Plausibility Check : Percussion cap in the 1780' ?

As we known, mercurium fulminate was discovered in 1800 by Howard. But some years before, french chemist Berthollet discovered the uses of silver fulminate. My idea is having a wealthy patron, the Duke of Orleans, Colonel General of the Hussars, gathering a team of "household scientists" in order to create a new carbine : Berthollet, former physician of the Orleans household, Lepage (who created a percussion lock in 1807 OTL), armorer of the Orleans household, and Lavoisier, still Director of the Powder and Salpetrae Administration, with ancient links to Orleans. OTL, the new hussars carbine was the model 1786. Is it possible to have a working percussion lock carbine by the end of the 1780' ?
 
As we known, mercurium fulminate was discovered in 1800 by Howard. But some years before, french chemist Berthollet discovered the uses of silver fulminate. My idea is having a wealthy patron, the Duke of Orleans, Colonel General of the Hussars, gathering a team of "household scientists" in order to create a new carbine : Berthollet, former physician of the Orleans household, Lepage (who created a percussion lock in 1807 OTL), armorer of the Orleans household, and Lavoisier, still Director of the Powder and Salpetrae Administration, with ancient links to Orleans. OTL, the new hussars carbine was the model 1786. Is it possible to have a working percussion lock carbine by the end of the 1780' ?

The Percussion Cap was THE definitive military invention of the first half of the 19th Century, and by itself increased infantry firepower by about 25%. If it could be made a relatively common implement in the French Army by say, 1805, its likely you could drag the Napoleonic Wars for several years and greatly increase casualties. You could also throw in an earlier Nessler Bullet for good measure.
 
The Percussion Cap was THE definitive military invention of the first half of the 19th Century, and by itself increased infantry firepower by about 25%. If it could be made a relatively common implement in the French Army by say, 1805, its likely you could drag the Napoleonic Wars for several years and greatly increase casualties. You could also throw in an earlier Nessler Bullet for good measure.

Interesting. What could be the POD for the Nessler being known earlier ?
 
Interesting. What could be the POD for the Nessler being known earlier ?

The technical means of achieving such are beyond my graps, alas, but my readings on it do make it seem a rather simple invention and once that can be quickly produced once created.
 

longsword14

Banned
As we known, mercurium fulminate was discovered in 1800 by Howard. But some years before, french chemist Berthollet discovered the uses of silver fulminate. My idea is having a wealthy patron, the Duke of Orleans, Colonel General of the Hussars, gathering a team of "household scientists" in order to create a new carbine : Berthollet, former physician of the Orleans household, Lepage (who created a percussion lock in 1807 OTL), armorer of the Orleans household, and Lavoisier, still Director of the Powder and Salpetrae Administration, with ancient links to Orleans. OTL, the new hussars carbine was the model 1786. Is it possible to have a working percussion lock carbine by the end of the 1780' ?
Yes. It would be very hard though.
It helps to have an ignition mechanism that does not flash a few inches away from your face, but other than that is it worth the effort ?
The process would be costly, but I believe it is even possible to make reliable breech loaders with cartouches as in Dreyse and Chassepot. I do not know how much effort it would take to rifle barrels in bulk.
Actually you do not even need to do that, it is possible to make a relatively simple muzzle-loader that self primes by penetrating through the cartridge paper and using a hollow pin to acquire a pinch of powder. Combine it with an internal mechanism as in a wheel lock and you can have the weapon you want without percussion caps.
 
Yes. It would be very hard though.
It helps to have an ignition mechanism that does not flash a few inches away from your face, but other than that is it worth the effort ?
The process would be costly, but I believe it is even possible to make reliable breech loaders with cartouches as in Dreyse and Chassepot. I do not know how much effort it would take to rifle barrels in bulk.
Actually you do not even need to do that, it is possible to make a relatively simple muzzle-loader that self primes by penetrating through the cartridge paper and using a hollow pin to acquire a pinch of powder. Combine it with an internal mechanism as in a wheel lock and you can have the weapon you want without percussion caps.

