The Mexican gunpowder dilemma

Jim McDougall · 19th August 2019, 12:47 AM

Yulzari, welcome!! and thank you for the very much spot on summary of the situation with the Mexican army at the Alamo (and for that matter afterwards as well) with arms and powder. as you have well noted, there was nothing wrong with the India pattern Brown Bess muskets, nor the Baker rifles.
From one source I read after the end of the Napoleonic campaigns, in what was noted as pretty much standard British fashion, the 'war is over' so time to unload the surplus.
These arms were simply in excess for the now peaceful status, so perfectly functional.
As noted, the 'training' of the Mexican army ranks was inadequate and deplorable, just as the supply of required materials such as powder. The corruption notoriously known in the Mexican government especially under Santa Anna certainly led to the poor production leading to miserable powder.

One thing I was trying to discover here was where in the world did Mexico in these years get the powder they were using? As noted, the British had very good quality powder with their considerable sources for saltpeter, however I feel sure the Mexicans thought they did not need that expense and could make their own. In all the resources I have checked there were mentions of certain arms works, but no mention at all of powder production.

With the Texians, although in limited supply, the powder they had was apparently Dupont, which was excellent powder, but diminished in quantity.
With all the powder however, the elements of weather and dampness rendering it relatively inert came very much in play.

Thank you again for joining us here! and never worry about reiterating something already said

These threads can get pretty long and intense and often its good to bring up certain aspects that are key in the discussion from time to time.

Jim McDougall · 19th August 2019, 01:05 AM

Philip, just crossed posts. Thank you so much for bringing up the flints, which is a most salient factor as well in the operation of these guns, and honestly I had forgotten about. I know that one of the reasons that the flintlock remained in use for so long in remote regions was that it was often so difficult to get the percussion caps for guns with that 'modernized' feature.
With that, I had the impression that powder and commensurately the flints were far easier to come by. Clearly that notion was not entirely well founded, and getting these important components would often present issues....and edged weapons, bayonets etc. would prevail.

I do recall reading that in Spanish colonial America the use of the lance prevailed as a more durable and ready weapon as firearms were not as available due to serviceability and it would appear, lack of powder. Perhaps the lack of flint may have equally come into play.

yulzari · 19th August 2019, 01:23 PM

Mexico has traditionally been fond of fireworks and this was probably the major production purpose. Equally, whilst Mexico did make gun powder and the Confederate States in the ACW were woefully short of powder, I can find no suggestion that they attempted to import Mexican powder.

Both of these suggest to me that Mexico only made firework powder which would explain the poor shooting qualities when employed as a firearm powder.

Firearm gun powder is different in the quality of materials and it's processing to firework powder. It is both less powerful for the same weight or volume but also fouls the bore greatly.

yulzari · 19th August 2019, 01:27 PM

I wrote a post on the subject and it has disappeared into the ether so i will summarise.

The gun powder made in Mexico was probably firework powder which would match the described qualities of Mexican arms in the period and be fit for the major market for gun powder domestically.

fernando · 19th August 2019, 10:06 PM

If in one hand is plausible that Mexicans assumed the weakness of their explosives, it is rather amazing that their forces went to war knowing that their (no gun) powder was for pyrotechnic use.
For this or that reason, Santa Ana (in 1850's) "has acquired new machinery for the gunpowder factories" (Martha Eugenia Gillaumin).
As already approached, the use of a smaller projectile obviated for residual accumulation in the barrels. It looks as the trick to compensate for consequent (short) range limitations was the dispersion provided by the buck & ball load. This ammo system, first thought to be a 'possible' resource, was later confirmed by archaeologists (Doctor Greg Dimmick) who have found numerous Brown Bess cartridges loaded with a single basic ball added by a few buckshot pellets. Some story goes in that Joe, Travis slave, describes the type of projectile that hit his head as a compound looking like more than one shot.
On another note, we can read in an article by the Naval History Division that, on the 3th. March 1836 (3 days before the Alamo fall) " Texas schooner Liberty captures Mexican schooner Pelican off Sisal, Yucatan, with contraband gunpowder " ... for whatever this suggests.

