Flintlock vs. Percussion misfire rate

[trice]

I was looking for data on the rate of misfires in flintlock and percussion muskets. I came across the following at https://weaponsandwarfare.com/british-army-1820-45/ and wondered how accurate it might be. I'd appreciate any thoughts anyone might have. Thanks in advance.

The following discusses the situation from 1807 on. The Reverend Alexander Forsythe had just received his patent for a percussion lock -- Forsythe had just been tossed out of the Tower laboratory by the incoming Master General of the Ordnance, Lord Chatham.

... No military use was made of the invention for the next twenty-seven years, by which time similar devices had been made in Britain, France, and the United States.​

​

In 1834, at last, the Board of Ordnance again took an interest. Trials were held at 'Woolwich at which six percussion muskets were tried against six standard flintlocks. The result was overwhelming. The percussion type was found to be twenty-six times more reliable and, after the Duke of Wellington had made his own exhaustive tests with his own sporting guns, orders were given for all British muskets to be converted to percussion, a change completed in 1842. Forsythe was given a grant of £200 but the extraordinary meanness of this award raised a public outcry and a pension of £1,000 was added. The first instalment of this was paid on II June 1843, the day on which he died. The introduction of the percussion cap greatly increased the reliability of the musket, reducing the number of misfires from two in thirteen to almost nil. It did nothing to increase the rate of fire, indeed it may have slowed it down while the soldier fumbled for the little cap in his pouch. Nor did it do anything to increase the range of the musket. This could only be done by introducing rifling and, as long as muzzle-loading weapons remained standard, the problem remained of how to force the ball down the barrel. In France, Captain Delvigne in 1826 had designed a musket which, at the rear end of the barrel, had a chamber of smaller calibre which was filled with powder. The ball was rolled down the barrel until it rested on the shoulders of this chamber and then tapped sharply with the ramrod. Being of lead it was expanded by the tapping so that it now fitted into the rifling grooves. Delvigne rifles were issued to a battalion of Chasseurs d'Afrique in 1838. At about the same time the British were also issuing a new weapon to the Rifle Brigade. This was the Brunswick rifle which had only two rifling grooves which made one turn in the length of the barrel (30 inches). The ball was equipped with a belt which fitted into the grooves, enabling it to be spun down the barrel. The Brunswick was as accurate at 300 yards as its predecessor, the Baker, was at 200 but it was unpopular with the Riflemen. It was two pounds heavier than the Baker and fouling in the grooves soon made it very difficult to load especially as the belt on the ball was often damaged in the pouch. It was, however, the first percussion weapon issued to any army.​

 

[Conquerordie]

Not surprised. Think about it, with a flintlock you have the flint that can get powder built up on it, and it doesn't spark. The edge of the flint gets beaten and it's won't spark right. The touch hole will foul and plug, and the gun won't go off. The powder can shift away from the touchhole, and the gun won't go off. The powder in the pan can get wet, and the gun won't go off.
I love shooting flinters, and you get use to mitigating these things, but with a percussion, it's a bad cap or fouled nipple.

 

[Craig L Barry]

To say nothing of the problems in wet weather...however, the flintlock was the standard system of ignition for close to two hundred years.

 

[Old Soldier]

Having said and read all that, the 'successor' to the copper cap was Maynard Tape Primer - an early attempt to increase the rate of fire. It just didn't work effectively, mainly because the materials did not stand up in the field. It was given a chance with the Springfield M1855 but it fouled easily with mud and was very susceptible to simple moisture. Luckily, the M1855 was designed to take the standard cap as well, so still remained a viable, effective weapon.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

My 1967 Chevy Chevelle car with the eight cylinder block (I traded it for my wife, so to speak) worked well, but there is no doubt that later automobiles were far better in many ways, no matter the fond thoughts I have for my first car!
Same with changes in arms.

 

[Old Soldier]

My 1967 Chevy Chevelle car with the eight cylinder block (I traded it for my wife, so to speak) worked well, but there is no doubt that later automobiles were far better in many ways, no matter the fond thoughts I have for my first car!
Same with changes in arms.

True. But having gunpowder igniting just in front of your nose is a bit off-putting to start with - especially when there is no alternative.

 

[C. Cash]

You just have to work a little harder with flint(such as periodically changing out your pan powder, keeping the frizzen/pan dry, keeping the jaws tight/flint aligned and picking the touch hole.) All simple to do. For a person with a high quality rifle and understanding of flintlock function, a flintlock is highly, highly reliable. A cheaper, ill designed flint or caplock or the mismanagement of ones rifle will lead to unmatched frustration. Both can easily give you fits. The operator and components/set up are key. For any real data you would have to control for those factors.

