Ramrods at reenactments

[The Ninth Ohio]

This has run its course.

Noted.

 

[SethJ]

After reading all this, I can say for certain that I will not be joining the artillery any time soon.

 

[Irishtom29]

Glad there weren't any archers.

Indeed. But it seems Charles the Bold's mercenary English longbow men gave the Swiss little if any trouble; I reckon the Swiss pike and halberdmen rolled right over them.

These Swiss reenactors look pretty tough.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Take up Medieval reenacting, no gunpowder or projectiles. Just best the dickens out of each other.

Gunpowder have been in use in europe from at leaste the 1340ties... At quality medieval events there are plenty of blackpowder used.

 

[Irishtom29]

Gunpowder have been in use in europe from at leaste the 1340ties... At quality medieval events there are plenty of blackpowder used.

I'm aware of the early use of gunpowder in Europe but was unaware Medieval reenactors used such weapons. But all I know is what I see on YouTube, which is mostly well armored eastern European guys beating the Hell out of each other.

 

[RedRover]

After reading all this, I can say for certain that I will not be joining the artillery any time soon.

Most of the artillery accidents mentioned, that regard reenactors or historical programs, are related to firing faster than necessary, or skipping some of the common or safest loading process.

Reenactors, for example, routinely "worm" out the tin-foil cartridge remnants immediately after each shot, which often comes out near entire (the tin foil itself does not burn up, like the historical flannel cartridge bags). This may be a "Reenactorism" but cleaning the bore thoroughly after each shot before loading is part of the means of preventing a premature detonation when ramming.
Also, the cartridge to be loaded should appear carefully assembled, and free of any holes exposing or leaking powder before it is placed in the muzzle to be rammed.

If anything appears amiss, any member of the crew might command "STOP," that the issue might be corrected, and the loading procedure continued.

In loading, it is best to act under the presumption that the piece WILL have a premature detonation at any time, and the crew position themselves accordingly and wear hearing protection (flesh colored ear plugs, etc.) This places the No. 1 man, who is ramming, in the most personal danger, as he is near the muzzle, and has his hands in front of the bore on introducing the rammer.

From 1977:

To reduce his exposure, they have the No. 1 man position his body behind the muzzle, and in ramming using only the right hand to actually ram with the hand under the staff, and WITHOUT placing the thumb around the staff... while wearing a farby welding glove.

From 1997:

Billy Gibbs suffered the loss of his right thumb, which evidently absorbed the blast, and the tops of his other fingers were burned.

Keeping the thumb out of the way is a big deal.

In ramming, the Number 1 does not want to expose the critical parts of the hand to the effects of the blast or being lacerated by the fired rammer in an accidental discharge...

By ramming with the palm up, without a grip, the thumb outward away from the muzzle, the least part of the hand is exposed to the effects of an accidental loading discharge...

Some use a tapered rammer head for reenacting, that won't necessarily snag No. 1's fingers if fired in loading...

And of course, the piece is best situated and pointed in a manner that IF it fires off the sponge/rammer, the flying rammer will not result in personal injury or property damage.

 

[thomas aagaard]

I'm aware of the early use of gunpowder in Europe but was unaware Medieval reenactors used such weapons. But all I know is what I see on YouTube, which is mostly well armored eastern European guys beating the Hell out of each other.

It is a full contact sport that is inspired by the medieval period...

Fun to watch, but It got very very little to do with history...
or if we do decide to see it as a sort of reenactment, then it is one of the most farby type of events out there...

And what they are trying to "recreate" is a tourney with footcombat... and not a fieldbattle where blackpowder firearms would be relevant.
But find events about the Hussite wars in "Bohemia" or the war of the roses in the UK, and you will see them in use.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

Most of the artillery accidents mentioned, that regard reenactors or historical programs, are related to firing faster than necessary,

or skipping some of the common or safest loading process.

I don't know why the quote split! Anyway - how often do you think, in the real CW, did artillery accidents happen because they were firing faster than necessary? I wonder if different commanders had better records, due to better training than others - like did Stonewall Jackson train his artillery better than ? (I have no clue on this as I'm not well-read in this field - heck, I'm NOT read in it at all). You read accounts about the "gun busting" and I've always wondered how that happened so now it must have been premature ignition. Oddly, my iPad just suggested "premature ignorance!"

