Firing a Blunderbuss

[MarkG]

Every now and then I see references that say that a blunderbuss was fired from the hip because of the recoil. I am more than a little skeptical, myself for several reasons:

1) At least some blunderbusses had curved shoulder stocks. My wife's cousin was showing me his over the weekend. It was heavily researched and had a curved shoulder piece. This just doesn't work when braced against the hip. You have to tilt it at a slight angle. A flat stock would work much better against the hip.

2) They were known for being used on ships on from coaches. On a ship your hip is going to be too low. On a coach, you are sitting down and your hip is in the wrong place.

3) I think that the idea of firing from the hip is based on the idea that you don't need to aim. Even with the spread from the blunderbuss, I don't know how much a blunderbuss spreads but a shotgun still has to be aimed, just not carefully. It seems like firing from the hip, you might miss your target completely.

Does anyone know of any period documentation that says how a blunderbuss was used?

Mark

[theM.A.dDogge]

lookin for reference....but seems I read that it was great sport to set up the new young officers...when they first come aboard to let them have a go at the Blunderbuss....in which the crewe would often have loaded heavey...and watch in great amusment where the new officer...being a huntsmen would put to the shoulder...and subsequently thoroughly dislocate their shoulder....then to be explained that it was to be fired under the arm...but up against part of the rail or deck

don't quote me...still lookin into where I saw that tidbit

now from practical use...a shotgun(with no sight) up to the shiulder has a tendency to fly high....bringing down (hip high) could bring it down considerably

did I mention i'm still lookin for a reference???

[Daniel]

Also, imagine firing the blunderbuss from closed quarters. The loopholes were built at shoulder level; there would be no way to fire it from the hip in that situation.

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

I don't know about historically, but I shoot with mine held in the crotch of my arm/elbow and extended away abit out front at chest level. I have seen several images of busses having their shoulder stock shortened to almost pistol grip. I have been considering doing mine that way too. I was thinking of having it carved like a Cello neck with a scroll at the end. I never fire from the shoulder, but couldn't begin to explain why, I just naturally picked-up the tendency to fire that way. (Had to get in another post or two before we disconnect).

Bo

[Cascabel]

I fire mine from the shoulder or from the hip, whichever is convenient. Even with a heavy load (live), the recoil is no worse than a 12 ga. shotgun. A blank load has very little recoil. I suppose you might get uncomfortable with a dangerously heavy overload, but with normal loads, it is not a problem. Mine has a stock similar to a Brown Bess musket with a nice wide buttplate to distribute the energy. Narrow butts, or very lightweight weapons can be a bit more uncomfortable, but not really much of a problem.

You really don't need to brace it against anything, just hold on to it tightly. Bracing against a solid object runs the risk of breaking the stock with a heavy load. It needs to have the recoil absorbed by being cushioned by your body, or being allowed to move back against the strength of your arms.

>>>>> Cascabel

[Littleneckhalfshell]

what about the 'rail gun' concept? http://www.icollector.com/English-brass-barreled-flintlock-blunderbuss-rail-gun-with-brass-yoke-and-furniture-cannon-shaped-m_i9323291

""English brass-barreled flintlock blunderbuss rail gun with brass yoke and furniture, cannon-shaped muzzle, maker William Wilson (London, 1760-1770), ex-Chalabis collection. About 14 lb, 38" overall, 22" barrel. A type of large gun known as an "espingoles," and typically placed in an oarlock to shoot at other ships,"" (picture on the site)

[Cascabel]

what about the 'rail gun' concept? http://www.icollecto...aped-m_i9323291

""English brass-barreled flintlock blunderbuss rail gun with brass yoke and furniture, cannon-shaped muzzle, maker William Wilson (London, 1760-1770), ex-Chalabis collection. About 14 lb, 38" overall, 22" barrel. A type of large gun known as an "espingoles," and typically placed in an oarlock to shoot at other ships,"" (picture on the site)

Placing it in an oarlock using the attached yoke does not concentrate the recoil forces on the wrist of the stock, as putting the butt against something solid does. If a stock gets broken for almost any reason, it usually breaks through the wrist, or through the area of the lock mortise, both of them are weak points. This includes dropping from high places, falling on them, using them as a club, etc. The rail guns were meant to be braced against the shoulder. The mount was mostly to support the weight of the piece, and steady the aim

>>>> Cascabel

[MarkG]

what about the 'rail gun' concept? http://www.icollecto...aped-m_i9323291

""English brass-barreled flintlock blunderbuss rail gun with brass yoke and furniture, cannon-shaped muzzle, maker William Wilson (London, 1760-1770), ex-Chalabis collection. About 14 lb, 38" overall, 22" barrel. A type of large gun known as an "espingoles," and typically placed in an oarlock to shoot at other ships,"" (picture on the site)

If this was a weapon then it probably used a hole in the rail placed just for this purpose. If you put it in an oarlock you couldn't aim it. You would have to aim the entire boat and you could only aim the boat with one oar since the other one would be replaced with the blunderbuss. That would work for a fowling gun. You could row your boat into cover then wait until migrating birds covered the water. Then it would not matter where you aimed. Fowlers usually had long barrel and a big bore but a blunderbuss could be used that way.

