Shooting Military rifles like they were designed to be used

[Piquant]

Perhaps, but the northern snipers were all target shooters from the northeast, and overall were much better shots than those from the south.

I doubt that seriously.

 

[Uncle Miltie]

I doubt that seriously.

I am not trying to be a troll but If you educate yourself about target shooting in the US at that time you will likely have no doubt.

 

[Piquant]

I am not trying to be a troll but If you educate yourself about target shooting in the US at that time you will likely have no doubt.

Only a very small group of them were target shooters. The rest was chicken chokers. Really no joke, and bad chicken chokers at that. Don't take my word on it, look it up.

 

[Stantheman86]

That seems off a bit to me. Balls are lousy projectiles, bullets although heavier have better sectional density and retain their velocity better. Would be interesting to see the trajectories of .69 balls and bullets on a graph. Maybe someone here can offer real world experience comparing both. YMMV

Adjusted for the greater numbers of troops involved and higher numbers of battles, the Casualty Rate per man in the Civil War was nearly identical to the American Revolution and Napoleonic War.

The idea that catastrophic numbers of men were cut down by Minie balls and a much higher death rate occurred is a myth, because the average distance of combat was 110 yards. At this range more men would have been hit by .69 Smoothbore muskets using a 100 grain service charge vs a .58 Minie which is very hard to effectively aim and many went over the heads of the enemy.

The General of the US Army Ordnance Dept wanted to keep .69 Percussion muskets as the standard arm because, to paraphrase "the boys can't hit anything anyway and when they throw them down to run we're only out $2 instead of $10"

 

[Stantheman86]

First thank you for one of the most informative posts I've read on TMF. I've ordered a used copy of "The Rifled Musket in the Civil War: Myth and Reality ". It is a fascinating subject.

If I may ask a follow up question: Was this lack of understanding about bullet trajectories limited mostly to city and town residents, or was it common across the entire eastern U.S.

The reason I ask is, most rural born and raised men I've known (north, south and west) were at least adequate marksmen. Some were exceptional. Plus, 80% of the U.S. population was rural in 1860.

I was given a BB gun about age 4 or 5. After instruction on lining up the front and rear sight I was on my own. Watching those little copper balls arc and drift into, or past, my target was my shooting instructor. Same for slingshots, bow and arrow. I knew about trajectories even before I knew the names or causes.

Again, the question above is sincere. I'm really puzzled.

One Third of the soldiers in the Federal Army were immigrants who had only recently arrived in America . Most probably hadn't ever fired a rifle or had very limited experience

The whole "Southern men were better marksmen " is largely a myth as the vast majority of CS Enlisted men were of a lower socioeconomic group that , as said above, probably just used shotguns to put meat on the table . Most were likely working class people or laborers , and didn't do a lot of shooting.

The % of men with the skills to be "Snipers " was minuscule.

Even the Sharpshooter Regiments / Skirmishers were simply soldiers who had the will to do soldier stuff, could pass marksmanship standards, road marching tests and had some Discipline, and could hit something at 200 yards with a Rifle-Musket, thus making them "specialized " troops. Most rank and file troops could barely operate their weapons which explains all the rifles and muskets found with numerous projectiles in the bores or why trees had ramrods in them for years after battles occurred.

Both sides had Sharpshooters but the "standard" wasn't all that stringent , and varied according to the Commander.

 

[Trot]

Generally speaking, the southern soldiers were more familiar with rifles and were overall better shots. A high percentage of northern soldiers were from the city and probably never even held a rifle before entering the service, the south being more rural had more hunters, people who relied on their skills to feed the family. Specialized units in the north however, like Berdan's sharpshooters, had very strict requirements to get in and were comprised of some of the best shots in the country.

 

[Stantheman86]

Generally speaking, the southern soldiers were more familiar with rifles and were overall better shots. A high percentage of northern soldiers were from the city and probably never even held a rifle before entering the service, the south being more rural had more hunters, people who relied on their skills to feed the family. Specialized units in the north however, like Berdan's sharpshooters, had very strict requirements to get in and were comprised of some of the best shots in the country.