This may be a "Reenactorism" but cleaning the bore thoroughly after each shot before loading is part of the means of preventing a premature detonation when ramming.

Why would that be Reenactorism? I've read the WHOLE series, or as we say, "I've taken my first circumnavigation" with Patrick O'Brian and his whole ship series. His Commander Jack, is ALWAYS, drilling the crew, at his own expense, on black powder, swabbing the gun, etc. And everyone lives in fear of sparks in the powder room, etc. and that is set in the closing years of the Napoleonic age, so they well-knew about premature detonation.

I think premature detonation is one of those things that somewhere in the distant past, in China, they learned the lore of VERY quickly. Like learning which mushrooms are poisonous or who made the original yoghurt and that kind of thing.

Edit: @redbob do you have anything to add - you are an artillery expert.

 

[RedRover]

I don't know why the quote split! Anyway - how often do you think, in the real CW, did artillery accidents happen because they were firing faster than necessary? I wonder if different commanders had better records, due to better training than others - like did Stonewall Jackson train his artillery better than ? (I have no clue on this as I'm not well-read in this field - heck, I'm NOT read in it at all). You read accounts about the "gun busting" and I've always wondered how that happened so now it must have been premature ignition. Oddly, my iPad just suggested "premature ignorance!"

So, it would appear that in combat the artillery, on certain occasions, could not fire fast enough! Including several rounds a minute, and when necessary without even sponging...

Two or three rounds a minute was perhaps what could be achieved by means of a well-drilled crew, following all procedures...

But sometimes they wanted to fire faster, in emergencies...

From 1776:

From the 1860s...

Or,

Or,

All of the drills required sponging between shots, so loading and firing without doing so was well known as extremely risky.

There have been discharges in loading, even after sponging. It was determined imperative that the sponge be damp, and not soaked, and that the vent be properly stopped, or "stulled"...

Why would that be Reenactorism? I've read the WHOLE series, or as we say, "I've taken my first circumnavigation" with Patrick O'Brian and his whole ship series. His Commander Jack, is ALWAYS, drilling the crew, at his own expense, on black powder, swabbing the gun, etc. And everyone lives in fear of sparks in the powder room, etc. and that is set in the closing years of the Napoleonic age, so they well-knew about premature detonation.

I think premature detonation is one of those things that somewhere in the distant past, in China, they learned the lore of VERY quickly. Like learning which mushrooms are poisonous or who made the original yoghurt and that kind of thing.

Edit: @redbob do you have anything to add - you are an artillery expert.

By "reenactorism" I meant tin-foil for cartridges in lieu of flannel powder bags, wearing welding-gloves, and worming between each shot to remove the remnants of the tin-foil cartridge, which 1860s field artillery didn't do.

The most careful reenactment cannon crews I've seen, don't fire any more than one round every few minutes, taking the time to thoroughly clean the bore with worm and sponge, etc., and go through the aiming procedure, in the mean time.

 

[SgtDarby8OVI]

Well, nobody can say that this topic didn't generate an interesting discussion. At the risk of offending the participants, getting stuff wrong, and/or endangering my mental health, I will attempt to summarize what we learned about using ramrods at reenactments.

Generally, the use of ramrods by infantry reenactors in battles was seen from different perspectives as: 1) a deviation from long-standing practice and a real safety hazard for the participants and spectators (me and other older reenactors), 2) not a big problem if the troops are properly trained (non reenactors who have never seen how little some units drill ), 3) not a problem at all since the ramrod won't go far, safety is not as important as authenticity, and battle reenactments are silly (campaigners), or 4) musket ramrods are not a big safety issue compared to artillery (artillerists and artilleryphiles). There were some anecdotal stories, a few oft-told tales of injuries past, and nary a mention of the most common rifled musket injury--the eyebrow searing flash caused by removing the cap from the nipple (or cone, for our more sensitive readers) prior to dumping powder down the barrel.

At this point, the thread went predictably sideways with a long debate over the method and merits of the field artillery loading and firing sequence, the pros and cons of modernized methods (compared to adhering strictly to period drills), and the gruesome examples from the last 500 years of what could go wrong when folks don't do it right. There was mention of aluminum foil (and possibly tin foil hats), beer cans (for shooting, not drinking), and various methods (both good and bad) of covering the vent hole to prevent premature ignition and the possible loss of thumbs. Eventually, we ended up on naval ships, talked about Master and Commander (a great movie), and then swung back to the discussion about field artillery, with another gory appearance by the flying arm.