Jim McDougall · 20th August 2019, 03:21 AM

Thanks very much guys!
Interesting notes Yulzari, . As you note, it is presumed that Mexico made powder (somewhere) in the 1830s period we are discussing, but where that might have been is what I cannot determine.
True, the fireworks industry is big in Mexico, having grown up in Southern California the endless supply of fireworks (not necessarily legal) from across the border was profoundly known.

It had seemed to me that although obviously the powder mixtures for fireworks were quite different than that used in gun powder, that the basic components would also have what was necessary for producing it.

The note on the Confederacy being short of powder is curious as I had always heard that these forces never experienced shortages of effective powder as they ran one of the biggest centers for production in North America.
Naturally this was during the Civil War which was years later than the Texian revolution and the Mexican America war.

Well noted on the buck and Ball Fernando, and thank you for the info on Santa Anna getting new machinery for gunpowder in the 1850s. By this time he had used up most of his many attempts at securing power in Mexico.
As you have pointed out, the terrible powder used would quickly foul the barrels of the guns, so smaller caliber ball was used, and the buckshot would add to the short range wounding potential of the underpowered shot.
The fact that Joe was hit in the head and survived is telling. There are numbers of accounts of men in these campaigns hit by Mexican ball and not notably wounded.

The terrible attitude toward the forces of the Mexican army seems to say that they were poorly trained and poorly supplied, basically cannon fodder. However elite forces such as the cazadores were much better armed and supplied.

Fernando, truly interesting note on that Mexican vessel captured off Yucatan with contraband powder! So where was this powder from?

yulzari · 20th August 2019, 01:31 PM

I will happily stand correction on the CSA powder availability. I had observed that they imported British made cartridges so used shipping space for quality powder.

Just as a note on powder qualities. Nepal made copy Francotte breechloading Martini action rifles and made their own powder. There were metal issues with the rifles but they were accepted into service. Then they were given British (Indian Arsenal) made ammunition with good quality powder. The result was many burst guns and the survivors withdrawn and put into store. In New Zealand some years ago the supply of firearm quality powder had ceased for some reason and the only powder available was a Chinese powder which was basically a firework powder and shooters experienced many of the reported Mexican results. In British Army service post Napoleonic Wars the musket charge reduced by a factor of @3 with the improvement in powder over the period. The Mexican problem was neither unique nor one which could not be dealt with by planning (larger cartridge charges) and discipline and training to keep the bores cleaned frequently in gaps in actions. Artillery officers needed the training and experience to compensate for the reduced ranges and adjust the sighting and commanders needed to appreciate that artillery needed to be sited to allow for the same. Infantry musket fire would have been limited by the extra thick own smoke. The training and discipline for officer controlled volley fire to allow firing all together when the smoke cleared would be another discipline which might be beyond the period Mexican Army. Even today people under estimate the skilled trade that is infantry warfare.

fernando · 20th August 2019, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...The fact that Joe was hit in the head and survived is telling...

Actually Joe was describing how Travis was shot; i also didn't figure it out in the first place, when i read (and transcribed) the article.

fernando · 20th August 2019, 03:58 PM

... resuming that bad gunpowder was not the sole reason for Mexican forces failure but, a set of liabilities that could be avoided with skilled organization, tactics & discipline for one, obviously aggravated by the gunpowder issues; a well called dilemma by Jim which, for a start, if we think that firearms gunpowder was brought to Mexico by the Spaniards and only afterwards the locals started using it in fireworks, how could they forgot the propellant version know how ?
Was it an issue of components quality, rather than pure knowledge ? Mexico was rich in saltpeter, the main 'variable' of powder quality. Furthermore, if i understand correctly, making fireworks is a rather more complex craft.
Indeed when reading the various works on the Peninsular war, it was all about systems, tactics, discipline and such sort of the things that brought Anglo-Portuguese forces to victory over those of Napoleon... only seconded by equipment.

Jim McDougall · 20th August 2019, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Actually Joe was describing how Travis was shot; i also didn't figure it out in the first place, when i read (and transcribed) the article.

