Those heavy duty bullet stopping woolley overcoats of yesteryear!! (pics)

[The real Henry]

I just got this nice thing for the winter:

http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=R8&satitle=220031704769%09&category0=&fvi=1


It's rather from the 50s and as it's from Germany I'm happy about that fact, because I for sure wouldn't feel good while walking around in a WWII nazi coat.

I'll change the button and than take pics.

Regards,
Henrik

 

[Sunny]

That is a good story Spitfire. In the 1860's I assume the Austria cavalry was probably using smoothbore muskets firing round balls. With blackpowder generating less pressure than smokeless and a ball versus a pointed bullet, I am not too surprised to read this.
A great story!

I couldn't say for sure, but I suspect that rifled muskets would be pretty widespread by this point. Their performance is phenomenally superior to that of smoothbores, both in accuracy and in range. That's why the American Civil War was such a slaughter: Weapons had advanced considerably, but tactics still assumed that soldiers needed to stand shoulder to shoulder 100 yards apart to hit anything. The Confederacy (1861-1865) was primarily equipped with British Enfields. The model was either 1853 or 1858; I can't recall which. They're very, very similar to the American Springfields, of which the Confederacy had no legal source. lol They're definitely still using black powder.

That said, I'm still not surprised at an overcoat stopping a bullet. These bullets, although pointed, are very large (.54 caliber Enfield and Springfield both, I think) and soft (lead) and slow. Minie "balls" had a tendency to blow holes in a person instead of going neatly through. They didn't break bones; they shattered them. (Yet another cause for amputation.) I can recall accounts of tintypes, small books, and folded papers either stopping or deflecting bullets. And note that the bullet still had enough force to knock the dragoon from his horse.

I just noticed that the original post specified a carbine. A carbine is a short, lightweight rifle, particularly used by mounted troops (cavalry/dragoons). My father sometimes uses a repro Sharps carbine. It's .50 caliber.

 

[carebear]

And note that the bullet still had enough force to knock the dragoon from his horse.

Excellent post except this last bit. The force of a bullet (even a one ounce lead slug) just doesn't have the raw kinetic energy to move a human body any distance. He fell off his horse in (probably) involuntary reaction to the surprise and pain of being hit.

Sure it's just a hair, but it deserves splittin'.

 

[FreddieVonRost]

Barbour Coats and Bedford Cord

I know that this is slightly off subject but I believe that the material quality and the thickness of Barbours has certainly gone through the floorboards over the last few years. I am proud to state that I own a Northumbria coat, which certainly helped me in being severely hurt whilst beating at a driven pheasant shoot.

This coat is not only in the original brown but is also immensely stiff and probably thirty plus years old. Anyway all was well until the third drive. One of the guns had a blank drive. The gamekeeper’s whistle indicated the end of the drive at which point a wise old pheasant took off, knowing fully well he was safe. Said gun, instinctively, swung his gun and pulled the trigger. Missed the pheasant of course, but not yours truly. Although the pellets actually penetrated my Barbour and 32 oz old Bedford riding breeches and left quite a few punctures and bruises all was well as the material was immensely thick and penetration was minimal.

I suspect if I were to happen again with the lighter Northumbria coat I would not be so fortunate.

Morals of this story:

1. Thinner is not necessarily better,
2. Old Barbour coats are worth their - immense - weight in gold,
3. Old Barbours never die; they just get handed down to other fortunate souls,
4. Never beat on shoot if you are afraid to hear what the beaters think of the performance and safety of the guns.

And yes, the gun was asked to leave immediately. Parvenus and guns. Bad mixture.

 

[carebear]

I know that this is slightly off subject but I believe that the material quality and the thickness of Barbours has certainly gone through the floorboards over the last few years. I am proud to state that I own a Northumbria coat, which certainly helped me in being severely hurt whilst beating at a driven pheasant shoot.

This coat is not only in the original brown but is also immensely stiff and probably thirty plus years old. Anyway all was well until the third drive. One of the guns had a blank drive. The gamekeeper’s whistle indicated the end of the drive at which point a wise old pheasant took off, knowing fully well he was safe. Said gun, instinctively, swung his gun and pulled the trigger. Missed the pheasant of course, but not yours truly. Although the pellets actually penetrated my Barbour and 32 oz old Bedford riding breeches and left quite a few punctures and bruises all was well as the material was immensely thick and penetration was minimal.

I suspect if I were to happen again with the lighter Northumbria coat I would not be so fortunate.

Morals of this story:

1. Thinner is not necessarily better,
2. Old Barbour coats are worth their - immense - weight in gold,
3. Old Barbours never die; they just get handed down to other fortunate souls,
4. Never beat on shoot if you are afraid to hear what the beaters think of the performance and safety of the guns.

And yes, the gun was asked to leave immediately. Parvenus and guns. Bad mixture.

5. Use dogs, not humans, for bird hunting.

Let me get this straight, an organized hunt puts people in front of the gunline?

