your gun to take that blow

Because who knows when you get another gun

There were always some to pick up afterward.

 

[dgrafton]

Just seems odd... i know they did it

For some reason though today it just stuck as a good way break your gun

You can only carry so much gear

 

[Mountain]

Watching something on andrew jackson this evening and watching the indian wars stuff and the fighting they depict.

And the way they use the rifle to block other weapons in hand to hand combat seems counter intuitive

I know mass production was a thing at this point but still seems like you arent getting more guns in the middle of alabama easily in 1814

So why would you risk your main weapon being broken or damaged by using it in hand to hand combat

Yes, let's save the rifle so that after you get your skull caved in it still works. Oh wait, it won't work if there isn't a functioning booger hook to pull the go switch.

Also keep in mind the length of the rifles- they are really f-ing long and with a bayonet even longer. Once the bad guys are in your face, the only thing it's good for is blocking hand weapons unless your enemy grants you a time out to reload your rifle.

 

[Dadstoys]

Fair but do you think you were trying to kill me with a tomahawk and you put everything into a swing could you crack the reciever on a musket? Im pretty sure i could make one inoperable after one hit...at best 3 .

So if you were going into the deep woods of al in 1815 wouldn't you find something not your gun to take that blow

Because who knows when you get another gun

In the heat of the fight you worry about now now and later later.
I've replayed fights in my head and 20/20 hindsight always found a way it could have been done better.

 

[Picton]

Fair but do you think you were trying to kill me with a tomahawk and you put everything into a swing could you crack the reciever on a musket? Im pretty sure i could make one inoperable after one hit...at best 3 .

So if you were going into the deep woods of al in 1815 wouldn't you find something not your gun to take that blow

Because who knows when you get another gun

Contemporary muskets were made to be used that way. The barrels are wicked thick, and they’re what you’re using to block a tomahawk. Your job would be to make sure you don’t take the impact on the lock, which was probably the only easy way for your opponent to make your piece NMC.

Most soldiers did carry hatchets, but those were mostly useful around camp. French infantrymen carried short swords called Sabre-briquets, intended as sidearms, but when the melee started it was found they almost never drew them. When the French government looked into why, they discovered the soldiers couldn’t really use the sword while toting the musket in the other hand. And they’re cumbersome when slung, too.

Think about it. You’re a soldier with a melee weapon, but to use it you need to find someplace safe to put down your gun. Where do you imagine that would be? How will you make sure your opponent gives you the time to make the transition and get ready with your briquet? He won’t: he’s coming at you, and you’re going to use what you’ve already got in hand.

Most importantly, you’re going to need the gun later: you’ll be charged for it if the battle sweeps you away from it, and besides, your function on the battlefield is to use it as your primary weapon. You’ll be looking to load and fire it again ASAP.

You can’t do that if you left it somewhere so you could do some slashin’.

 

[jkelly1229]

You can only carry so much gear

Yeah but that tracks for an army too can't carry too many replacements either

 

[jkelly1229]

Yes, let's save the rifle so that after you get your skull caved in it still works. Oh wait, it won't work if there isn't a functioning booger hook to pull the go switch.

Also keep in mind the length of the rifles- they are really f-ing long and with a bayonet even longer. Once the bad guys are in your face, the only thing it's good for is blocking hand weapons unless your enemy grants you a time out to reload your rifle.

Idk lol that's why i asked I'm not saying block with your face but some in between

 

[jkelly1229]

Contemporary muskets were made to be used that way. The barrels are wicked thick, and they’re what you’re using to block a tomahawk. Your job would be to make sure you don’t take the impact on the lock, which was probably the only easy way for your opponent to make your piece NMC.

Most soldiers did carry hatchets, but those were mostly useful around camp. French infantrymen carried short swords called Sabre-briquets, intended as sidearms, but when the melee started it was found they almost never drew them. When the French government looked into why, they discovered the soldiers couldn’t really use the sword while toting the musket in the other hand. And they’re cumbersome when slung, too.

Think about it. You’re a soldier with a melee weapon, but to use it you need to find someplace safe to put down your gun. Where do you imagine that would be? How will you make sure your opponent gives you the time to make the transition and get ready with your briquet? He won’t: he’s coming at you, and you’re going to use what you’ve already got in hand.

Most importantly, you’re going to need the gun later: you’ll be charged for it if the battle sweeps you away from it, and besides, your function on the battlefield is to use it as your primary weapon. You’ll be looking to load and fire it again ASAP.

You can’t do that if you left it somewhere so you could do some slashin’.

I guess that makes sense too. Just seems odd to bash your main weapon into someone then be like yeah this will shoot fine and probably not blow up in my face

 

[Admin]

Watching something on andrew jackson this evening and watching the indian wars stuff and the fighting they depict.

And the way they use the rifle to block other weapons in hand to hand combat seems counter intuitive

I know mass production was a thing at this point but still seems like you arent getting more guns in the middle of alabama easily in 1814

So why would you risk your main weapon being broken or damaged by using it in hand to hand combat

So my options are: survive the engagement with a damaged weapon, knowing there are other weapons all over the ground that I can pick up and rock on with. Or die and my pristine weapon can be picked up by my buddy who used his as a shield to save his life. Hmmm that's a tough one.

 

[Mountain]

Idk lol that's why i asked I'm not saying block with your face but some in between

Gotta give you credit for asking a gun / gun battle related question.

Someone mentioned how heavily these were built and that they can withstand some serious abuse. Keep in mind that way back in the day good swords could withstand direct strikes from expert swordsmen enemies.

 

[jkelly1229]

Gotta give you credit for asking a gun / gun battle related question.