I do know much about weapon's history, but was not faster reloading the main advantage of percussion caps ? It would be interesting to see fully self-contained paper cartridge, but I do not see a working PoD. Did there were plans for a weapon such as the one you describe at the time ?
 

longsword14

Banned
I do know much about weapon's history, but was not faster reloading the main advantage of percussion caps ? It would be interesting to see fully self-contained paper cartridge, but I do not see a working PoD. Did there were plans for a weapon such as the one you describe at the time ?
Does it make that much of a difference? Other than priming everything else is the same for a muzzle-loader. I have seen three pieces in a museum but not in active service.
The one great advantage is that your gun would fire even if it rains.
The gun you want can be made, if only somebody tries hard to find a method of storing fulminates with acceptable risks.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The main advantage of the percussion cap is twofold - fewer misfires and fewer misses (because of the reduced size of the explosion in your face).

I can't find the reference at the moment, but British trials showed that flintlocks both misfired more often and generated fewer hits out of non-misfire shots. (This is musket v musket.) Obviously there's also an advantage in the rain.

So it doesn't really change things much if both sides have percussion - the ballistics are pretty much the same - but if one side does then it gives them a considerable advantage.
 
The Percussion Cap was THE definitive military invention of the first half of the 19th Century, and by itself increased infantry firepower by about 25%. If it could be made a relatively common implement in the French Army by say, 1805, its likely you could drag the Napoleonic Wars for several years and greatly increase casualties. You could also throw in an earlier Nessler Bullet for good measure.

the main advantage of the cap is improved all weather performance. Could you explain the mechanics of it increasing firepower? to do so would have to be either speed of reload, or increased efficiency of the gunpowder combustion. (edit: could also be due to misfire of flintlock systems as noted by others)

Considering that as soon as Forsythe's patents expire, and caps can be widely used, and virtually everyone switched to cap systems, including retrofitting existing weapons, yes, it must make a difference.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Aha!

http://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/brown-bess-2/


In the early 1800’s, the British government conducted tests on the effectiveness of the Brown Bess. The Reverend Alexander John Forsyth (1768-1843) of Scotland, in 1807, patented fulminating powder made of fulminate of mercury, chlorate of potash, sulphur and charcoal which was ignited by concussion: the birth of the percussion cap. At Forsyth’s request, a series of flintlock vs. percussion cap tests were conducted in 1834. Six thousand rounds were fired under all kinds of weather from six of each type of musket. Results for the flintlock; 922 misfires (1 in 6.5 attempts), and for the percussion cap; 36 misfires (1 in 166 attempts). The flintlock hit its target (unfortunately the size and range of the target was not recorded or lost to history) 3,680 times and the percussion cap 4,047.

The increase is less dratic than I'd remembered, though it's of course possible that there were confounding variables. Certainly if I were an infantryman I'd feel more confident if my gun didn't misfire 15% of the time, and that in itself is important.
 
the main advantage of the cap is improved all weather performance. Could you explain the mechanics of it increasing firepower? to do so would have to be either speed of reload, or increased efficiency of the gunpowder combustion. (edit: could also be due to misfire of flintlock systems as noted by others)

Considering that as soon as Forsythe's patents expire, and caps can be widely used, and virtually everyone switched to cap systems, including retrofitting existing weapons, yes, it must make a difference.

