Alternate Ferguson Rifle

[robcraufurd]

While percussion ignition would have made the weapon more reliable, and did make all black powder weapons more likely to go off when fired, they had no effect on rate of fire

They do have a significant effect on accuracy, though, because you don't have an explosion going off in your face and there's less time required for the flash to pass through the touchhole. In the British trials of 1836, the converted flintlock recorded 1,280 hits and six misfires out of 1,520 rounds; the Brown Bess had 992 hits, 167 misfires and 45 cases of hanging fire.

Ferguson's rifle had about double the rate of fire of a muzzle loaded rifle musket, without needing to leave a concealed prone position to do so.

You don't need to stand up to load a musket, though. The 1824 Field Exercise advised that "If in a very exposed situation, the soldier attempts to load lying, he will, after priming, roll over on his back, and placing the butt between his legs, the lock upwards, and the muzzle a little elevated, draw his ramrod, and go on with his loading without exposure, rolling over on his breast again when ready to fire".

Also, "rifle musket" is a term relating primarily to later guns that fire Minie balls. In this era, you have either a rifle or a smoothbore musket. The distinction is important when you come to rate of fire, because rifles required a tight fit between the projectile and the rifling of the barrel and, consequently, were slower to load than muskets.

how would a break action solve that problem?

I'm not an expert, but looking at schematics suggests that break action is less mechanically complex than either the bolt or block action. With fewer moving parts, you only have to worry about the gun latching closed and sealing firmly. That might be more achievable than the other, more elaborate designs with late-eighteenth century technology, while still providing a high rate of fire.

 

[General Greene]

That's a good point about accuracy. I always thought the problem of loading a muzzle loader lying down was overstated, but since you always hear the line that you couldn't load them without standing up so I tired to compromise between my suspicion and what I've always heard by phrasing you couldn't remain concealed while doing so. You correctly identified the idea that made me choose that wording though and I thank you for that great reference to confirm a long held but unverified suspicion. I figured that it was just more difficult and so slower then loading a muzzle loader standing up and your info seems to indicate so.

I also appreciate the accurate and helpful explanation about rifled muskets, which was exactly why I used that comparison. I was trying to indicate that the percussion lock rifled musket of the ACW still had a lower rate of fire then the Ferguson rifle. I was pointing out that the Ferguson rifle not only had a higher rate of fire then rifles of the era for the reason you pointed out, it still had a higher rate of fire then the rifles of the 19th century which used the innovation of the Minie ball to posses the rate of fire of muskets. In other words, that it wasn't percussion locks that effected rate of fire, but loading technology.

Interesting thought about the break action, I'm still wondering if the problem was getting a good seal with breach loaders how the break action would solve that problem. Are you saying that with less moving parts they could have focused more on that problem?

 

[RodentRevolution]

I'm not an expert, but looking at schematics suggests that break action is less mechanically complex than either the bolt or block action. With fewer moving parts, you only have to worry about the gun latching closed and sealing firmly. That might be more achievable than the other, more elaborate designs with late-eighteenth century technology, while still providing a high rate of fire.

The problem with break action is similar to the issue experienced by the Armstrong breach in artillery to use an example you are probably very familiar with. The action is excellent, truly superb at the kind of pressures it can handle but has a low upper limit compared to other breech loading actions that it can handle.

I am not sure on the exact pressure threshold but given the indication I have seen it lacks the strength to withstand the kind of loading expected of a military rifle of the 1860s. Think the kind of pistol/carbine loads used in the Volcanic/Henry/Winchester family compared with the full military rifle loads of weapons like the Enfield P1853.

Further to General Greene's points though it is worth recalling that the gas seal on the Ferguson was not 100% effective...it was militarily effective in that the rifle achieved the range and penetration expected of a military rifle but Roberts and Brown who I have referred to before advise that you don't wear too broad brimmed a hat when firing one as you might get a bit of shock.

One point to consider about the mass issue of rifles and this is an area where I have not seen sufficient study, though I suspect the research must be out there, is that the quality of gun powder improved by leaps and bounds across the C18th and C19th. for example the powder loading of the Brown Bess family of muskets fell from 220 grains of powder to 165 grains by the Napoleonic Wars to 124 grains by the era of the percussion model.

The Ferguson rifle and indeed most contemporary military rifles was loaded with a much higher grade of powder while the long rifles of the Revolutionary War were designed to be able to use much lower quality powder than military musket grade.

I am not sure which grade of powder minie rifles and weapons like the Enfield and Springfield made use of.

Additional: okay I had a quick look at the Enfield P1853 wikipedia page which if accurate indicates a powder load of 68 grains for a 530 grain bullet which I think suggests a rifle grade of powder. If so it may well be that the improved manufacture of gun powder was one of the factors that influenced when the minie ball type rifle was adopted as a general arm.