Amidst this melange were the usual questions, asides, wry observations, excellent research, illustrative photos and primary sources, and some funny bits that make these threads so enjoyable. We learned many things, not the least of which is that medieval reenacting is safer due to the lack of gunpowder unless someone gets hit in the bodkin.

Interestingly, one of the questions I asked in the original post went unaddressed: what is the responsibility of commanders in setting or following safety rules? While event organizers are responsible for the placement (or misplacement) of spectators, the size and configuration of the battlefields, and the timing and length of battles, it is the army commanders, their staffs, and a bunch of officers on both sides who set the rules of engagement and leave it to unit commanders to carry them out accurately (or not) and safely (hopefully always). So, whenever we see units too close to one another (thus necessitating elevated fire, since unburned black powder can injure at close range), cutting through the spectators to attack an exposed flank, firing in a gaggle that eliminates rank and file distances, or behaving in some other unsafe way, we assume that their officers are either compliant with bad behavior or unable to control their men. File closers can only do so much if the troops lack training and the officers lack authority. Since its a hobby and rank is often awarded for reasons other than competance (much like the real war), is there more to be done at that level to assure safety?

It's clear that my alarm at this trend is not shared by all, but we covered some interesting ground, learned a bunch of stuff, and I appreciate all of the input.

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Well, nobody can say that this topic didn't generate an interesting discussion. At the risk of offending the participants, getting stuff wrong, and/or endangering my mental health, I will attempt to summarize what we learned about using ramrods at reenactments.

Generally, the use of ramrods by infantry reenactors in battles was seen from different perspectives as: 1) a deviation from long-standing practice and a real safety hazard for the participants and spectators (me and other older reenactors), 2) not a big problem if the troops are properly trained (non reenactors who have never seen how little some units drill ), 3) not a problem at all since the ramrod won't go far, safety is not as important as authenticity, and battle reenactments are silly (campaigners), or 4) musket ramrods are not a big safety issue compared to artillery (artillerists and artilleryphiles). There were some anecdotal stories, a few oft-told tales of injuries past, and nary a mention of the most common rifled musket injury--the eyebrow searing flash caused by removing the cap from the nipple (or cone, for our more sensitive readers) prior to dumping powder down the barrel.

At this point, the thread went predictably sideways with a long debate over the method and merits of the field artillery loading and firing sequence, the pros and cons of modernized methods (compared to adhering strictly to period drills), and the gruesome examples from the last 500 years of what could go wrong when folks don't do it right. There was mention of aluminum foil (and possibly tin foil hats), beer cans (for shooting, not drinking), and various methods (both good and bad) of covering the vent hole to prevent premature ignition and the possible loss of thumbs. Eventually, we ended up on naval ships, talked about Master and Commander (a great movie), and then swung back to the discussion about field artillery, with another gory appearance by the flying arm.

Amidst this melange were the usual questions, asides, wry observations, excellent research, illustrative photos and primary sources, and some funny bits that make these threads so enjoyable. We learned many things, not the least of which is that medieval reenacting is safer due to the lack of gunpowder unless someone gets hit in the bodkin.

Interestingly, one of the questions I asked in the original post went unaddressed: what is the responsibility of commanders in setting or following safety rules? While event organizers are responsible for the placement (or misplacement) of spectators, the size and configuration of the battlefields, and the timing and length of battles, it is the army commanders, their staffs, and a bunch of officers on both sides who set the rules of engagement and leave it to unit commanders to carry them out accurately (or not) and safely (hopefully always). So, whenever we see units too close to one another (thus necessitating elevated fire, since unburned black powder can injure at close range), cutting through the spectators to attack an exposed flank, firing in a gaggle that eliminates rank and file distances, or behaving in some other unsafe way, we assume that their officers are either compliant with bad behavior or unable to control their men. File closers can only do so much if the troops lack training and the officers lack authority. Since its a hobby and rank is often awarded for reasons other than competance (much like the real war), is there more to be done at that level to assure safety?

It's clear that my alarm at this trend is not shared by all, but we covered some interesting ground, learned a bunch of stuff, and I appreciate all of the input.

I believe I addressed that question fairly well by referencing how quickly men are rushed into the field with little or no drill.

