The Mexican gunpowder dilemma

yulzari · 23rd August 2019, 01:50 PM

This all reinforces the idea that Mexican powder was not of a firearm quality and they sought to remedy that by imports as the Mexican producers were unwilling or unable to source and suitably process the necessary quality of ingredients for firearm quality powder. All gun powder uses the same basic ingredients but there are major differences in the purity of them, type of wood and charring processes and how they are incorporated and then processed. There is little that can be done to bring firework powder up to firearm standards . I could go into tedious detail but gun powder making is far more complex than just chucking together the 3 basic ingredients and making the best of it is a very subtle affair which is, even now, not fully understood.

Jim McDougall · 23rd August 2019, 07:57 PM

Thank you for the responses guys!!!
Fernando, as always very well observed. There are indeed many missing links, but after lengthy research trying to find more after the Pelicano matter was brought in, what I found was under a very different heading than specifically gun powder.
The information I found had to do with espionage which was also carried out via these 'trade' arrangements, and the mention of powder was almost an aside included with descriptions of materials and commodities being carried.

The point is that there does not seem to have been more than casual mention of Mexican gun powder aside from that kind of cursory reference or the derisive regard toward its quality and inefficiency. What I wonder is, if the Mexican powder was so poor and ineffective...….then why was it so?
Its poor character is mentioned repeatedly in historical works and accounts of the Alamo and other campaigns.

It is mentioned that in the departure of the expedition of Texians who left the Alamo prior to the siege (the Matamoros expedition) they 'took most of the good powder'. That would have been the Dupont that apparently was the premium powder brought in by the volunteers.
That left the defenders with the amount of powder which was left behind by the Mexicans in the Alamo along with the cannons after General Cos surrendered to the Texians in December.
Narratives record that Cos, allowed to leave to return to Mexico with a limited supply of powder and arms (for protection) took , again, the 'good' powder, leaving that deemed inadequate.

We know he spiked cannon, as may be expected not wishing materials to fall into the hands of his enemies. Could he have somehow adulterated the powder in deliberate sabotage?
If the powder being used by the Mexicans was already poor as per the accounts of other battles, then why worry about it?
Susanna Dickinson, wife of one of the gunners at the Alamo who was there and survived spoke of the 'damaged' powder held in the magazine there.
I suppose her husband, artillery being his specialty, may have grumbled about it to her.

Returning to the Pelicano, and the associated captures mentioned, 'contraband' was the term used in the material I read, and while not regarded as such to the trading companies involved from the US, it certainly was deemed as such by the Texian vessels 'interfering' with its transport to their enemies, the Mexican army.

In all the material and bibliographies I have researched through (over many years and numerous visits to the Alamo and resources there) I have never found any specific reference focused on Mexican gunpowder. That is NOT to say it does not exist, but that I, personally, have not found it. Hence, the reason for this thread.

It is very true that these matters and topics as dealt with by each historian or narrator reflect their own views and perspective. That is why it is incumbent on researchers to always dig deeper, corroborate and cross reference all available material. Only then can a reasonably plausible outcome or resolution be determined, based on the preponderance of evidence which favors a specific result.

As Yulzari has well noted, the ingredients for the varying grades of powder (black powder) are gauged according to the intended use. The powder for firearms is of finer grained, while that for artillery is 'corned' or much coarser, these variables tuned for the explosive or 'burn' properties required.
Fireworks would seem to be more for pyrotechnic effect of visual character rather than for propelling projectiles, so clearly with much different mixture.

In analogy, toward the producing of gun powder, it does seem to require a certain measure of adept ability, and I think of the situation in the Sudan prior to Omdurman (1898). Khartoum had been taken by Mahdist forces, and the arsenal and the abundant materials were being put to use to supply the building forces of the Caliph. While, as at the Alamo, there were many arms on hand, but as always, the difficulty was powder.

In similar character as the ranks of peasant soldiers in the Mexican army, relatively untrained, the Ansar warriors fired 'from the hip', and again, their powder (produced ineffectively in the arsenal at Omdurman) was poor in quality. There were accounts of British soldiers hit numerous times by Sudanese bullets which only superficially wounded them, if at all.
The same description came from Texians in confrontations with Mexican forces.

It seems I had read of the difficulty in transporting powder with Santa Annas forces in their long march through inclement weather to get to the Alamo. The powder I believe had to be stabilized (?) and did that entail either dampening it, or making it less volatile? Perhaps ineffective adjustment of its properties by that or weather itself rendered it less effective?

As a matter of note, the kegs of gunpowder on the Pelican were found 'mingled' with bags of flour, and this was presented as if the powder (contraband) was intended hidden? Could this have been meant to somehow preserve or stabilize the powder? unconventional though it seems...or was the agent (Zacharie) indeed unaware of the powder hidden away in the flour?