 

[robcraufurd]

Interesting thought about the break action, I'm still wondering if the problem was getting a good seal with breach loaders how the break action would solve that problem. Are you saying that with less moving parts they could have focused more on that problem?

With a block or bolt action, the gun is effectively sealed with a relatively small piece of metal. That requires the piece of metal to be finely and accurately machined, otherwise gas escapes, and sufficiently strong to withstand the force of the detonation, otherwise the breech blows out. On the other hand, the break action basically cuts the gun in half and latches it back together when it needs to be fired. In effect, it's an updated version of the Tudor breech-loaders shown here in which the end of the gun was cut off and then wedged into place. The break action therefore depends on the strength of the latch that holds the gun together, and I suspect the technology of the 1780s was better fitted to create a solidly-latching break action than a tightly-fitting block or bolt. It's feasible to allow for greater tolerances between parts, for instance, by including a screw that cinches the barrel more tightly to the butt if it starts to leak gas through wear.

I am not sure on the exact pressure threshold but given the indication I have seen it lacks the strength to withstand the kind of loading expected of a military rifle of the 1860s.

But we're talking here about a military rifle of the 1780s:

What would have happened if British Major Patrick Ferguson instead of inventing the OTL Ferguson Rifle with its complex parts and easily fouled breech screw, invented a falling block breech loader like the sharps rifle and carbine of ACW fame?

What I'm suggesting is that the break action might have worked better in the period we're talking about, even if it ultimately proves to be a developmental dead end.

 

[RodentRevolution]

But we're talking here about a military rifle of the 1780s:

Which means if you are right...a break open lock is potentially a brilliant solution. Just we need to be careful about assuming that the engineering skills of the day could produce an effective sealed chamber to handle a 350 grains (approx 22 grams) 0.615" carbine ball and around 65 grains of rifle grade powder.

What I'm suggesting is that the break action might have worked better in the period we're talking about, even if it ultimately proves to be a developmental dead end.

Certainly a dead end technology would make it no worse than the Ferguson if it worked first time, after all the screw breech would not make the transition to integrated cartridge firearms while we know the break open system has at least some prospects in that regard.

 

[General Greene]

So read up a bit on the sharps and it sees that while the slant breech model had a significant gas leak problem, the M1859 sharps' breech significantly fixed this problem. While reproductions of the M1859 also have a breech seal problem, they apparently use a slightly different breech design that undoes the solution to the problem the original M1859 breech design found. After this vertical breech design, the M1859 didn't seem to have a significant problem with gas leaking from the breech. So with a paper cartridge loaded breach loading Rifle, does anyone think Ferguson could have gotten more traction for his invention? I figure the fact it needed poured loose powder, and because of that and some other reasons a well trained soldier to use it, put people off even if it did load faster then a muzzle loader.

 

[RodentRevolution]

So with a paper cartridge loaded breach loading Rifle, does anyone think Ferguson could have gotten more traction for his invention? I figure the fact it needed poured loose powder, and because of that and some other reasons a well trained soldier to use it, put people off even if it did load faster then a muzzle loader.

Well the thing is loose powder was normal, even when loading from paper cartridges which the Ferguson could do. You rip open the cartridge charge the pan and then charge the chamber then drop in the bullet and the rest of the cartridge as wadding (you might instead wrap the ball in a bit of felt or other fabric in a rifle) in a muzzle loader. The odd bit about the Ferguson would have been putting the bullet in first and then adding the powder but you can do that from a cartridge.

The thing about the cap lock was that it made it easy to have the percussion cap sitting at the back of the breach. The flint lock requires a bit more space. If Ferguson invented the percussion cap then rifle or not his fame would be sealed. The advantages of the cap lock over the flint lock are not just the superior reliability in common practice but its greater tolerance for wet weather. For example in the 1st Opium War a force of sepoys armed with flintlocks struggled to fight off an ad hoc Chinese force (which performed rather more aggressively than official Manchu troops it must be noted) because the rain dampened their powder. They were were relieved by a force of British regulars who had the newer cap lock version of the land pattern musket who were still able to fire at will.


I don't think it is a simple fix to make the perfect falling block rifle, note the original Sharps was patented in 1848 and entered production in 1850 and yet the fix on the gas seal did not come along till 1859 or thereabouts.

Ferguson patents his rifle in 1776, starts field testing it a little more than a year later and is dead, KIA at Kings Mountain before the end of 1780. One of the problems with judging his rifle is that we only have essentially the prototype model while the Sharps went through through at least three variants by my count before you get to the M1859.

A point to consider is that barring butterflies our man Ferguson is likely to be dead before he can improve his Ferguson(Sharps)