To put it bluntly, the responsibility lies with the commander of a company and his NCOs. So many times over the last 35+ years I've seen people given stripes due to seniority, often to the detriment of safety and drill. It's the responsibility of NCOs to ensure the rest of the enlisted men are well drilled, practicing weapon safety, and ensuring other duties are taken care of. Instead, I see them on sutler row, at the weekend ball, or passed out in a tent from last night's festivities. While event schedules may sometimes provide time for company drill, I almost never see people in fours going over loading and firing motions, or (gasp) stacking arms.

If we claim to be educating the public, and that safety is paramount, the first step needs to be for everyone to know the drills, not to do things that will make people feel safer but still allow someone with little training to pop off a firearm.

 

[7thWisconsin]

Regarding ramrod safety in infantry units, that needs to be a whole chain of command issue, not just a ¨unit command¨ or ¨unit safety officer¨ or ¨event organizer¨ responsibility. While there are generally only a few artillery pieces present at any given event, with loading drill standards that are relatively easy to spot check, there are lots of muskets. Potentially one in the hands of every other guy present. Potentially, should an event allow ramming for the infantry, safety would have to start at the individual, proceed through the front rank #1, to the corporals, to the file closers, to the 1st Sergeant and commander, all the way up to event safety officers. Unlike the artillery, there´s no test to certify an infantryman before he takes the field. That sounds scary when you put it that bluntly, but on the one hand, that says at least a little about how basically safe most reenactors really are. We´ve all done stupid things with a musket if we´re being honest, and we have all seen stupid things done, but, you know, the large majority of us are pretty safety conscious and go home with all of our fingers, ears and eyes at the end of an event.
I don´t see the infantry using ramrods on a large scale in opposed firing any time soon. Small skirmishes, private events, demonstration firings, sure. I don´t see the paradigm shift to make using them common happening, though. The amount of new safety regulations that would need to be written, approved, accepted, diseminated and finally drilled don´t encourage me that it would be an improvement on the currect practice. As I earlier, the gun fires better and more reliably, and I like it better, but those are simply not worth the move heaven and earth effort that would be necessary to effect such a fundamental change in practice.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

I have learned an amazing amount on this thread.

Is it also fair to say that swabbing with a wet/damp sponge is equal to suddenly plunging a red hot pan into a sink of cold water - a definite no no for warping and ruining metal?

And, I wonder if there were ever any premature ignitions with an artillery crew riding away with a gun after they were limbered up and moving it with horses. That could have caused some crazy deaths and destruction for anyone behind them.

 

[RedRover]

I have learned an amazing amount on this thread.

Is it also fair to say that swabbing with a wet/damp sponge is equal to suddenly plunging a red hot pan into a sink of cold water - a definite no no for warping and ruining metal?

And, I wonder if there were ever any premature ignitions with an artillery crew riding away with a gun after they were limbered up and moving it with horses. That could have caused some crazy deaths and destruction for anyone behind them.

Warping the barrel was not the concern regarding an overly wet sponge. It was getting the powder of the next cartridge wet, whereby some of it might not explode, but burn slowly in the bore with bits of the burning woolen flannel powder bag.

Reenactors using tin-foil cartridges can avoid the issues of the burning flannel, but soaking any part of the cartridge powder, is still a concern.

As for limbering loaded, that was a definite no-no evidently. From the Instructions for Field Artillery:

 

[PrivateBrooke]

I don't have a dog in this fight, not being a reenactor myself, however as far as the participants are concerned it doesn't seem like a hobby fraught with danger generally, ramrods or no ramrods. My niece sky dives, a pal was killed when his motorcycle hit a truck, every once in a while a hunter is accidentally shot, horsey people occasionally get thrown, (I think an actor fellow ended up in a wheel chair from that). Is there a hobby outside of something like stamp collecting where no accidents ever occur?

John

I've been reenacting for five years. I've seen medical emergencies and injuries, not a single one of them had anything to do with a musket. I and multiple others went down with heat exhaustion at Gettysburg two years ago, one guy hurt himself by stepping in a hole he couldn't see in a farmer field during marching, another gave himself a concussion by not ducking under a branch in time, and a spectator tripped over a tree root. That's two injuries from trees have we considered banning those? Wool uniforms in heat? Not drilling because we might trip?