David R · 23rd August 2019, 09:54 PM

I find "firing from the hip" of interest. Frederic the Great's (der Alte Fritze) troops fired from the hip, to speed up the delivery of volly's, and the same was done by Prussian troops in 1870. (Gas escape from early breach loaders)Having had an eye nearly taken out by side blast in a re-enactment, the Mexican troops have my sympathy.
There is a reason for the term "Fog of War"

Jim McDougall · 23rd August 2019, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David R

I find "firing from the hip" of interest. Frederic the Great's (der Alte Fritze) troops fired from the hip, to speed up the delivery of volly's, and the same was done by Prussian troops in 1870. (Gas escape from early breach loaders)Having had an eye nearly taken out by side blast in a re-enactment, the Mexican troops have my sympathy.
There is a reason for the term "Fog of War"

Thanks David! Interesting notes on firing from the hip to speed up volleys.
It does seem like the dynamics of the ignition of the powder would have pretty negative possibility to a persons face. While not having much (any) experience in firing these kinds of guns, I did once fire a muzzle loader, and smoke and sparks were pretty disconcerting.

The smoke alone made me wonder, in the discharge of a single gun, the acrid smoke was unbelievable. Multiply by hundreds, even thousands and 'fog' would be an understatement.

With the Mexican forces, I think the big problem was firing in total darkness and with the low elevation of guns actually shooting into the forward ranks instead of over them.

yulzari · 24th August 2019, 12:32 PM

If the powder had to be 'stabilised' that would suggest it was firework meal powder and not corned so the ingredients would separate in transit. Gun powder is a mechanical mixture not a compound. That would involve the powder being removed from the keg and remixed. Probably by hand. There would no reason to mix any other (i.e. flour) into the gun powder. Occasionally sawdust used to be mixed in for blasting purposes to slow the production of gasses to give a longer 'heave' rather than sharp cracking effect but that is irrelevant to firearms use.

Gun powder manufacturers will only make firearms good quality powder if there is a regular demand. If Mexico had only a small hunting firearms use the only other demand could come from the military. Otherwise that small demand would be best met by import. If the military are not demanding good powder from ignorance, lassitude or outright corruption (buying cheap powder and pocketing the difference from good) and there is no state manufacturer that can be directed, then industry will only make powder they can sell and firework powder needs far less capital to set up and is far cheaper to run.

The fault comes down to Mexican government and military culture of the time which itself is a manifestation of Mexican period culture and it's preceding history.

Jim McDougall · 24th August 2019, 05:04 PM

What I meant about the flour in the Pelican 'incident' was that the powder kegs were 'mingled' (i.e. partially hidden by) BAGS of flour, as if deliberately loaded (i.e. placed in the hold) in such a manner. The agent who shipped the materials from New Orleans, claimed he had NO knowledge of the gun powder among the shipment and it was no included in the manifest. I did not mean the flour was mixed into the powder.

I understand that black powder is not a chemical mixture, but 'mechanical' therefore simply mixed ingredients which maintain their own individual properties. It does seem that there was some mention of remixing powder but details I am not certain of. I believe it was after being transported from Mexico into Texas, which is why I wondered if some special means were in place to make it less volatile.

Interesting notes on the corning of powder, in which I had the impression that powder for artillery was heavier grained for the type of explosive needed in projecting the heavy shot etc. I admit as is obvious not fully comprehending the differences in forms of powder used for firearms, artillery and the related topic of fireworks.

The point I have been trying to get to is discovering where Mexico was obtaining their powder for the military, since there was considerable military activity with Santa Annas army at the time. I had not imagined that the military would be acquiring powder from suppliers furnishing hunting needs, so of course importing would be necessary for the types of powder and quantities required for military action.

It does not seem there was a time, particularly the wars of the 18th into the 19th etc etc that there was not a demand for good firearms powder, as well as artillery grade powder as military action was always in place at one place or another. Clearly export and import were necessary to move those commodities as well as saltpeter, a key ingredient, to these places.

As England had some of the best powder of the times, if I understood correctly, and they had been disposing of massive quantities of firearms at the close of the Napoleonic campaigns (as in the sale of over 400,000 muskets and rifles to Mexico in 1820s)..I thought possibly they might also sell powder.
If the evidence of powder being shipped out of New Orleans is correct, then that location might be Mexico's source. Whether it was British in origin, or the high grade Dupont...the point was that it had to be GOOD powder and would beg the question ...WHY was Mexican gun powder so bad?

fernando · 24th August 2019, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...WHY was Mexican gun powder so bad?