Not a hunting tradition I can get behind. Glad you are okay.

 

[FreddieVonRost]

5. Use dogs, not humans, for bird hunting.

Let me get this straight, an organized hunt puts people in front of the gunline?

Not a hunting tradition I can get behind. Glad you are okay.

Dear carebear,

Spaniels or pointers are only used for walked up. Driven shoots rely on beaters.

In England these are formal shoots, hunts refer to the glory that is fox hunting.

Glad it went off reasonably well. Quite like my body in a healthy state.

These matters are always a gamble. Some guns are safe and can be relied upon to do the sensible thing, others are simply a menace.

And as for grouse fever!

 

[carebear]

Do you walk toward the shooters to flush the birds toward them?

On birds that can flush and fly at or below human head level that seems dicey.

 

[dr greg]

stick with it

So who carries one's shooting stick when walking up

 

[Micawber]

I agree that modern Barbour wax coats are not of the same quality of the earlier ones, in fact Barbour themselves replaced one of my Northumbria's as even with regular reproofing it quickly wore out. Granted the coat in question would have been subject to somewhat heavier use than would have been the norm but heavy usage is exactly what the coats are supposed to be able to withstand. That said I have an aged Solway Zipper that just goes on and on.

Thankfully most guns involved in driven game bird shooting are aware of the ettiquette and strict safety rules involved, those that are not are, or should be, very quickly made aware of their shortcomings in no uncertain terms.

 

[Alan Eardley]

Physics

Excellent post except this last bit. The force of a bullet (even a one ounce lead slug) just doesn't have the raw kinetic energy to move a human body any distance. He fell off his horse in (probably) involuntary reaction to the surprise and pain of being hit.

Sure it's just a hair, but it deserves splittin'.

Quite so. One of Mr Newton's laws of motion. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So, a bullet fired with sufficient force to move a (say) 80 kilogramme body (say) one metre (i.e. knock a Dane of his horse) would apply an identical force to the firer, who would be moved in the opposite direction by a similar distance. Even Adam and Jamie (Mythbusters) know that. Bullets work because they are sharp and pointy and cause shock and trauma, not because they transfer great force.

Alan

 

[Spitfire]

1864

Hi all.
I am ver sure - just re-read the story - that the dragoon who was hit in the shoulder, fell off his horse because of the pain/shock. He more or less describes that himself. " I felt a blow to my right shoulder, that made it difficult for me to stay in the saddle. Or steer my horse, which at this was very nervous." So one can allmost argue, that he might even had been thrown off the horse.

Another amacing fact that I came upon re.reading the material, is this:
During the pursuite of the danish dragoon Niels Kjeldsen - who actually was trying hard to fight the austrian hussars off with his sword - a young austrian officer rides up behind him and fires two shots at him with his pistols. The second shot hits Niels Kjeldsen in the back of the head, killing him instantly.
After the battle, the young austrian officer discovers, that his first shot hit his own horses ear!
Thats how precise these weapons were.

 

[herringbonekid]

i'm selling a CC41 DB overcoat on english eebz. just listed. check it out.

 

[Sunny]

Excellent post except this last bit. The force of a bullet (even a one ounce lead slug) just doesn't have the raw kinetic energy to move a human body any distance. He fell off his horse in (probably) involuntary reaction to the surprise and pain of being hit.

Sure it's just a hair, but it deserves splittin'.

Thanks for the correction. Serves me right for veering from what I know into what I guess!

Another amacing fact that I came upon re.reading the material, is this:
During the pursuite of the danish dragoon Niels Kjeldsen - who actually was trying hard to fight the austrian hussars off with his sword - a young austrian officer rides up behind him and fires two shots at him with his pistols. The second shot hits Niels Kjeldsen in the back of the head, killing him instantly.
After the battle, the young austrian officer discovers, that his first shot hit his own horses ear!
Thats how precise these weapons were.

I'm surprised the horse didn't throw him before he got in a second shot! Still, I wouldn't blame that mistake on the precision of the pistol. I'm assuming that he has a standard revolver, of course; does it specify pistols plural? I know less about handguns, but revolvers have been around for a couple decades at this point, and they're a far cry from the cap-and-ball Napoleonic pistols. Say, rather, that excited horses and the confusion of a mounted fight make it difficult to use the weapon precisely. I've seen some cavalry games, and you'd be surprised how hard it is to pop a stationary balloon when riding at a canter.

 

[FreddieVonRost]

Do you walk toward the shooters to flush the birds toward them?[/QUOTE=carebear]

Yes, quietly tapping.

On birds that can flush and fly at or below human head level that seems dicey.

Bad form to kill low birds. It is likely that one would be asked to leave the shoot immediately. Only greedy morons practise this appalling habit. They rapidly "acquire" a reputation as dangerous guns and are therefore known source of irritation.

