I have a serious question about the use of the Enfield rifle in the American Civil War.

[hlhanna]

As others have noted, Brett's books are a fantastic resource for understanding the evolution of the P1851/53 and how the British used them.

The simple answer is the British trained extensively in range estimation and target practice so that they could accurately place volley fire at long range. A company of 100 men could put 3 rounds a minute, thus 300 rounds per minute, thus 5 rounds a second, onto an area the size of a cannon crew at 1000+ yards. They were, essentially, hosing down a quite small area with machinegun-like fire.

Neither US nor Confederate troops were trained in range estimation and target practice to anything anywhere close to what the British army did.

Why did British troops do so poorly later, such as during the Zulu War of 1879 and the Boer War?

 

[smoothshooter]

McClellan. CSA.

I think the officer whose name I could not remember earlier was General Cleburne, CSA, who was killed in battle.

 

[smoothshooter]

Why did British troops do so poorly later, such as during the Zulu War of 1879 and the Boer War?

Because the British army backed off on training ammunition expenditures. They have always ben strapped for cash. Most of their defense budgets have heavily favored their navy, since that has traditionally been the preferred way to project power around the world to enforce British foreign policy.
Bad generalship and the bureaucracy surrounding the issuing of ammunition to the troops, even in combat, were sometimes disastrous.
Read up on the battle of Isandlwanda for specifics.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Hlhanna,
A large part of the answer regarding what you perceive as a poor showing by British troops in the Zulu war, etc, comes down to bad leadership.
In these battles like Isandlwana, there was simply not enough men, and spread too far and too thinly to hold the line against impossible odds.
Quite simply with a single shot rifle, they were overrun.
It was because of poor judgment in leadership, that the soldiers were in an impossible position.

The Boer war has other answers!

 

[maillemaker]

Why did British troops do so poorly later, such as during the Zulu War of 1879 and the Boer War?

I don't know; not my area of study, I'm afraid.

 

[Some_Mook]

Why did British troops do so poorly later, such as during the Zulu War of 1879 and the Boer War?

If you like watching You Tube videos, British Muzzle Loaders has a series of videos concerning both areas of conflict

 

[Iron Jim Rackham]

The success of the 19th century British army may be attributed to the military inferiority of its enemies. The British army did very well against poorly equipped Russian infantry and mutinous Indian troops, but did not, otherwise face formidable adversaries. Despite obvious sympathy for the Confederacy, Great Britain was politically unwilling and militarily unprepared to engage the United States, At the end of the 19th century when Great Britain was fighting the Boers and engaged in 1,000-yard combat shooting, it was believed that future battles would be fought at long range. When the Great War erupted in 1914 the belligerents were armed with rifles capable of long-range accuracy, that in the event were unnecessary for trench warfare. The same long-range cartridges were used at the start of the second world war, but before it ended all the combatants realized that greater lethality could be achieved from weapons capable of a higher rate of fire at ranges of 300 yards or less. American combat doctrine has always been aggressive with the emphasis on speed and mobility. Whether the American soldier has been armed with a rifled musket, bolt action rifle, self-loading rifle, or selective fire rifle the tactics have always been aggressive, and never favored fighting at a distance,

 

[SwanShot]

That's also what I've read; the Americans had very little training and knew nothing about adjusting sights. Long distance rifles were a new thing they knew nothing about.

I agree. The British were trained in the use of long range shooting. As I understand it the Union soldiers weren't.

 

[Widows Son]

The 1855 Springfield was basically the US Ordnance Dept copying the idea of a .58 rifle-musket from the British Enfield concept. The original Minie was .5775 because during peacetime, the 1855 Springfield was a very finely made rifle with close bore tolerances.

When the war started, all of this went out the window as 12+ contractors were making 1861 Pattern rifles, the US was buying Enfields, the CS tried to standardize on the P53 while also making a copy of the 1861 Springfield.....very confusing and not conducive to marksmanship training. There was never a "standard" as there were so many calibers and types of rifles being used it was hard to supply ammo for every different type let alone train with them. The .58 Minie/ Burton was constantly being altered and lube formulas changed, by the US Ordnance Dept and the Confederates tried to standardize on the Pritchett cartridge, but there were also other types of bullets and cartridges used.