Oh.....uh....that's different!

oops.
Actually it was my own misunderstanding.....I have read so much Alamo history and should have remembered that description by 'Joe'.
Still the point was that the Mexican powder was so poor that in many cases, the shot did not even penetrate. In the case of the actual final attack, it was pretty much irrelevant as the Mexican forces became almost a virtual mob infiltrating the compound.
As defenders awakened, startled and without time to even load their guns, they had no choice but to try to escape. In their haste to prevent this, the Mexicans simply resorted to their bayonets, which appears to have been the method by which most defenders died. Naturally, we have no way of knowing this unequivocally as (technically) there were no survivors. All we have is Mexican accounts and those of non combatants who did survive.

19th August 2019, 10:06 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Loose notes If in one hand is plausible that Mexicans assumed the weakness of their explosives, it is rather amazing that their forces went to war knowing that their (no gun) powder was for pyrotechnic use. For this or that reason, Santa Ana (in 1850's) "has acquired new machinery for the gunpowder factories" (Martha Eugenia Gillaumin). As already approached, the use of a smaller projectile obviated for residual accumulation in the barrels. It looks as the trick to compensate for consequent (short) range limitations was the dispersion provided by the buck & ball load. This ammo system, first thought to be a 'possible' resource, was later confirmed by archaeologists (Doctor Greg Dimmick) who have found numerous Brown Bess cartridges loaded with a single basic ball added by a few buckshot pellets. Some story goes in that Joe, Travis slave, describes the type of projectile that hit his head as a compound looking like more than one shot. On another note, we can read in an article by the Naval History Division that, on the 3th. March 1836 (3 days before the Alamo fall) " Texas schooner Liberty captures Mexican schooner Pelican off Sisal, Yucatan, with contraband gunpowder " ... for whatever this suggests.

19th August 2019, 12:47 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,708	Yulzari, welcome!! and thank you for the very much spot on summary of the situation with the Mexican army at the Alamo (and for that matter afterwards as well) with arms and powder. as you have well noted, there was nothing wrong with the India pattern Brown Bess muskets, nor the Baker rifles. From one source I read after the end of the Napoleonic campaigns, in what was noted as pretty much standard British fashion, the 'war is over' so time to unload the surplus. These arms were simply in excess for the now peaceful status, so perfectly functional. As noted, the 'training' of the Mexican army ranks was inadequate and deplorable, just as the supply of required materials such as powder. The corruption notoriously known in the Mexican government especially under Santa Anna certainly led to the poor production leading to miserable powder. One thing I was trying to discover here was where in the world did Mexico in these years get the powder they were using? As noted, the British had very good quality powder with their considerable sources for saltpeter, however I feel sure the Mexicans thought they did not need that expense and could make their own. In all the resources I have checked there were mentions of certain arms works, but no mention at all of powder production. With the Texians, although in limited supply, the powder they had was apparently Dupont, which was excellent powder, but diminished in quantity. With all the powder however, the elements of weather and dampness rendering it relatively inert came very much in play. Thank you again for joining us here! and never worry about reiterating something already said These threads can get pretty long and intense and often its good to bring up certain aspects that are key in the discussion from time to time.

19th August 2019, 01:05 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,708	Philip, just crossed posts. Thank you so much for bringing up the flints, which is a most salient factor as well in the operation of these guns, and honestly I had forgotten about. I know that one of the reasons that the flintlock remained in use for so long in remote regions was that it was often so difficult to get the percussion caps for guns with that 'modernized' feature. With that, I had the impression that powder and commensurately the flints were far easier to come by. Clearly that notion was not entirely well founded, and getting these important components would often present issues....and edged weapons, bayonets etc. would prevail. I do recall reading that in Spanish colonial America the use of the lance prevailed as a more durable and ready weapon as firearms were not as available due to serviceability and it would appear, lack of powder. Perhaps the lack of flint may have equally come into play.

19th August 2019, 01:23 PM	#3
yulzari Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Limousin France Posts: 19	Mexico has traditionally been fond of fireworks and this was probably the major production purpose. Equally, whilst Mexico did make gun powder and the Confederate States in the ACW were woefully short of powder, I can find no suggestion that they attempted to import Mexican powder. Both of these suggest to me that Mexico only made firework powder which would explain the poor shooting qualities when employed as a firearm powder. Firearm gun powder is different in the quality of materials and it's processing to firework powder. It is both less powerful for the same weight or volume but also fouls the bore greatly.