I had a concussion ice skating. Pretty much every figure skater has at least one, but you don't see us out there wearing helmets and pads. There's a degree of risk, we accept that. Maybe reenacting should too and do what's historically accurate? (besides the obvious)

 

[Uhlan]

As someone that's heard the sound of a ramrod going past their head and sticking in a tree a few feet behind, I vote against the use of ramrods in "opposed fire" demos, and feel any such perpetrator should be made to leave the event in handcuffs.
I retrieved said rammer and returned it to to the firer, across his face, he's as lucky to receive only one blow as I was to not catch his ramrod for him.
That was some 30+ years ago, and I still can hear that sound.

 

[Dan Kohli]

I have learned an amazing amount on this thread.

Is it also fair to say that swabbing with a wet/damp sponge is equal to suddenly plunging a red hot pan into a sink of cold water - a definite no no for warping and ruining metal?

And, I wonder if there were ever any premature ignitions with an artillery crew riding away with a gun after they were limbered up and moving it with horses. That could have caused some crazy deaths and destruction for anyone behind them.

It takes an awful lot to actually heat up an artillery barrel. Warping is not really a problem with cannons.

 

[7thWisconsin]

I've been reenacting for five years. I've seen medical emergencies and injuries, not a single one of them had anything to do with a musket. I and multiple others went down with heat exhaustion at Gettysburg two years ago, one guy hurt himself by stepping in a hole he couldn't see in a farmer field during marching, another gave himself a concussion by not ducking under a branch in time, and a spectator tripped over a tree root. That's two injuries from trees have we considered banning those? Wool uniforms in heat? Not drilling because we might trip?

I had a concussion ice skating. Pretty much every figure skater has at least one, but you don't see us out there wearing helmets and pads. There's a degree of risk, we accept that. Maybe reenacting should too and do what's historically accurate? (besides the obvious)

The most common reenacting injury is actually heat exhaustion. I´ve spent a llifetime pulling gear off of guys, moving them to shade, getting them to drink water and getting their buddies to watch them. Sometimes it´s worse, ut honestly not all that often. My 100 lb Labarador head butted me about a month ago. My forehead was sore to the touch for a week and I couldn´t really see straight for 2 days. By this account, having a Lab has given me a more serious wound than I´ve had in a lifetime of reenacting.

 

[James Brenner]

A tip o'the hat to everyone who is participating in this thread. The comments have been thoughtful, realistic, not too emotional, and based upon experience.

As I see it, the problem isn't so much about ramrods or tin foil, it's about the dumbing down of re-enacting and living history in general where guidelines are written to the lowest common denominator. It's insulting and unrealistic, but, as Walter Cronkite used to say, "and that's the way it is."

 

[The Ninth Ohio]

Regarding ramrod safety in infantry units, that needs to be a whole chain of command issue, not just a ¨unit command¨ or ¨unit safety officer¨ or ¨event organizer¨ responsibility. While there are generally only a few artillery pieces present at any given event, with loading drill standards that are relatively easy to spot check, there are lots of muskets. Potentially one in the hands of every other guy present. Potentially, should an event allow ramming for the infantry, safety would have to start at the individual, proceed through the front rank #1, to the corporals, to the file closers, to the 1st Sergeant and commander, all the way up to event safety officers. Unlike the artillery, there´s no test to certify an infantryman before he takes the field. That sounds scary when you put it that bluntly, but on the one hand, that says at least a little about how basically safe most reenactors really are. We´ve all done stupid things with a musket if we´re being honest, and we have all seen stupid things done, but, you know, the large majority of us are pretty safety conscious and go home with all of our fingers, ears and eyes at the end of an event.
I don´t see the infantry using ramrods on a large scale in opposed firing any time soon. Small skirmishes, private events, demonstration firings, sure. I don´t see the paradigm shift to make using them common happening, though. The amount of new safety regulations that would need to be written, approved, accepted, diseminated and finally drilled don´t encourage me that it would be an improvement on the currect practice. As I earlier, the gun fires better and more reliably, and I like it better, but those are simply not worth the move heaven and earth effort that would be necessary to effect such a fundamental change in practice.

I guess here it just becomes a fundamental disagreement, because if one is doing the correct drill, there is no need for a "paradigm shift."

Nothing new needs to be written, people just need to read and practice what was done back then.