Fearsome Boomsticks of War

Second only to my love of slingers, I have a strong affinity for those crude, awkward, smokey, fearsome boomsticks of war: the medieval handgonne. I think they share with slings that aura of primitive ersatz simplicity.  As the first hand-held gunpowder weapons, they're direct ancestors of today's small arms. We've gone from handgonne to S-Mart's top of the line and it only took about six centuries.

The Handgonne at War

Gunpowder came into European warfare in the 13th century. Where it came from is still a matter of debate. Conventional wisdom in the 19th c. claimed that it originated in China and came through Middle East trade routes or perhaps in the Mongol invasion ca. 1240.

Unconventional wisdom in the 18th c. had it that gunpowder was discovered accidentally by a German monk/alchemist named Berthold Schwarz who was trying to cook up something else when the crock-pot exploded. However, there is no evidence that Berthold Schwarz ever existed.

Brother Berthold discovers gunpowder, to his dismay

Roger Bacon's treatise De Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturae is the first mention in writing of the formula for gunpowder. Bacon's formula was 7 parts saltpeter, 5 parts sulfur, and 5 parts charcoal, in case you're dying to know. That works out to 41.2% saltpeter, 29.4% sulfur, and 29.4% charcoal. By comparison, the gunpowder the British army used in the 18th c. is 75% saltpeter, 10% sulfur, and 15% charcoal, which is near to the ideal formula. Bacon's formula burns too slowly and doesn't provide enough propulsion.

It's the propulsive properties of gunpowder that sparked a revolution. Artillery was invented first, but ribauldequins, which were carts mounting several very small cannon, inspired the handgonne, which was simply one of these small cannons, mounted on a short pole that could be managed by one man. Ten guys with handgonnes were tactically more versatile than one ribauldequin with ten barrels.

The majority opinion is that a handgonne was a terribly inaccurate weapon due to it lacking any aiming features, as well as the need to hold it in one hand while using a fuse held in the other hand to ignite it. But modern reenactors have shown that the opinion is mostly false and pointed out that other hand-held missile weapons, such as bows, crossbows, slings, and javelins, lack aiming features also but users can achieve incredible accuracy nevertheless.

Swedish reenactors shooting a handgonne

Early handgonnes were nothing more than a metal tube with a touch-hole at the breech end mounted on a wooden pole (called a tiller). The ignition came from a slow-match or hot wire being applied to the touch-hole, which set off the main charge. Projectiles were arrows or crossbow quarrels, lead or clay bullets, or small rocks. No patching was used, so the propulsion was diminished and the muzzle velocity attenuated quickly. However, a hit at close range (about 25 paces) could easily penetrate armor. Though much is made of the smoke and noise being a fear factor, the reality is that once troops were seasoned, they would be less afraid. Still, gunpowder and gunpowder weapons were considered something dark for quite a while after their introduction to warfare.

Death shoots a pale handgonne

As the technology advanced, handgonnes began to look more gun-like. Later handgonnes had something more like true gunstocks, rather than tillers, and sported serpentine levers that enabled the user to mechanically apply the match to the touch-hole. The development continued up until in the late 15th c. when the handgonne had essentially become the arquebus.

The slow rate of fire made handgonners particularly vulnerable to attack when they were used in the open field. For this reason, hangonnes were most effective when used in sieges (attacking or defending) or in defending field works. Gonzalo de Córdoba's great victory at the Battle of Cerignola in 1503 marked the point when firearms started to replace earlier hand-held missile weapons en masse and the start of the long-held dominance of the Spanish pike and shot tactics.

Painting Handgonners

Inspired by my new painting velocity using The Miracle Dip™, I've been looking at a handful of abandoned projects to kick-start back into life. One of these projects goes back more than 20 years when I bought a few packs of Grenadier fantasy figures.

The old Grenadier fantasy range had, in addition to orcs, elves, dragons, goblins, etc., a line of humans that were modeled after 15th c. Burgundians—the army of Charles the Bold. These are very nice figures, sculpted by Mark Copplestone in the '80s. The whole range included all kinds of variety with multiple poses for each type: mounted and dismounted knights, mounted men-at-arms, pikemen/spearmen, longbowmen, crossbowmen, halberdiers/billmen, artillery, and handgonners. Charles would approve.