By the time ANY military fully figured out the rifle-musket, technology had advanced and by the late 1860's every major power had gone to Breech Loading rifles. The British , hands down, get the #1 spot for mastery of the Rifle-Musket in actual combat. America (and the CS ) never were able to fully use them to anywhere near their potential.

4-6" at 100 yards was considered acceptable for a .58 rifle-musket. This would still allow hits on a man at 300 , most of the time and this was good enough for wartime use. And 4-6" was from a sandbag rest by an experienced shooter. The vast majority of people, then and today, can't pick up a .58 rifle-musket and shoot into 6" at 100 yards from a standing position, or any position, even if someone else loads for them. "Accuracy" is over emphasized in my opinion. Acceptable Combat Accuracy, Range and Reliabilty are the real concerns because absolute Accuracy can only be effectively used by very experienced and trained shooters. A battle hardened Regiment like the Irish Brigade armed with .69 1842 Springfield muskets would absolutely rout a regiment of the same size, of green, inexperienced soldiers with P53 Enfields because the men with the P53's and no training wouldn't be hitting, they would be panic firing while the salty, hardened men with .69 Smoothbores would be at 100 yards, hitting the other men with "accurate enough" fire. Accuracy is useless if you can't properly use it.

By comparison, a military M16A2 that shoots 3" at 100 meters is considered within spec and means the rifle is mechanically capable of hitting a man-sized silhouette to 300 meters. And even that is beyond the capability of the majority of shooters using this type of rifle. "Mil Spec" doesn't equate to accuracy, it equated to "within spec" of a mass produced weapon that performs well enough for the shooting that will be expected of it. I myself would be dissapointed if I saw 3" from an AR15 I owned.

I fired maybe a 10" group at 100 with my ArmiSport CS Richmond a few days ago, with some random .575 Minies I found that I sized a few years ago. Obviously the rifle would probably like a larger bullet but in 1863 that rifle would have been good enough for Govt Work....it fired and functioned with .575 Minies and put them where they needed to go. The chase for MOA accuracy often leads down a road of frustration, and sometimes you just get what you get with that weapon and ammo.

Very well stated my friend. It brings to mind the fundamental shooters standards of what does accuracy mean?

I’m of the opinion that accuracy is determined by what is acceptable for the circumstances. If one is competing for a place on an Olympic target team then only small tight groups are acceptable accuracy. If hunting meat, anywhere in the vital area to make a clean humane kill is acceptable. If killing our fellow human beings, a hit pretty much anywhere from crotch to forehead will be enough to put him out of action.

So with regard to a rifled musket’s slow heavy bullet hitting a man pretty much anywhere on his anatomy at 100 or 1000 yards is acceptable accuracy.

 

[Stantheman86]

Very well stated my friend. It brings to mind the fundamental shooters standards of what does accuracy mean?

I’m of the opinion that accuracy is determined by what is acceptable for the circumstances. If one is competing for a place on an Olympic target team then only small tight groups are acceptable accuracy. If hunting meat, anywhere in the vital area to make a clean humane kill is acceptable. If killing our fellow human beings, a hit pretty much anywhere from crotch to forehead will be enough to put him out of action.

So with regard to a rifled musket’s slow heavy bullet hitting a man pretty much anywhere on his anatomy at 100 or 1000 yards is acceptable accuracy.

It was and always will be a trade off , and "Combat Accurate" will always be the norm with Service weapons like rifles and pistols . The exception being stuff like sniper rifles.

The guys on here shooting tuned up rifles with carefully worked up loads and precisely sized bullets out of rifle muskets , vs shooting "Service loads " are like comparing David Tubbs match AR's with a rattle trap M16A2 that's seen 10 arsenal rebuilds and 3 wars.

Accuracy is totally subjective. Even today, service rifles have slop built in to the chambers to account for dirt, carbon, various ammo that's mass produced and not precisely made, etc. Vs very precisely cut Match chambers designed for precision Match ammo

We can have the best chance at reliability across a wide range of mass produced battle rifles or we can have the best chance at accuracy. We can't do both. We can't send men into combat with match rifles with tight tolerances and ammunition that produces the best accuracy in all of them. We need weapons that will reliably go bang and put bullets into acceptable margins of accuracy.