 

[FreddieVonRost]

During the pursuite of the danish dragoon Niels Kjeldsen - who actually was trying hard to fight the austrian hussars off with his sword - a young austrian officer rides up behind him and fires two shots at him with his pistols. The second shot hits Niels Kjeldsen in the back of the head, killing him instantly.
After the battle, the young austrian officer discovers, that his first shot hit his own horses ear!
Thats how precise these weapons were.

Spitfire there are a number of anomilies in your post.

1. The second shot was accurate otherwise the dragoon would have lived to tell the tale.
2. The first shot would most probably lopped off the Austrian officer's horse's ear as it would have been at a fast canter or gallop. Depending on the quality of the rider his pistol would have moving about considerably.
3. Smoothbore pistols of that era were not designed to fire accurately over a long distance but were intended for close quarter fighting. Most duels with pistols were fought at close range.
4. Whilst black powder is certainly a lot less effective than the current cordite based materials it would still have been fairly lethal at anything up to 50 yards, depending on the size of the ball and the amount of gun powder used.

 

[carebear]

Do you walk toward the shooters to flush the birds toward them?[/QUOTE=carebear]

Yes, quietly tapping.

Bad form to kill low birds. It is likely that one would be asked to leave the shoot immediately. Only greedy morons practise this appalling habit. They rapidly "acquire" a reputation as dangerous guns and are therefore known source of irritation.

From a my cultural perspective I would reply that walking people into guns almost implicitly violates basic gun safety rules. Also, if you have a 2 foot dog do the pointing and/or flushing you can shoot at a bird that takes off skimming the brush in perfect safety. Not all birds flush high by genetics and a fist-sized target jinking nap of the earth through the weeds is a harder target to get up on than a nice high riser.

But that's this side of the pond I guess, different traditions.

 

[Spitfire]

Spitfire there are a number of anomilies in your post.

1. The second shot was accurate otherwise the dragoon would have lived to tell the tale.
2. The first shot would most probably lopped off the Austrian officer's horse's ear as it would have been at a fast canter or gallop. Depending on the quality of the rider his pistol would have moving about considerably.
3. Smoothbore pistols of that era were not designed to fire accurately over a long distance but were intended for close quarter fighting. Most duels with pistols were fought at close range.
4. Whilst black powder is certainly a lot less effective than the current cordite based materials it would still have been fairly lethal at anything up to 50 yards, depending on the size of the ball and the amount of gun powder used.

Freddie V.R. - I do not get it!
Yes - the second shot was accurate. (Just as I wrote.)
Yes - the first shot propably lopped off the horses ear. Because of the movement and speed of the action, the quality of the pistol or because the officer was a lousy shot? Nobody knows.
As to 3. According to witnesses on the spot, the young officer road up behind the dragoon, who was fencing with another hussar, and shot at him at a pretty close distance. (Some claim only 2 meters)
By the way - many felt at that time, that it was a very cowardish and non-cavalry thing to do. Shooting a man in the back!
Even among the austrian hussars in his own regiment.
4. Yes - black powder is less effective.
What is it, that does not click???
Cheers!

 

[Tomasso]

Here's a WWII vintage RAF coat that an SF member picked up recently. It's G&H bespoke, for a squadron commander.

 

[geo]

Excellent post except this last bit. The force of a bullet (even a one ounce lead slug) just doesn't have the raw kinetic energy to move a human body any distance. He fell off his horse in (probably) involuntary reaction to the surprise and pain of being hit.

The kinetic energy of a bullet is given by (mv2)/2, where m is the mass of the bullet, and v is the velocity. The energy to move an 80 kg body 1 m is given by Fd, where F is the weight in Newtons and d is the distance in meters. Assuming a bullet travelling at the speed of sound, about 1000km/h and solving the equation for m, the mass of the bullet, one sees that a bullet of 20 grams travelling at 278m/s has enough kinetic energy to move a body of 80 kg 1 meter.

 

[carebear]

The kinetic energy of a bullet is given by (mv2)/2, where m is the mass of the bullet, and v is the velocity. The energy to move an 80 kg body 1 m is given by Fd, where F is the weight in Newtons and d is the distance in meters. Assuming a bullet travelling at the speed of sound, about 1000km/h and solving the equation for m, the mass of the bullet, one sees that a bullet of 20 grams travelling at 278m/s has enough kinetic energy to move a body of 80 kg 1 meter.

Huh. I'm pretty sure there's something left out. Inertia?

Anyway, I know I 've seen this worked out on my old favorite gunboards by actual rocket scientists. So I must have misstated. The raw energy may be there, but the practical ability to transfer that energy into movement doesn't exist. The round's surface area is too small and penetrative and the surface it impacts too yielding.

Even when looking at video of impacts from a shotgun slug onto a vest (West Hollywood bank robbery) where there's no penetration and almost all the round's energy is transmitted to target; you don't see the body "moved" by the round. You just see a flinch reaction, even when the target is unprepared.