Specially taking into account that the invention was brought there by the Spanish Cortez early in the XVI century; and the joy shown in his letters to the Spanish King, due to the abundance of the necessary ingredients in local lands. I would take it as implicit that "cousin" fireworks was a tradition also brought by the Spaniards. It is not hard to realize that gunpowder takes more care to fabricate, but i would hardly digest the fact that preparing fireworks powder is a simple thing to achieve. One does not wake up in the morning and go to basement to fix some pyrotechnics only by reading the users manual; and eventually the risk to kick the bucket by mishandling the components appears to be the same in both cases.
Picture 1; an extract of Hernan Cortez report.
Picture 2 & 3; courtesy American Museum of Natural History.
Picture 4; How Goya saw the Spaniards performing the making of gunpowder.
Picture 5; The XVI century flour mill Molino del Rey in Mexico city, where next to it was the "old gunpowder mill".
Picture 6; a detail of the pavement in the pateo of the old (now museum) Portuguese black powder mill of Barcarena, where the bricks are positioned in "cleaver" and "spine", to avoid the risk of sparks by friction.

.

23rd August 2019, 07:57 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,785	Thank you for the responses guys!!! Fernando, as always very well observed. There are indeed many missing links, but after lengthy research trying to find more after the Pelicano matter was brought in, what I found was under a very different heading than specifically gun powder. The information I found had to do with espionage which was also carried out via these 'trade' arrangements, and the mention of powder was almost an aside included with descriptions of materials and commodities being carried. The point is that there does not seem to have been more than casual mention of Mexican gun powder aside from that kind of cursory reference or the derisive regard toward its quality and inefficiency. What I wonder is, if the Mexican powder was so poor and ineffective...….then why was it so? Its poor character is mentioned repeatedly in historical works and accounts of the Alamo and other campaigns. It is mentioned that in the departure of the expedition of Texians who left the Alamo prior to the siege (the Matamoros expedition) they 'took most of the good powder'. That would have been the Dupont that apparently was the premium powder brought in by the volunteers. That left the defenders with the amount of powder which was left behind by the Mexicans in the Alamo along with the cannons after General Cos surrendered to the Texians in December. Narratives record that Cos, allowed to leave to return to Mexico with a limited supply of powder and arms (for protection) took , again, the 'good' powder, leaving that deemed inadequate. We know he spiked cannon, as may be expected not wishing materials to fall into the hands of his enemies. Could he have somehow adulterated the powder in deliberate sabotage? If the powder being used by the Mexicans was already poor as per the accounts of other battles, then why worry about it? Susanna Dickinson, wife of one of the gunners at the Alamo who was there and survived spoke of the 'damaged' powder held in the magazine there. I suppose her husband, artillery being his specialty, may have grumbled about it to her. Returning to the Pelicano, and the associated captures mentioned, 'contraband' was the term used in the material I read, and while not regarded as such to the trading companies involved from the US, it certainly was deemed as such by the Texian vessels 'interfering' with its transport to their enemies, the Mexican army. In all the material and bibliographies I have researched through (over many years and numerous visits to the Alamo and resources there) I have never found any specific reference focused on Mexican gunpowder. That is NOT to say it does not exist, but that I, personally, have not found it. Hence, the reason for this thread. It is very true that these matters and topics as dealt with by each historian or narrator reflect their own views and perspective. That is why it is incumbent on researchers to always dig deeper, corroborate and cross reference all available material. Only then can a reasonably plausible outcome or resolution be determined, based on the preponderance of evidence which favors a specific result. As Yulzari has well noted, the ingredients for the varying grades of powder (black powder) are gauged according to the intended use. The powder for firearms is of finer grained, while that for artillery is 'corned' or much coarser, these variables tuned for the explosive or 'burn' properties required. Fireworks would seem to be more for pyrotechnic effect of visual character rather than for propelling projectiles, so clearly with much different mixture. In analogy, toward the producing of gun powder, it does seem to require a certain measure of adept ability, and I think of the situation in the Sudan prior to Omdurman (1898). Khartoum had been taken by Mahdist forces, and the arsenal and the abundant materials were being put to use to supply the building forces of the Caliph. While, as at the Alamo, there were many arms on hand, but as always, the difficulty was powder. In similar character as the ranks of peasant soldiers in the Mexican army, relatively untrained, the Ansar warriors fired 'from the hip', and again, their powder (produced ineffectively in the arsenal at Omdurman) was poor in quality. There were accounts of British soldiers hit numerous times by Sudanese bullets which only superficially wounded them, if at all. The same description came from Texians in confrontations with Mexican forces. It seems I had read of the difficulty in transporting powder with Santa Annas forces in their long march through inclement weather to get to the Alamo. The powder I believe had to be stabilized (?) and did that entail either dampening it, or making it less volatile? Perhaps ineffective adjustment of its properties by that or weather itself rendered it less effective? As a matter of note, the kegs of gunpowder on the Pelican were found 'mingled' with bags of flour, and this was presented as if the powder (contraband) was intended hidden? Could this have been meant to somehow preserve or stabilize the powder? unconventional though it seems...or was the agent (Zacharie) indeed unaware of the powder hidden away in the flour? Last edited by Jim McDougall; 24th August 2019 at 12:07 AM.