I bought my packs at the now out-of-business American Eagles when they were in Ballard, WA. They only had a few packs and I bought 'em all, which netted me: 10 halberdiers/billmen, 10 handgunners, 2 large handguns with 2 crew each, a small bombard with 2 crew, and some command figures. At the time Grenadier in the US was going under and it was hard to get the figures anywhere in the benighted, insular, pre-Interwebs days. I started painting what I had, but couldn't do much with them, few as they were. I completed the giant handguns (but later sold them at a swap meet). The other figures sat partially painted in a box that traveled with me through three house moves over 20 years. Every now and then, I'd run across them while looking for something else and I'd think that I should get to work and finish them.

Just before Christmas, I resolved to finally do it. Only instead of finishing what I'd started, I was going to strip them and start over. I've only done this a few times. It's not pleasant. I use the Pine-Sol soak 'n' scrub method. I do it the manly man way without gloves, which is supposed to ruin my hands, but so far not. Nevertheless, I'm still prepared to stop if I see a finger dissolving.

The first step was to pry them off the thick plastic bases I'd put them on. Though I recall that when I started painting them, they were just glued to cardboard squares for better handling. I put them on the 20mm x 25mm plastic bases when I was doing a late medieval variant for Tod Kershner's Pig Wars skirmish rules. One of the reasons I hate rebasing is that I base so thoroughly that it's a tough go to de-base the figures. I have sold armies of painted figures rather than rebase them.

Once off their bases, I put the lot in a plastic food container and drowned them in Pine-Sol. The Pine-Sol doesn't dissolve the paint, but it breaks it down so that scrubbing with a firm toothbrush will remove the paint. Theoretically.

Pine-Sol bath

Sometimes it takes a bit more elbow grease and a second (or third) soak 'n' scrub to get it all. Eventually, and at great risk to one's hands, you get a nice pile of bare, clean, shiny, scrubbed minis to start over with.

First scrub (more to do)

I've started for now painting the 10 handgonners (because they're who I love). Grenadier had one pack of five different figures. I got two packs, which still allows for variety, especially since I paint each figure differently. It takes longer to make each figure unique, but block-painting is still pretty fast. I just wind up switching colors a lot on my palette.

Block painting complete; ready for the satin enamel spray

After the block painting is done, I gave them a spritz of clear satin enamel as a prep for brushing on the Minwax stain.

Once I've completed the dip, I give them a spray of Testor's Lusterless (i.e., dullcote) as the penultimate sealer before basing and flocking.

Dipped and dullcoted

Because I'm using the figures for skirmish gaming, the single bases don't need to be any specific size. Typically I use 20mm x 25mm bases for 28mm figures (the William Stewart Standard Base Size™). For my ECW skirmish figures (Renegade and Bicorne), I used larger bases (25mm x 30mm) because the figures are "heroic" 28mm figures with a large footprint. The Grenadier figures are less heroic than the Renegade, but have big footprints. I compromised and used some 1/8 inch tile sheet styrene. I score the tiles at 7/8" x 1 1/8". The resulting base is a bit more narrow and very slightly less deep than the ECW bases.

Cutting bases from 1/8" tile sheet styrene

The tiled sheet styrene makes it easy to cut bases to the right size and also facilitates rounding the corners for a more skirmishy-looking base. I affix the cut bases to the sticky side of some magnetic sheet material from Litko, and then trim off the extra, round the corners, and sand everything smooth with fine grit sandpaper.

I glue the figures to the base using Gorilla super glue and then slap some Golden coarse pumice gel around to hide the rather thick base that comes on the casting. I learned the coarse pumice gel trick from Kevin Smyth. I apply the medium with a palette knife and let it dry for 12-24 hours. The surface is rough and lends itself well to painting and drybrushing.

I had a small pumice crisis to overcome first. I used to get the medium from Michael's, but every store I tried didn't have it. I was afraid it might be a discontinued item (that happens to me a lot). I finally went to Aaron Brothers art supply and got a 8 oz. jar at half price, as well as several Windsor Newton University Series 233 brushes in 000 and 00 sizes in their 1¢ sale (buy one, get one for 1¢). I've used these brushes for years to do my detail painting. Nothing else works for me as well.

When the medium is dry, I trim off the excess with an X-Acto knife. I use slightly thinned Vallejo Mud Brown as my base color and after that dries, I drybrush Vallejo Yellow Ochre over it to bring out the rough texture of the pumice gel medium.

I flock the bases with Woodland Scenics Earth Blend blended turf, leaving patches of 'bare ground.' Then I apply a second layer using Woodland Scenics Light Green coarse turf. After the glue is well dried for the coarse turf, I use some tweezers to pluck it short. The desired effect is a rough surface; tweezing reduces the puffiness of the turf. (I also need to tweeze out the bits of cat hair that get into my flocking, otherwise the bases might look like they have the kind of wispy beards that older women get.)