This was not true in 2007-2010 when I was an active duty Army Infantryman and I don't think it was all that true in 1861-1865 either. Guys from the South or Texas were not better shots and it was me, a weird guy who was way too into guns from NJ, who was my platoons Designated Marksman because I did nothing in my entire early 20s but shoot rifles, basically. Lots of the Southern Boys that grew up hunting didn't do as well hitting the plastic Ivan's from 25-300m with an M16 with Iron Sights.

This goes along with the "Southern troops were better at riding horses " thing

Geographical location had nothing to do with skill with a rifle, especially a Rifled-Musket which had only been developed in the early 1850s. Shooting a .36 long rifle at squirrels does not equate to hitting a man at 300 with an 1861 Springfield or P53 Enfield . I believe this is more of a Reenactorism that has found its way into Fact over the last 60 years.

The Federal Snipers skill has often been inflated as stories are told and distances get farther each time an account is written down. California Joe Head "hitting a Confederate Sharpshooter at a mile or more " or the "7 footer Confederate soldier " that was taunting the Federal Sharpshooters and they hit him at 1000 yards. It was probably more like 300.....

In reality, even scopes back then were rudimentary but seeing and hitting an individual man at any range past 300 with any kind of sight was most likely extremely rare. All this skill with a rifle on either side would have been rarely if ever a factor. Even Sharpshooters were in the flanks conducting area fire to break up Artillery crews at 500 or shooting at point targets at 2-300. If you missed 50% of the time it didn't matter. It's a skill most likely 95% of any of us possess just from occasional range shooting . Hitting people at 700, 1000 yards plus, is a whole different skill set.

 

[Uncle Miltie]

Northern shooters were better because serious target shooting for $$ was a sport held in the Northern states, not in the south.

Scopes back then were actually quite good, but most target rifles at that time were cloth patched picket rifles which while they were not as accurate as slug rifles with their longer bullets were able to accurately hit a man sized target out to 400 yards or so. Slug rifles could easily dispatch a soldier at much further distances but they were rare in the 1860's and I'm not certain if any were actually used in the war.

Many of the vaunted long distance shots are nothing more than fables, many of which have been debunked.

 

[dave951]

This was not true in 2007-2010 when I was an active duty Army Infantryman and I don't think it was all that true in 1861-1865 either. Guys from the South or Texas were not better shots and it was me, a weird guy who was way too into guns from NJ, who was my platoons Designated Marksman because I did nothing in my entire early 20s but shoot rifles, basically. Lots of the Southern Boys that grew up hunting didn't do as well hitting the plastic Ivan's from 25-300m with an M16 with Iron Sights.

This goes along with the "Southern troops were better at riding horses " thing

Geographical location had nothing to do with skill with a rifle, especially a Rifled-Musket which had only been developed in the early 1850s. Shooting a .36 long rifle at squirrels does not equate to hitting a man at 300 with an 1861 Springfield or P53 Enfield . I believe this is more of a Reenactorism that has found its way into Fact over the last 60 years.

The Federal Snipers skill has often been inflated as stories are told and distances get farther each time an account is written down. California Joe Head "hitting a Confederate Sharpshooter at a mile or more " or the "7 footer Confederate soldier " that was taunting the Federal Sharpshooters and they hit him at 1000 yards. It was probably more like 300.....

In reality, even scopes back then were rudimentary but seeing and hitting an individual man at any range past 300 with any kind of sight was most likely extremely rare. All this skill with a rifle on either side would have been rarely if ever a factor. Even Sharpshooters were in the flanks conducting area fire to break up Artillery crews at 500 or shooting at point targets at 2-300. If you missed 50% of the time it didn't matter. It's a skill most likely 95% of any of us possess just from occasional range shooting . Hitting people at 700, 1000 yards plus, is a whole different skill set.

My nephew in the 101st would make you think twice. He's a good ole boy from the Tarheel state and yeah, the kid can shoot. If you're going to shoot for money with him, just save your ammo and give him the cash cuz he's going to get it anyway. Better not to get embarrassed at the same time. The guys in his outfit call him "Hillbilly" for that reason and he seems to be the only one who knows how to read a map and compass and build a fire and shelter in a driving rain storm. I guess he listened pretty well when we had him in Scouts.

 

[Whitworth]

a .58 Minie which is very hard to effectively aim and many went over the heads of the enemy.

As Ricky used to say to Lucy, "splain".

 

[dave951]

As Ricky used to say to Lucy, "splain".