19th August 2019, 01:27 PM	#4
yulzari Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Limousin France Posts: 19	I wrote a post on the subject and it has disappeared into the ether so i will summarise. The gun powder made in Mexico was probably firework powder which would match the described qualities of Mexican arms in the period and be fit for the major market for gun powder domestically.

20th August 2019, 03:21 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,708	Thanks very much guys! Interesting notes Yulzari, . As you note, it is presumed that Mexico made powder (somewhere) in the 1830s period we are discussing, but where that might have been is what I cannot determine. True, the fireworks industry is big in Mexico, having grown up in Southern California the endless supply of fireworks (not necessarily legal) from across the border was profoundly known. It had seemed to me that although obviously the powder mixtures for fireworks were quite different than that used in gun powder, that the basic components would also have what was necessary for producing it. The note on the Confederacy being short of powder is curious as I had always heard that these forces never experienced shortages of effective powder as they ran one of the biggest centers for production in North America. Naturally this was during the Civil War which was years later than the Texian revolution and the Mexican America war. Well noted on the buck and Ball Fernando, and thank you for the info on Santa Anna getting new machinery for gunpowder in the 1850s. By this time he had used up most of his many attempts at securing power in Mexico. As you have pointed out, the terrible powder used would quickly foul the barrels of the guns, so smaller caliber ball was used, and the buckshot would add to the short range wounding potential of the underpowered shot. The fact that Joe was hit in the head and survived is telling. There are numbers of accounts of men in these campaigns hit by Mexican ball and not notably wounded. The terrible attitude toward the forces of the Mexican army seems to say that they were poorly trained and poorly supplied, basically cannon fodder. However elite forces such as the cazadores were much better armed and supplied. Fernando, truly interesting note on that Mexican vessel captured off Yucatan with contraband powder! So where was this powder from?

20th August 2019, 01:31 PM	#7
yulzari Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Limousin France Posts: 19	I will happily stand correction on the CSA powder availability. I had observed that they imported British made cartridges so used shipping space for quality powder. Just as a note on powder qualities. Nepal made copy Francotte breechloading Martini action rifles and made their own powder. There were metal issues with the rifles but they were accepted into service. Then they were given British (Indian Arsenal) made ammunition with good quality powder. The result was many burst guns and the survivors withdrawn and put into store. In New Zealand some years ago the supply of firearm quality powder had ceased for some reason and the only powder available was a Chinese powder which was basically a firework powder and shooters experienced many of the reported Mexican results. In British Army service post Napoleonic Wars the musket charge reduced by a factor of @3 with the improvement in powder over the period. The Mexican problem was neither unique nor one which could not be dealt with by planning (larger cartridge charges) and discipline and training to keep the bores cleaned frequently in gaps in actions. Artillery officers needed the training and experience to compensate for the reduced ranges and adjust the sighting and commanders needed to appreciate that artillery needed to be sited to allow for the same. Infantry musket fire would have been limited by the extra thick own smoke. The training and discipline for officer controlled volley fire to allow firing all together when the smoke cleared would be another discipline which might be beyond the period Mexican Army. Even today people under estimate the skilled trade that is infantry warfare.

20th August 2019, 03:58 PM	#9
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	... resuming that bad gunpowder was not the sole reason for Mexican forces failure but, a set of liabilities that could be avoided with skilled organization, tactics & discipline for one, obviously aggravated by the gunpowder issues; a well called dilemma by Jim which, for a start, if we think that firearms gunpowder was brought to Mexico by the Spaniards and only afterwards the locals started using it in fireworks, how could they forgot the propellant version know how ? Was it an issue of components quality, rather than pure knowledge ? Mexico was rich in saltpeter, the main 'variable' of powder quality. Furthermore, if i understand correctly, making fireworks is a rather more complex craft. Indeed when reading the various works on the Peninsular war, it was all about systems, tactics, discipline and such sort of the things that brought Anglo-Portuguese forces to victory over those of Napoleon... only seconded by equipment.