When the turf is all right, I go over the base edges with some Vallejo Mud Brown, and then give the figures a final spray of Krylon Matte Finish. The Krylon matte is a not-quite dullcote, but not quite a satin either. It leaves just a glint of satin finish on the figure that softens the harsh lusterlessness of the Testor's dullcote.

20 years in the making! Handgonners completed.

Lion Rampant

I'll use the figures I have as seed for one or more Lion Rampant retinues. I wanted to get medieval earlier, but nothing came of it because I couldn't really find a set of rules that I liked and that I could reasonably expect to find other people willing to play (and contribute to by painting minis). Lion Rampant changed that. It's very popular around here. The Tacoma gamers have regular Lion Rampant game days.

Early gunpowder weapons didn't make the cut in Daniel Mersey's published rules. Mersey did, however, provide some stats for them on a Boardgame Geek forum. because, as he notes, "there are some lovely models available for early handgunners." (As we see above.)

Below is a formatted version of the handgonne rules from the forum post.

Unit Name: Handgonners		Points: 4
Attack	7+	Attack Value	6
Move	6+	Defence Value	6
Shoot	8+	Shoot Value	6 /12"
Courage	4+	Max. Movement	6"
Armor	2	Special Rules	Bang, Panic

• Models per unit: 6

Special rules:

• Bang: All units count as Armour 1 against Shooting by this unit (Armour 2 if in cover).
• Panic: When this unit Shoots, the target unit must take a Courage test regardless of the number of hits inflicted.

Unit upgrades:

• Pavises @ 2 points per unit. As for Crossbows.

Also, one poster to the forum suggested an option for having a handgonne blow up. Like the "lucky blow" rule,  when the handgonners shoot, roll 2 x D6. On a double-one, remove one handgonner. 

Grenadier Lives!

More good news is that Grenadier Models aren't dead and gone. Mirliton in Italy produces the full range. Packs of 5 foot figures or 2 mounted run about €8,16 (about $8.86 USD). The kicker is shipping. They charge a small fortune to ship. Unless you're ordering a lot of figures, you're getting soaked. Happily, Mirliton offers 10%, 15%, or 20% discount based on the amount of the sale. That makes shipping costs easier to swallow. At some point this year I'll use my tax refund to make a big purchase so I can get several units for Lion Rampant, enough for two retinues or to be able to mix 'n' match to make a lot of variations on one retinue.

I'm not aware of any US distributor for Mirliton. There is a UK distributor, but their prices are nearly twice the Mirliton prices, plus shipping costs from the UK.

Update 6/3/2020 - Grenadier has crossed the ocean!

There is a source for Mirliton/Grenadier minis in the US, so you can avoid the huge shipping costs from Italy and/or the UK. It's Noble Knight Games. They've had them for years, and I've known they've had them for years; I'm just getting around to updating the info here.

Dipping Deeper

I've completed 31 figures using the "dip method" in just over a week, which includes 24+ hours for drying the dipped figures. I never had that kind of productivity before. Suddenly painting a lot of figures seems easy and I'm pleased with the results—almost more I am with my traditional, slow method.

The second batch of figures I did were some Thirty Years War officers and sergeants along with the two Renegade ECW test figures. All were in buff coats with riding boots and some kind of armor and sashes. As an experiment after my first batch, I wanted to use a gloss or satin coat pre-dip to see if the less toothy surface reduced the amount of "grime" that comes from the dip.

For the officers/sergeants I used Krylon polyurethane satin. I've used it before as a penultimate coat before the final dullcote. The polyurethane is a great protector of the painted figures. However, it's proven to be a bad pre-dip. It took a long time to dry. The can says that it dries in 15 minutes, but it still felt a bit tacky to the touch after 48 hours. It seemed to hold a lot of the stain rather than slough it off to the crevasses (more on that below).

Second batch of officers/sergeants - a bit darkish

The next batch was more musketeers and some drummers. For this batch I used Rust-Oleum satin enamel as the pre-dip. This turned out much better than the polyurethane and dried quickly hard and smooth.

I dipped both batches at the same time. The first thing I noticed is that the stain seemed to be more viscous than when I'd brushed it on the first figures I did. The can had been resealed well, I think, but it had sat in my cold, cold garage since I used it first. I'm no chemist, but it might be that the cold affects the viscosity of the stain. It seemed to flow and ooze less well than before and wicking/drawing off the excess with the brush didn't seem as effective.