The .58cal minie is not hard to "effectively" aim. The problem is with the issue sights and lack of marksmanship training in the ranks. The issue sights do not lend themselves to precision shooting. If you're aiming at the big crowd of guys in blue suits over yonder, different thing. Picking just one out, different story.

 

[Stantheman86]

As Ricky used to say to Lucy, "splain".

 

[Stantheman86]

The 2-Way Firing Range is the great equalizer

Effectively using a Rifle-Musket in the chaos of combat is a whole different thing than shooting at targets

By the geographical location logic, soldiers from rural Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York State , the NJ Pine Barrens or New England should be excellent shooters too

Engagements occurred so close that some units insisted on keeping their .69 Smoothbores like the Irish Brigade because buck and ball in volleys was more effective than poorly aimed Minie fire

If marksmanship was so common in the CSA than entire Divisions of Confederates would have stayed in the wood lines and poured accurate fire into Federal Troops at 500 yards and won every battle.

I shot at this Ivan at 200 with a .58 rifled- musket , I hit about half my shots and some landed short, and some went high as getting a bead at that range and hitting every time on the Ivan from standing is beyond my skill set at this time. A 50% hit ratio on a man at 200 yards from standing with a .58 Rifle-Muset would probably be considered above average marksmanship in 1863 and if 5000 men would be able to do this at 200 yards, in combat, under fire they would have been cutting the enemy to pieces with accurate fire. If Ivan was shooting back at me I would not have hit him nearly as much. 200 yards is 100 yards more than the average Civil War engagement, with "first fires" being exchanged.

 

[Trot]

Generally speaking, anyone with past experience with firearms, who has hunted, has knowledge of range, windage etc. will be a step ahead of someone who has never picked up a gun before. Especially during the Civil War where there was no or very little training with the arms. It doesn't matter if it is a squirrel hunter from Tennessee or a deer hunter from Michigan, past experience helps, nothing geographic about it. The south just happened to have a more agrarian, rural society with a higher percentage of the population dependent on hunting. Combat is a whole different scenario with a different type of weapon, it is just a case of some experience is going to better than no experience!

 

[Whitworth]

View attachment 184648

Still don't get your point with out a comparison of the two projectiles at point blank range. At 100 yards a smoothbore is pretty much a slow spray and pray weapon on an single target. Volley fire into a group would be something akin to spray and pray. YMMV

 

[Stantheman86]

Still don't get your point with out a comparison of the two projectiles at point blank range. At 100 yards a smoothbore is pretty much a slow spray and pray weapon on an single target. Volley fire into a group would be something akin to spray and pray. YMMV

I've fired my .69 Smoothbore at 100 yard targets and it's fully capable of hits on a man sized target. There's no spraying and praying at all. Add in Buck and Ball and you really can't miss. Hits at 200 yards with a smoothbore musket are about 25% on a man sized target based on what I've experienced. There were exhaustive studies done in the 1850s on this .

Factoring in the skill of largely conscript soldiers, the .69 Smoothbore is actually the more effective choice. Commanders waited until "smoothbore range" to engage anyway. Why did the Federal troops watch Picketts Division advance across a half mile of open field before engaging? By all logic they should have been using their .58 rifles to engage as soon as they left the woodline.....because the Officers in charge knew the bullets would fly far overhead of the Confederates or land short. And repeated volleys would just break down fire order and command and control.

The data compiled on the performance of Minies at long ranges was data compiled by the US Ordnance Dept when very skilled Ordnance Officers were firing the rifles in testing, not Pvt Joe Snuffy

Basically , in a nutshell, there's not much of a difference with .58 rifles vs .69 Smoothbores to 200 yards, in practical terms of Civil War combat.

Past 200 yards is largely academic because very few engagements began at longer ranges.

There's a reason why the original plan was to continue to issue. 69 Smoothbores to line Infantry and use the new .58 rifles for special Rifle regiments, like in the Mexican War.

Smoothbores are also faster and easier to load and are less ammo sensitive. Minie sizing was a constant issue with the .58's

But it was decided to standardize on
the .58 for logistical reasons which didn't work out anyway

By 1865 the US was already moving to converting all these surplus rifles to Trapdoor and by 1867 the British had gone to the Snider, so the .58 Rifled Musket had a brief service life and was only really used to its potential in large scale combat by the British in the Crimean War. Who actually trained their soldiers extensively, unlike the US and CS.