Someone mentioned how heavily these were built and that they can withstand some serious abuse. Keep in mind that way back in the day good swords could withstand direct strikes from expert swordsmen enemies.

Yeah i mean ive seen it a million times like everyone else..

But just because the painting of a dude smashing a brown bess into someones dome looks cool

That doesnt mean hollywood didnt copy it and make it the norm. Know what i mean

 

[Picton]

Just seems odd to bash your main weapon into someone then be like yeah this will shoot fine and probably not blow up in my face

Not if your main weapon was designed and built to bash into someone and be functional afterward. The design of a Brown Bess is very simple: few moving parts, easy to use, and when it did break, there were only so many things likely to need replacement. Soldiers were trained to troubleshoot, and they carried their own spare flints and mainsprings. Your sergeant would have the vise you needed to install the replacement.

I think you think military muskets were more fragile than they really were. Those things were WAY overbuilt and sturdy as hell. Even nowadays, military shoulder arms are designed to be used hand-to-hand, if necessary. They're built heavier than they need to be because of that.

 

[TrackDayRdr]

 

[Mountain]

Not if your main weapon was designed and built to bash into someone and be functional afterward.

I think you think military muskets were more fragile than they really were. Those things were WAY overbuilt and sturdy as hell. Even nowadays, military shoulder arms are designed to be used hand-to-hand, if necessary. They're built heavier than they need to be because of that.

I have a Finn Mosin in its original WW2 stock. It looks like it was used to beat a Russian tank to death. Either that or it was locked in a cage with a beaver on crack. Seriously, the stock has a lot of damage yet the Mosin still shoots groups close to 1 MOA.

 

[Soundwave]

This just made me think of The Last of the Mohicans.

 

[Mountain]

View attachment 862009

Nice- where?

 

[Picton]

This just made me think of The Last of the Mohicans.

View attachment 862014

That movie is PACKED with historically accurate hand-to-hand combat. Michael Mann is a director who's also a "gun guy," and all his movies take care to get the fighting right.

Hawkeye shoots his rifle plenty, but he uses it to bash people even more often.

 

[TrackDayRdr]

Nice- where?

Lots of places. Resorting to clubbing your musket was a tactic through the civil war. Here's another couple from Gettysburg (a place where if you haven't been you NEED to visit):

Must See Gettysburg Monuments: A Local's Guide To The Top 10

 

[jkelly1229]

Not if your main weapon was designed and built to bash into someone and be functional afterward. The design of a Brown Bess is very simple: few moving parts, easy to use, and when it did break, there were only so many things likely to need replacement. Soldiers were trained to troubleshoot, and they carried their own spare flints and mainsprings. Your sergeant would have the vise you needed to install the replacement.

I think you think military muskets were more fragile than they really were. Those things were WAY overbuilt and sturdy as hell. Even nowadays, military shoulder arms are designed to be used hand-to-hand, if necessary. They're built heavier than they need to be because of that.

Probably lol

Hence the question I've never held one so it's tough to judge.

I didn't know they carried spare parts but that tracks.

Like i said though i wasn't sure if it was one of those things that some dude did one time and ended up on a painting and hollywood ran with it

 

[Picton]

Probably lol

Hence the question I've never held one so it's tough to judge.

I didn't know they carried spare parts but that tracks.

Like i said though i wasn't sure if it was one of those things that some dude did one time and ended up on a painting and hollywood ran with it

Glad you asked the question, then.

Letters, autobiographies, memoirs, diary entries, and other firsthand accounts are filled with stories of people using their shoulder arms as hand-to-hand weapons. It happened in wars from the Renaissance to Vietnam. It happened on land, at sea, in the defense, on offense, in trenches, in the open, everywhere. It's not just paintings and Hollywood.

When a man is fighting for his life against another man, he'll use whatever he can find to save himself and do damage to his opponent. Knowing that, it makes no sense that he wouldn't use his musket to block and club. It's a long, strongly built, heavy piece of steel and wood. Why not use it?

 

[Mountain]

I

Lots of places. Resorting to clubbing your musket was a tactic through the civil war. Here's another couple from Gettysburg (a place where if you haven't been you NEED to visit):

Must See Gettysburg Monuments: A Local's Guide To The Top 10

was curious about that particular monument.

Checking that link- yes, I definitely need to go to Gettysburg. The "Friend to Friend" Masonic memorial depicting Union General Winfield Scott Hancock and Confederate General Lewis Addison Armistead hits close to home a bit. During the Civil War, my Tennessee hometown's Masonic lodge was the tallest building in the area and swapped hands as a command post for both armies. While in Union hands, a soldier wrote a note on the wall in a small room to wish his Southern brothers well and may they meet during peaceful times later. The note is still there, preserved behind glass. For years I had seen all the CSA memorials. It's been interesting to see all the Union memorials the last few years, especially the memorials and original photos for my town here.

 

[Broc]

Yea i get that lol just feel like a sword or tomahawk was the play... wood recievers getting smashed by metal seems like not what you want to do

Swords are expensive, they take time to manufacture and take a lot of training. Real sword fighting is an art, and nothing like what they show in Hollywood movies.

Most of the time regular soldiers barely had shoes. Even during WWII, there are plenty of stories of Americans not having food, proper clothing, ammo or rifles. There are stories of Americans carrying sticks painted black to simulate guns. Imagine having to re-supply lost tomahawks and Swords on top of everything else.

This is the same reason they stopped using bows and arrows.

Archers in the American revolution, or Napoleonic wars, even during the Civil War could have made a huge difference. Imagine 300 guys behind a line of muskets firing 10-15 arrows per minute, while the people in front shoot their muskets, at people without shields struggling to reload 3 shots per minute.

But training archers takes time. I think it would have been a worthy investment, but fat dudes with mustaches didn't think so.