The result is that these last figures had a bit more puddling and, for the polyurethane coated figures, a bit more of the stain stuck to the surface. However, I think the result was mostly good. I let the dipped figures dry for more about 35 hours and then gave a them a spritz of dullcote yesterday evening. With the sheen taken off, the colors came out nicely. Set side by side with the musketeers from the first batch, they don't appear to be different.

First and second batch musketeers side by side

To offset the viscosity problem with the stain, I'm keeping it indoors for the winter. I also transferred it from the can to an airtight mason jar. In resealing the can last time I discovered that my "tapping" the lid with a hammer to seat it fully was bending the can. I don't know my own strength apparently.

On the painting table are the first batch of 16 Imperialist pikemen which are just about ready to spray with the satin enamel for dipping later tonight. I've also got 8 artillerymen and three guns. And adding more clutter to my too cluttered painting table is a batch of 5 Renegade ECW pikemen, an officer, and an ensign. I like how well the two test figures turned out, so I'm going whole-hog on getting my batch of Renegade/Bicorne ECW painted for skirmish gaming.

ECW dullcoated and bases flocked

For now, I'll use the ECW for playing Smooth & Rifled from Dadi & Piombo. Eventually, I hope to use them for Dan Mersey's upcoming Pikeman's Lament, which is his pike 'n' shot variant for Lion Rampant. Alas, the wait will be a long one; Osprey won't publish it until late 2016 or early 2017(!).

I made another raid yesterday on the remnants of The Assault Group figures at The Panzer Depot. At 70% off, they're a great deal. I managed to get another 16 artillerymen from the ECW range (not at all distinguishable from Thirty Years War) as well as some more command figures and musketeers.

Also, in yesterday's mail arrived the two falconets I'd ordered earlier in the week from Old Glory. I already have two that I'm using a battalion guns for the 1672 French.

French falconette (old painting method)

They're very nice models and I want my big tercios to have some light gun support—two can play at this game, Gustavus Adolphus!

The transformative nature of this method kind of astounds me. Some gamers call it the "miracle dip" and I can see why. I spent so much time trying to get subtle shading and highlights in my figures and I look at my quick 'n' dirty dipped figures and like them better. Seeing the figures in macro photos, the smoothness of the shading in the dipped figures is much nicer than my awkward brush strokes. Viewed at table-top distance, my old method looked a lot like solid colors; you couldn't see the effects of the shading unless you looked closely. The dip looks good close and far.

Why, oh why, did I wait so long to join the dippy revolution?

My fear now is that Minwax will discontinue the Tudor stain color. It's already impossible to find in stores. I had to order my can from Amazon.

Dip It (Dip It Good)

I've become a devotee of the "dip method" for rapid army painting. I have seen the light and shan't be looking back. I know several gamers who are dippers. I've scrutinized their results and found them to be a delight to the eyes. But I've been hesitant to adopt it because it's such a departure from my traditional method. Old habits die hard, as the saying goes. I've also been reluctant to adopt a "quick 'n' dirty" method, simply because it seems like a cheat.

My traditional method developed over years with only incremental changes. It involves an intricate combination of highlighting, shading, and washing and can be painstakingly slow. As a result, my output over the years has been pitiful. I have many projects that are started but stalled. I have boxes of figures that have been cleaned and primed for painting—or partially painted—and then left to languish. Motivation is certainly a problem, no matter what painting method I use, but the knowledge that I'm facing a slow, painstaking process to get figures painted is no aid to motivation.

When I really concentrate on a figure, I'm very happy with the results. My test case for painting the stalled 1672 project is based on a Swedish uniform color from the Scanian War. It represents the best I can do with my traditional method, although for painting large numbers of figures, it's prohibitively slow, so the units I've already painted for the project use a bit more streamlined process.

Sätt i gång! (fire away!)

Note: The slightly bent musket is post-painting damage from when my evil cat Maebh the Merciless, batted it off the shelf and played floor hockey with it.

When I finally got to the point of trying the dip, I thought about a long-stalled batch of 12 Thirty Years War musketeers, a drummer, and an officer from The Assault Group range. These are beautifully sculpted figures and I wanted to do them justice with a great paint job, but after starting them, I shelved them for years because a) I'm lazy, and b) I didn't want to launch into a solo Thirty Years War project. However, a group of gamers down at The Panzer Depot have been working on a big communal TYW project, so my efforts can supplement that with a tercio or two. The time is right.

So what is the dip method? It's basically using Minwax Polyshades Tudor wood stain to do instant "miracle" shading on figures that are otherwise just blocked out in solid colors (i.e., not shaded or highlighted).