 

[trice]

You just have to work a little harder with flint(such as periodically changing out your pan powder, keeping the frizzen/pan dry, keeping the jaws tight/flint aligned and picking the touch hole.) All simple to do. For a person with a high quality rifle and understanding of flintlock function, a flintlock is highly, highly reliable. A cheaper, ill designed flint or caplock or the mismanagement of ones rifle will lead to unmatched frustration. Both can easily give you fits. The operator and components/set up are key. For any real data you would have to control for those factors.

I am sure you are right, but for the army the control would be how well things worked in a battalion of infantry firing in combat conditions. An individual like you would probably be far above the average skill level of an early Nineteenth Century infantryman on the matters you are mentioning -- and combat conditions might make it difficult for the average soldier to be doing the things you are describing. I am just guessing, though.

 

[Old Soldier]

I am sure you are right, but for the army the control would be how well things worked in a battalion of infantry firing in combat conditions. An individual like you would probably be far above the average skill level of an early Nineteenth Century infantryman on the matters you are mentioning -- and combat conditions might make it difficult for the average soldier to be doing the things you are describing. I am just guessing, though.

The skill level of an early 19th Century regular infantryman would be far above any enthusiast today. They practiced those skills daily until they were automatic - and continued the daily practice. The methodology behind the training and drills was crude and unsophisticated, many were beaten black and blue before they were up to standard, but they either reached that standard - or they were out. There are stories about the soldiers who received mortal wounds, but did not drop until the musket was fired - completing the drill. If the flint was not up to par they would replace it, they carried spare flints. If their musket failed in battle, they picked up a good one from the many casualties. These skills were so automatic that the stress of combat had no effect on them - THAT was the whole idea of drilling. No, they would not be able to explain what they were doing or why, but they didn't have to - just carry out those drills.

 

[trice]

The skill level of an early 19th Century regular infantryman would be far above any enthusiast today. They practiced those skills daily until they were automatic - and continued the daily practice. The methodology behind the training and drills was crude and unsophisticated, many were beaten black and blue before they were up to standard, but they either reached that standard - or they were out. There are stories about the soldiers who received mortal wounds, but did not drop until the musket was fired - completing the drill. If the flint was not up to par they would replace it, they carried spare flints. If their musket failed in battle, they picked up a good one from the many casualties. These skills were so automatic that the stress of combat had no effect on them - THAT was the whole idea of drilling. No, they would not be able to explain what they were doing or why, but they didn't have to - just carry out those drills.

I agree completely with what you just said. I think my point was that expecting individual Nineteenth Century soldiers to do something out of the ordinary would be wrong. They would do what they were drilled to do and just about nothing else.

 

[Don Dixon]

Back to the original question:

The French Army introduced the flintlock in 1680, and for 160 years the flintlock musket was the king of battle. Countries do not long survive if they do not provide their armies with rugged, simple, easy to operate, and economical weapons, which explains the hesitance to replace the system. Use of the flintlock was not without problems, however. The flash from the pan and the main charge directly in front of a soldier's eyes made it difficult to aim and follow through, making an accurate shot difficult. Gunpowder fouling on the frizzen could cause the flint to slip on the frizzen rather than produce sparks. The priming pan was not watertight, and even a mild rain could dampen the priming powder in the pan and mean that a soldier's weapon would not fire. Even high humidity could represent a problem. Prussian Field Marshal Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher is said to have complained regarding this situation: "Alle Kunst ist Umsonst Wenn ein Engel in das Zündloch prünst" [All skill is in vain when an angel pisses in your flintlock]. Strong winds made it difficult to prime the pan and could even blow powder out of the pan. The flints used in the locks were also problematic. Splitting and dressing them required skilled labor, and since they were a natural product they were prone to breakage.

The Austrian Army's experience was that even with good flints a military flintlock weapon would fail to fire on the first try 15 to 20 percent of the time in good weather and 50 percent of the time in the rain. Consequently, there was great interest on its part, and on the part of other armies, in another ignition system which would be at least as reliable as the flintlock and might serve to replace it in military service. The failure rate for System Console tubelock primers was 10 percent. Baron von Augustin resigned the tubelock primer several times and in 1845 changed the primer filler mixture to half fulminate of mercury and half gunpowder, which reduced the primer failure rate to 0.5 percent. The comparable failure rate for percussion caps when the k.k. Army went to the System Lorenz percussion system in 1854 was 0.1 to 0.3 percent.

This was the experience in a large, thoroughly trained, professional force.

Regards,
Don Dixon

 

[thomas aagaard]

The skill level of an early 19th Century regular infantryman would be far above any enthusiast today. They practiced those skills daily until they were automatic - and continued the daily practice. The methodology behind the training and drills was crude and unsophisticated, many were beaten black and blue before they were up to standard, but they either reached that standard - or they were out. There are stories about the soldiers who received mortal wounds, but did not drop until the musket was fired - completing the drill. If the flint was not up to par they would replace it, they carried spare flints. If their musket failed in battle, they picked up a good one from the many casualties. These skills were so automatic that the stress of combat had no effect on them - THAT was the whole idea of drilling. No, they would not be able to explain what they were doing or why, but they didn't have to - just carry out those drills.