Mark

[Cascabel]

Every now and then I see references that say that a blunderbuss was fired from the hip because of the recoil. I am more than a little skeptical, myself for several reasons:

1) At least some blunderbusses had curved shoulder stocks. My wife's cousin was showing me his over the weekend. It was heavily researched and had a curved shoulder piece. This just doesn't work when braced against the hip. You have to tilt it at a slight angle. A flat stock would work much better against the hip.

Mark

Actually, the expression "firing from the hip" does not entail bracing it against the hip, but rather firing from hip level, pointing instinctively, rather than aiming from the shoulder held position. Recoil is absorbed by allowing the piece to move back or rise controlled by the strength of your arms. Not at all difficult.....

>>>> Cascabel

[MarkG]

Every now and then I see references that say that a blunderbuss was fired from the hip because of the recoil. I am more than a little skeptical, myself for several reasons:

1) At least some blunderbusses had curved shoulder stocks. My wife's cousin was showing me his over the weekend. It was heavily researched and had a curved shoulder piece. This just doesn't work when braced against the hip. You have to tilt it at a slight angle. A flat stock would work much better against the hip.

Mark

Actually, the expression "firing from the hip" does not entail bracing it against the hip, but rather firing from hip level, pointing instinctively, rather than aiming from the shoulder held position. Recoil is absorbed by allowing the piece to move back or rise controlled by the strength of your arms. Not at all difficult.....

>>>> Cascabel

While that may be true, some people take it literally. I've caught people on TV bracing a blunderbuss on their hip. I started this thread after seeing a link to a Buccaneer 101 course that said a blunderbuss had to be braced against the hip.

[Cascabel]

Every now and then I see references that say that a blunderbuss was fired from the hip because of the recoil. I am more than a little skeptical, myself for several reasons:

1) At least some blunderbusses had curved shoulder stocks. My wife's cousin was showing me his over the weekend. It was heavily researched and had a curved shoulder piece. This just doesn't work when braced against the hip. You have to tilt it at a slight angle. A flat stock would work much better against the hip.

Mark

Actually, the expression "firing from the hip" does not entail bracing it against the hip, but rather firing from hip level, pointing instinctively, rather than aiming from the shoulder held position. Recoil is absorbed by allowing the piece to move back or rise controlled by the strength of your arms. Not at all difficult.....

>>>> Cascabel

While that may be true, some people take it literally. I've caught people on TV bracing a blunderbuss on their hip. I started this thread after seeing a link to a Buccaneer 101 course that said a blunderbuss had to be braced against the hip.

If you try bracing a weapon with a shoulder stock against your hip, you will find it to be quite awkward, and also unnecessary. The recoil impulse is only momentary, and quite easily controlled with a strong grip. Of course, this assumes a reasonably normal load, rather than something that may exceed the strength of the breech. If you are around guns very much, you soon realize that there are a lot of "old wives tales" passed around as the gospel truth. This is especially true as applied to movies and TV !!

A blunderbuss is really nothing more than the 18th century version of a sawed-off shotgun, and some of those only have a pistol grip, and no butt stock at all.

>>>>> Cascabel

[callenish gunner]

I have fired my blunderbuss from the shouulder and have had no problem even using it with a minimal aim (Took down a deer at under 20 yards with a solid .79 ball) The kick wasn't any more than my Brown Bess.

And with the rampant misinformation about weapons and pirates floating around I would always take most claims by pirate/buccaneer "expert"sites with skeptisim unless they offer documentation of their information.

and from what i had learned "firing from the hip" had more too do later period handguns which were drawn from a hip worn holster -faster but not as accurate as looking down the barrel

Edited May 6, 2010 by callenish gunner

[gunner Gordon]

We seem to be talking about two distinctly different weapons that look almost identical. One, the "coach" gun, tends to have a full length stock and a 18 to 20 inch barrel with a swell on the muzzle. This weapon has a cylinder bore like a shotgun with the swell to facilitate loading on a moving surface like a coach or the deck of a ship. You can feel the bore just past the cannon barrel flare. It is intended to be fired primarily from the shoulder. The "blunderbuss" (handheld) is usually somewhat shorter with the stock itself being shorter. These weapons do not fit the shoulder fired venue as the pan is now in your face. I have had the flash in the pan on shipboard lifted out of the pan while still burning and blown into my face with muskets, nevermind the shorter blunderbuss doing the same thing. The bores of these weapons are usually tapered from bell to breech and have no caliber per say except the smallest point ,this being due to shot being the load. Nails and other scrape steel would not have been used (bronze tube) except by the ignorant or the desperate, it is an enduring myth. We must remember that these were the state of the art weapons of the time and expensive they were not regarded lightly. Used for watch duty to give a loud warning and the shooter an even chance at hitting something. The sheer number of variation attests to the interest in improving the weapon type.

Edited June 8, 2010 by gunner Gordon

[Captain Huntsman]

I've hipped mine, and shouldered it. Really it's all about your manner of comfort, and the load you're comfortable shooting.

if you've fired a shotgun before, you should be familiar with the recoil, and be prepared for it when you shoulder. I prefer to hip mine when I'm firing in a re-enactment, but I prefer to shoulder it while on a firing line.