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

I've fired my .69 Smoothbore at 100 yard targets and it's fully capable of hits on a man sized target. There's no spraying and praying at all. Add in Buck and Ball and you really can't miss. Hits at 200 yards with a smoothbore musket are about 25% on a man sized target based on what I've experienced. There were exhaustive studies done in the 1850s on this .

Factoring in the skill of largely conscript soldiers, the .69 Smoothbore is actually the more effective choice. Commanders waited until "smoothbore range" to engage anyway. Why did the Federal troops watch Picketts Division advance across a half mile of open field before engaging? By all logic they should have been using their .58 rifles to engage as soon as they left the woodline.....because the Officers in charge knew the bullets would fly far overhead of the Confederates or land short. And repeated volleys would just break down fire order and command and control.

The data compiled on the performance of Minies at long ranges was data compiled by the US Ordnance Dept when very skilled Ordnance Officers were firing the rifles in testing, not Pvt Joe Snuffy

View attachment 184711

Basically , in a nutshell, there's not much of a difference with .58 rifles vs .69 Smoothbores to 200 yards, in practical terms of Civil War combat.

Past 200 yards is largely academic because very few engagements began at longer ranges.

There's a reason why the original plan was to continue to issue. 69 Smoothbores to line Infantry and use the new .58 rifles for special Rifle regiments, like in the Mexican War.

Smoothbores are also faster and easier to load and are less ammo sensitive. Minie sizing was a constant issue with the .58's

But it was decided to standardize on
the .58 for logistical reasons which didn't work out anyway

By 1865 the US was already moving to converting all these surplus rifles to Trapdoor and by 1867 the British had gone to the Snider, so the .58 Rifled Musket had a brief service life and was only really used to its potential in large scale combat by the British in the Crimean War. Who actually trained their soldiers extensively, unlike the US and CS.

The Irish Brigade used M1842 Springfield smoothbore .69 caliber muskets loaded with buck and ball to devastating effect in a few battles. They can be very formidable weapons in closer range fights.

 

[TDM]

If marksmanship was so common in the CSA than entire Divisions of Confederates would have stayed in the wood lines and poured accurate fire into Federal Troops at 500 yards and won every battle.

The tactics of the day didn't allow for that on either side. Would have been interesting if it had. In a morbid sense.

 

[Stantheman86]

The tactics of the day didn't allow for that on either side. Would have been interesting if it had. In a morbid sense.

Napoleonic Tactics were still trained at West Point at this time, long range rifle volleys weren't even integrated into the "training culture " of American Officers yet

It definitely would have been interesting if more Crimean War type battles occurred, with 1000+ yard volleys but not a single battle even close to this happened in our Civil War

We are always fighting one war behind with weapons from that last war. By the 1860s , the front loading rifle was obsolete and the US Army Ordnance Dept was already looking for a breech loader to adopt, and we were watching the Prussians in the O
late 1840s with their needle guns , and the British were looking at them too. They were just too expensive and hard to maintain but we knew the muzzleloading military rifle was pretty much dead by the late 1850s but any developed nation was already looking to upgrade their arsenal with Breechloaders

Then the war started and the US and CS fought with what was available and able to be easily manufactured, the Rifle-Musket was already in the production pipeline. It was obsolete before the first 1861 Springfield left the arsenal. The 1855 Springfield probably would have just been another oddball transitional US weapon that we used right before we went to a breech loader, had the Civil War never started.

 

[Stantheman86]

Still don't get your point with out a comparison of the two projectiles at point blank range. At 100 yards a smoothbore is pretty much a slow spray and pray weapon on an single target. Volley fire into a group would be something akin to spray and pray. YMMV

50 yards , standing, with .65 round ball

100 Yards from standing with .65 round ball cartridges

I have a Pedersoli 1816 Springfield percussion conversion with a rear sight, it's a repro of the muskets that were converted and had rear sights added, but weren't rifled

The rear sight helps to shoot accurately, but results with my 1795 Springfield are similar which has no rear sight.

A .69 Smoothbore can be a very capable weapon and this musket will shoot with some of my .58s at 50 and 100.

At 200 I can probably land 1 in 5 on a Q Target. At 300 it's just a pot shot but it still gets them out there