You are correct about your base point. If you train something sufficiently, it become muscle memory and that do allow you do do it even under extreme stress.
(As the saying goes "in combat you don't raise to the occasion, you fall to the level of your training)

Now I never been in combat. But when doing my mandatory military service I learned one way to react to a target showing up at very close range.(very quick shot with my side turned, then go to ground and fire again) And we drilled that a lot. including a lot of live firing.

Then a few years later as a professional soldier I had to learn a new method. (The first shot should be properly aimed with the front of my body turned to the enemy, then kneel and fire again)
Even with a lot of practices over two full workdays I was still not able to actually override my musclememory when I on the 3rd day had to do it with live ammo on a firing range. I was mentally telling myself "remember the new method" but when the first target flipped up, I used the old. And then managed to change to the new for the rest of the walk.

The issue is when you need to do things that was not part of the daily drill. In the case of acw soldiers, we are talking critical parts of the loading. Like removing the bullet from the paper, and inserting it in the rifle with the correct end up. It is hard to practice without a cartridge that you can open. And handling the percussion cap. Or for that matter setting the sights on the actual range

 

[Old Soldier]

The ordinary line soldier would only progress up the NCO rankings by being a 'good soldier'. Even the riflemen who managed to take out generals at 300 yards would just get a pat on the back - and perhaps a sovereign or silver dollar from his officer. The corporals were basically small group organisers for daily rations and sleeping before progressing to that terror of the enlisted man - the Serjeant (old spelling). His job was to help the junior officers organise the smaller units - platoon. Most did the job for them because the junior officers were still learning and had 'better things' to do. The man with all the power in the field was the company commander aided and abetted by the Company Serjeant. They were the only ones expected to show a bit of foresight. Poor old Joe, Tommy, Johnny had to be a skilled musketeer, fit and ready for action - and let the others decide about where to go and where and when to open fire

 

[Old Soldier]

Now I never been in combat. But when doing my mandatory military service I learned one way to react to a target showing up at very close range.(very quick shot with my side turned, then go to ground and fire again) And we drilled that a lot. including a lot of live firing.

Then a few years later as a professional soldier I had to learn a new method. (The first shot should be properly aimed with the front of my body turned to the enemy, then kneel and fire again)
Even with a lot of practices over two full workdays I was still not able to actually override my musclememory when I on the 3rd day had to do it with live ammo on a firing range. I was mentally telling myself "remember the new method" but when the first target flipped up, I used the old. And then managed to change to the new for the rest of the walk.

I trained with the Army Cadet Force using the same basic fieldcraft as the regular army - but armed with a bolt-action rifle - the old No4. When I joined the Regular Army I had to learn to do it all again with the SLR (the UK FN FAL). New gun, new skills. I was with the Territorials when we swapped over to the (dreaded) SA-80 Once again - a completely new set of skills and little time to get it right! With the old No4 and SLR, it was kneel for first shot and roll to cover. Then with the SA-80 we did as Thomas did, as the first target was much closer! Waaaaa! Did I get told off!

 

[thomas aagaard]

At least in the Danish army in 1810 the preferred professional soldier for the line battalions where in his early 30ties.
Because he was expected to be more calm and steady in the line. than a young man.

Poor old Joe, Tommy, Johnny had to be a skilled musketeer, fit and ready for action - and let the others decide about where to go and where and when to open fire

Except when fighting in skirmish order. Then the individual soldier had to take cover, pick a target and fire on their own.
And across the first part of the 19th century this just became more and more common. And with the light infantry started to get rifles, we do start to see the first modern infantrymen.

It is two rather different mindsets that is needed. And that was a challenge for some states. (like Austria in the 1860ties)

The best example I have of the two mindsets needed is of the Danish army in 1849, during the 1st sleswig war.
The fighting in 1848 had been done by the standing army made up of the 22-23 year-old men doing their mandatory service, with the men who where 24-25 to get the battalions up to full wartime strength.

In 1849 the older "classes" had been called up and they where organized as Reserve line battalions (26-29) and reinforcement line battalions.(30-33)
The older classes where almost all used in line infantry.
But a number of the regular line battalioned (so the young men) had been converted into light infantry and focused on the fighting in heavy skirmish lines.
Young men where seen as quicker, not only physically, but also as thinkers, more likely to do things by them self and take initiative... or even go against orders.
Where the older men where seen as more disciplined and steady. And as such less likely to take initiative.

And both where seen by the army as a good thing and a bad thing depending on the situation.