In my lead-up to dipping, I've thought a lot about the mechanics of it. While many dippers actually dip, most use a brush. Actually dipping the figure, apart from getting it all over your hands, requires a lot of flicking to get rid of the excess. Too much stain and you've got a discolored blob. Having watched Steve Puffenberger dip and flick a pile of figures, I decided that's too much work and would probably give me tennis elbow or something. So I opted for brushing.

The trick while painting for the dip is to refrain, despite all temptation, to do anything more than solid colors (although highlighting is up for reconsideration in some cases). That's what speeds it up.

The method also removes detailed face-painting from the process. What to do about faces has always been my downfall. For the dip, I just use my base coat of Howard's Hues Ruddy Flesh and leave it. No sepia wash and detailed eyes. Thank goodness. My hands have never been steady and I'm already using 3x magnifiers to paint with. Any method that produces satisfactory results without painting eyeballs on 28mm figures is OK by me.

Pre-dip blocked out in solid colors

After all the colors were blocked in for the figures, I gave them a spritz of dullcote as final prep for dipping. My impression was that at this point it was an OK paint job, pretty much as when I started painting minis 40 years ago.

With the figures ready to go, I still hestated. I thought of doing one figure and seeing whether I would just ruin it. But after a few days of hestitating, I bit the bullet and went into my garage on Saturday morning with my figures, a can of Minwax Tudor stain, and a brush.

I started with an officer figure in a buff coat. The stain was thinner than I expected (I'd stirred it with a little wooden paddle for a while before brushing it on). It oozed and flowed and puddled into the nooks an crannies of the figure. It also made the detail pop amazingly. I wicked out some excess here and there using the brush and looked on what I'd done. I liked it. With my fears of ruination ameliorated, I went on to the other 13 figures.

The stain dries very glossy. On the recommendation of John of the Panzer Depot, a true dipper himself, I let the stained figures dry for 24 hours before giving them another spritz of dullcote.

The results are very satisfying. The stain darkens the colors overall--not surprisingly. Some would say that the colors become dark and grimy. I think you can counter that by the colors you use. Brighter colors stand out more, but even the darker colors are OK if you go into it understanding that the colors will be some degree darker.

First batch post-dip, post-dullcote

Thoughts on the process

I need to do a bit more wicking away of the stain puddles, I think. I might experiment with a hybrid flick 'n' wick. Even though brushing lets me control how much stain is applied, the stain still puddles like crazy.

I wonder if using a satin or even a gloss coat before dipping would reduce the darkening of the colors. I assume that dullcote has more "tooth" than gloss and therefore keeps more of the stain on its surface. The stain may repel a bit more from glossy or semi-gloss surfaces. I'll have to give it a try.

I think that for some colors that are applied on large areas, like uniform coats, a drybrushed highlight might also help make the post-dip colors brighter.

I might also tend toward lighter colors, which I could get by mixing in a drop or two of white when I'm mixing the paint. I also think that using thinned paints to get a heavy wash will self-highlight to some extent. (I use white primer, so the substrate for the wash lightens the color.)

Online resources

I've found a few places online--though I'm sure there are many more--that offer some advice about the dip:

• DyeHard's Victorian & Edwardian Science Fiction page blog has a good article on the dip.
• The Minitures Page (TMP) has many discussions about the dip. This is good for all the cons as well as pros.
• The Chicago Skirmish Wargaming blog has a great article called With liberty and brush dipping for all.

The future

I'm well-committed to the Thirty Years War project. I've had a large number of figures sitting around for a long time and I just acquired many more. As soon as my recent orders arrive, I'll have enough figures to do two large tercios, two units of dismounted dragoons, three heavy/medium guns, two light guns, two commanded musketeer units, and various command figures.

I've also got many more candidates for dipping. All those primed or partially painted figures imprisoned in boxes can be set free!

I have a lot of single-mounted figures for English Civil War skirmish gaming that are primed and ready. These are Renegade and Bicorne figures, which are BIG 28s (more like 30s). My plan was to do my best traditional method on them, but now I'm thinking that the dip may be the best way to go. I've completed two figures, a Royalist musketeer and a Scots musketeer to see how the dip works for them. Single figures tend to get looked at more closely, so I'm a bit more sensitive to painting them well.

Renegade ECW blocked and ready to dip

There's also the buckets of medieval figures that I have and a big, big box of 28mm Dixon American Civil War figures. (Talking with Kevin Smyth the other day, he's mentioned wanting to paint up his big box of 28mm ACW for Regimental Fire and Fury...)

So, now I've got my marching orders:

When a project comes along
You must dip it
Before the figures sit too long
You must dip it
When the paintin's goin' wrong
You must dip it

Dip it, pilgrim. Dip it good.