You pretty much hit it on the head with regards to an increase in reloading speeds and greater efficiency. Here's some comparison videos between an ARW flintlock and a Civil War era percussion cap rifle to give you an idea. Given that ATL French with their percussion caps would likely retain the round ball, they're going to be even faster at reloading due to a lack of Minie ammunition to slow them down.
 

longsword14

Banned
You pretty much hit it on the head with regards to an increase in reloading speeds and greater efficiency. Here's some comparison videos between an ARW flintlock and a Civil War era percussion cap rifle to give you an idea. Given that ATL French with their percussion caps would likely retain the round ball, they're going to be even faster at reloading due to a lack of Minie ammunition to slow them down.
What is wrong with Minie ammunition?
 
the main advantage of the cap is improved all weather performance. Could you explain the mechanics of it increasing firepower? to do so would have to be either speed of reload, or increased efficiency of the gunpowder combustion. (edit: could also be due to misfire of flintlock systems as noted by others)
I'm not exactly an expert on muskets but from what I remember percussion caps tended to be placed over a narrow tube that led down to the base of the barrel while flintlock muskets with flash pans were more open with the result of more combustion gases being forced out the muzzle rather than back out the touch hole.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
What is wrong with Minie ammunition?
The minie ball isn't round, and as such doesn't fit in the rifle at all orientations. It's easier than a non-minie rifle round, but it's harder than a round ball down a smooth bore. (It's a matter of a handful of seconds if not bothering to aim, but that's the difference between three and five shots per minute.)

Of course, in OTL the British at least took the time to aim with their minie balls, so dropped down to two shots per minute (from five for the Brown Bess for the best trained troops) - though those shots had something like ten to twenty times the chance of hitting, and at longer ranges to boot.
But that's by the by.
 
What is wrong with Minie ammunition?

With a round ball in a smoothbore, it could just roll down the barrel but with the Minie you had to make sure it went in the right way as well as be careful loading it otherwise you could deform it. If I understand it correctly, its why they used the ramrod at 45 degree angle in the Civil War video.
 

longsword14

Banned
The minie ball isn't round, and as such doesn't fit in the rifle at all orientations. It's easier than a non-minie rifle round, but it's harder than a round ball down a smooth bore. (It's a matter of a handful of seconds if not bothering to aim, but that's the difference between three and five shots per minute.)

Of course, in OTL the British at least took the time to aim with their minie balls, so dropped down to two shots per minute (from five for the Brown Bess for the best trained troops) - though those shots had something like ten to twenty times the chance of hitting, and at longer ranges to boot.
But that's by the by.
A person cannot simply drop it like a loose round lead ball but then it should not be that hard either, there is a gap enough to slip it in. If you know which end has lead then simply bite it off and drop it.The ramrods though were different with a negative impression of the conical head present on the ramming side.
Minie balls are not good for really long range shots, lacing a boat-tail.
I had read somewhere about it having a parabolic trajectory (something every projectile has yet this remark was made especially while describing the rifle's features); does this have something to do with the enormous drag experience leading to greater drop ?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I had read somewhere about it having a parabolic trajectory (something every projectile has yet this remark was made especially while describing the rifle's features); does this have something to do with the enormous drag experience leading to greater drop ?
The Minie ball was slow - the Enfield rifle had something like 75% the speed of the Brown Bess. This is probably the cause of stressing the parabolic trajectory in histories.
c.1115 fps for the Enfield rifle, compared to c.1500fps for the Brown Bess. What that means is that the shot is not only highly affected by the wind, but takes a very long, curved parabolic trajectory to its objective. This makes the ability to judge range extremely critical: if you misjudge, particularly at those longer ranges, you're likely to send the ball either flying over the head of your opponent or lodge it in the ground at his feet. This is why the British spend so much time practicing range estimation before they let their soldiers fire a rifle.

While the rifle can certainly hit a target 500 yards away - and trained users did, in fact trained users could hit a man sized target as often as not at that range* - if you simply point it straight at the enemy you will miss at more than a couple of hundred yards.
It's hard to find examples in the Civil War of rifles being used in this (carefully aimed, long range) way except by the sharpshooters, so for most troops (arguably) the minie ball rifle was something of a disadvantage compared to a modern-quality smoothbore percussion musket.

It was certainly better for morale though.

*the targets used were broader than a man but as high as one, and since elevation was the main problem for long range rifle fire this roughly holds. I can dig out the 1861 British Enfield stats if anyone's interested, but it's getting a little late-in-history compared to 1780s era musketry.
 
Top