And the fact that the army in 1848 was made up of men with no rights to vote, but in the 1849 army everyone had it also gave the army some problems. The very harsh discipline you can have in an army of (forced) conscripts is not the same as what can be done when all you privates are citizens with a constitutional right to vote and be elected for political office.

(In 1850 this age structure was effectively gone because of reorganization and both two new young classes being called up but used to fill existing units)

 

[Old Soldier]

Except when fighting in skirmish order. Then the individual soldier had to take cover, pick a target and fire on their own.
And across the first part of the 19th century this just became more and more common.

This was a standard practice in close country - mountain, hills, forests, jungle. Alpine troops were trained for that, as was the specialist Light infantry and rifle regiments. Many regiments had a 'light infantry company'. However, for the Line regiment to fight in skirmish order was a matter of retraining ALL the companies initially and in the issue of shorter rifles. In many cases the inadequacies of the training showed in casualty figures. It did depend who the enemy was and what tactics they used. Most of the British army's whole regiment skirmishing experience was abroad, especially in Africa and Asia.

To get back to the subject, if you fought in a 'mass' , a line of company strength, a few misfires were unimportant so the flintlock was perfectly adequate. Once the percussion system became established, the soldier could rely on his firearm to fire first time and an open formation became more viable. The rifle musket merely extended the range. Trouble is, the old training and formations were still considered important for the company commanders and their support NCOs and, as you describe, the need for 'thinking on your feet' became more important - but never admitted by the 'old soldier'. As technology advanced, so the tactics changed especially with the introduction of breech-loading rifles, then magazine rifles.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

What an excellent thread, and I'm writing this to bring it up to the top of the forum!

 

[SeaTurtle]

Folks here are talking about drills and how a professional soldier could become proficient enough, through endless routine, to deal with misfires in a flintlock... But I think it's worth remembering that not everyone fighting in the ACW was either a professional soldier or had the benefit of extensive drills before being thrown into combat.

"Many regiments went into combat only three weeks after being organized."

Discipline & Training of Soldiers – Civil War Leadership

Given this situation, I don't think it's fair for us to compare what a modern flintlock enthusiast, or even a pre-war soldier, could achieve compared to an ACW volunteer/draftee being thrown into their first shootout with less than a month's training. I think in the reality of ACW conditions, a caplock musket was far better suited to a hastily-trained recruit than a flintlock could ever be. Caplocks are just naturally more reliable weapons, and easier to get used to for a first-time shooter than a flintlock (others have already mentioned the mini-explosion right in front of your face on a flintlock, something you don't have to get accustomed to in a caplock).

 

[Old Soldier]

The Civil War was NOT a flintlock war. It was well into the percussion era. Flintlocks were issued in lieu of available percussion weapons but quickly replaced. How many actually saw front-line service in the hands of new soldiers?

As for training and experience - they were drilled night and day until they could do the job. As I stated earlier - no one told them the principles of operation, no one explained trajectory, they just got drill, drill, drill. The better units did it on a regular basis, the poorer ones didn't. They probably reached a higher standard quicker than many seem to think. NO, they would not be marksmen or even to regular soldier standard, but trained to fire as ordered, by rank, by company, to put down a wall of lead into the opposition.
(Note: Many Lee-Enfield No4 MkI* made by Long Branch and Savage after 1942 had no ladder back-sight but just a 90 degree flip aperture sight at 300 and 600 yards (the MkII) a la Sterling. It was considered that these were all the 'average' rifleman would need in the field - and were quicker to produce.)

They will have been taught a misfire drill and that is all they would need to do - and get a kick in their *** if the weapon hadn't been cleaned properly - to standard. THAT was the Sergeant's job - a good sergeant gave a good platoon. In battle, they always had a last resort - their bayonet.

 

[SeaTurtle]

The Civil War was NOT a flintlock war.

Don't believe anybody here was saying it was...

As for training and experience - they were drilled night and day until they could do the job.

They were drilled night and day until they were needed in combat. Whether every soldier had received enough training to be truly proficient with their weapons by that point, is something I'd question. Three weeks seems pretty short, especially if not all of that is spent actually firing live ammunition. As you say, in that amount of time they could have learned enough to stand in a line and dump lead in the general direction of the enemy, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't automatically assume, just because a flintlock can be fired without any issues by a modern enthusiast (as C. Cash said above) that the same could be said for some recruit who's had the gun in his hands less than a month.

How many actually saw front-line service in the hands of new soldiers?

Considering that flintlocks seem to have been mostly used in the early-war period, I'd say the likelihood of a flintlock being found in the hands of a new soldier was higher than being found in the hands of a veteran one. Most of the cases I've found of flintlocks being issued in the Civil War were to early-war units (often militias or regiments from areas outside the big industrial zones of the country) as a stop-gap until they could get a hold of percussion guns.