23rd August 2019, 01:50 PM	#1
yulzari Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Limousin France Posts: 19	This all reinforces the idea that Mexican powder was not of a firearm quality and they sought to remedy that by imports as the Mexican producers were unwilling or unable to source and suitably process the necessary quality of ingredients for firearm quality powder. All gun powder uses the same basic ingredients but there are major differences in the purity of them, type of wood and charring processes and how they are incorporated and then processed. There is little that can be done to bring firework powder up to firearm standards . I could go into tedious detail but gun powder making is far more complex than just chucking together the 3 basic ingredients and making the best of it is a very subtle affair which is, even now, not fully understood.

23rd August 2019, 09:54 PM	#3
David R Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 1,055	I find "firing from the hip" of interest. Frederic the Great's (der Alte Fritze) troops fired from the hip, to speed up the delivery of volly's, and the same was done by Prussian troops in 1870. (Gas escape from early breach loaders)Having had an eye nearly taken out by side blast in a re-enactment, the Mexican troops have my sympathy. There is a reason for the term "Fog of War"

24th August 2019, 12:32 PM	#5
yulzari Member Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: Limousin France Posts: 19	If the powder had to be 'stabilised' that would suggest it was firework meal powder and not corned so the ingredients would separate in transit. Gun powder is a mechanical mixture not a compound. That would involve the powder being removed from the keg and remixed. Probably by hand. There would no reason to mix any other (i.e. flour) into the gun powder. Occasionally sawdust used to be mixed in for blasting purposes to slow the production of gasses to give a longer 'heave' rather than sharp cracking effect but that is irrelevant to firearms use. Gun powder manufacturers will only make firearms good quality powder if there is a regular demand. If Mexico had only a small hunting firearms use the only other demand could come from the military. Otherwise that small demand would be best met by import. If the military are not demanding good powder from ignorance, lassitude or outright corruption (buying cheap powder and pocketing the difference from good) and there is no state manufacturer that can be directed, then industry will only make powder they can sell and firework powder needs far less capital to set up and is far cheaper to run. The fault comes down to Mexican government and military culture of the time which itself is a manifestation of Mexican period culture and it's preceding history.

24th August 2019, 05:04 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,785	What I meant about the flour in the Pelican 'incident' was that the powder kegs were 'mingled' (i.e. partially hidden by) BAGS of flour, as if deliberately loaded (i.e. placed in the hold) in such a manner. The agent who shipped the materials from New Orleans, claimed he had NO knowledge of the gun powder among the shipment and it was no included in the manifest. I did not mean the flour was mixed into the powder. I understand that black powder is not a chemical mixture, but 'mechanical' therefore simply mixed ingredients which maintain their own individual properties. It does seem that there was some mention of remixing powder but details I am not certain of. I believe it was after being transported from Mexico into Texas, which is why I wondered if some special means were in place to make it less volatile. Interesting notes on the corning of powder, in which I had the impression that powder for artillery was heavier grained for the type of explosive needed in projecting the heavy shot etc. I admit as is obvious not fully comprehending the differences in forms of powder used for firearms, artillery and the related topic of fireworks. The point I have been trying to get to is discovering where Mexico was obtaining their powder for the military, since there was considerable military activity with Santa Annas army at the time. I had not imagined that the military would be acquiring powder from suppliers furnishing hunting needs, so of course importing would be necessary for the types of powder and quantities required for military action. It does not seem there was a time, particularly the wars of the 18th into the 19th etc etc that there was not a demand for good firearms powder, as well as artillery grade powder as military action was always in place at one place or another. Clearly export and import were necessary to move those commodities as well as saltpeter, a key ingredient, to these places. As England had some of the best powder of the times, if I understood correctly, and they had been disposing of massive quantities of firearms at the close of the Napoleonic campaigns (as in the sale of over 400,000 muskets and rifles to Mexico in 1820s)..I thought possibly they might also sell powder. If the evidence of powder being shipped out of New Orleans is correct, then that location might be Mexico's source. Whether it was British in origin, or the high grade Dupont...the point was that it had to be GOOD powder and would beg the question ...WHY was Mexican gun powder so bad?