The Swiss did achieve the balance of extremely accurate battle rifles issued to Line Infantry for over 100 years but as a neutral nation they had the luxury of basically issuing match rifles. On top of the fact that rifle marksmanship is pretty much a National pastime there

 

[tjiann]

From what I've read, the poor marksmanship of relatively untrained American Civil War soldiers is exactly why the NRA was started after the war (to promote training in marksmanship) with Burnside as it's first President.

 

[Stantheman86]

From what I've read, the poor marksmanship of relatively untrained American Civil War soldiers is exactly why the NRA was started after the war (to promote training in marksmanship) with Burnside as it's first President.

Going from memory I think the NRA started in England and caught on over here after the Civil War

Marksmanship in the US Army wasn't a priority until the WWI period when bonuses were given out for shooting Expert and more training in shooting was conducted.

All the 80 year old Ordnance Generals always thought marksmanship training was a waste of ammunition all through the 1800s and early 1900s. People ask how some State Guard units were able to keep using Trapdoors through the 1910's, because they rarely fired them.

Even as an active Duty Army 11b in the mid-2000s we really didn't do a lot of live fire ranges which surprised me. We had the only job in the world where our main role is to shoot people and we fired our weapons maybe 3-4 times per year

 

[Stantheman86]

The success of the 19th century British army may be attributed to the military inferiority of its enemies. The British army did very well against poorly equipped Russian infantry and mutinous Indian troops, but did not, otherwise face formidable adversaries. Despite obvious sympathy for the Confederacy, Great Britain was politically unwilling and militarily unprepared to engage the United States, At the end of the 19th century when Great Britain was fighting the Boers and engaged in 1,000-yard combat shooting, it was believed that future battles would be fought at long range. When the Great War erupted in 1914 the belligerents were armed with rifles capable of long-range accuracy, that in the event were unnecessary for trench warfare. The same long-range cartridges were used at the start of the second world war, but before it ended all the combatants realized that greater lethality could be achieved from weapons capable of a higher rate of fire at ranges of 300 yards or less. American combat doctrine has always been aggressive with the emphasis on speed and mobility. Whether the American soldier has been armed with a rifled musket, bolt action rifle, self-loading rifle, or selective fire rifle the tactics have always been aggressive, and never favored fighting at a distance,

100%, the American doctrine has always been aggressive and "Violence of Action" is what we have always done .

Like WWI with our rolling volleys of buckshot fire from pump shotguns. The Germans wanted this made "illegal "

This was why the 5.56 was developed in the 1950s, we realized the era of European battles across open expanses was dead, and the heavy battle rifles that shoot 1000+ meters were obsolete.

Weapons technology advances but in general, the distance of small arms engagement for the US military has been at an average of 100 Yards from 1775 to now. And the rounds fired vs hit ratio is likely similar, adjusted for the number of combatants in a conflict.

It is estimated that doing the fuzzy math, for every Insurgent killed by small arms during GWOT , 300,000 rounds were expended and the final rough round count from 2001-2017 was 20 Billion + rounds expended.

Who knows how many Minie balls were fired in the Civil War, probably Millions.

There's really not a lot of aiming going on here, lots of guys in the fog of war firing their weapons in the General direction of the enemy.

 

[Widows Son]

If a rifled-musket and minié/Pritchett ball was used on a modern battlefield, it might be a criminal offence for inflicting undue pain and trauma. We are all familiar with the dreadful wounds they caused in history.

I don’t mean to go off on a tangent…I only thought in regards to mitigating ‘acceptable accuracy’, even a ten-inch hit zone at 300 yards with a soft lead minié ball is more likely to make a mortal wound.

 

[Widows Son]

Who knows how many Minie balls were fired in the Civil War, probably Millions.

It has been estimated that it took 16 pounds of lead to hit an enemy soldier, for either side.

 

[SwanShot]

There was nothing generally done like extra pay given to either U.S. or C.S. Soldiers, even in the Pre-War U.S. Army that did train out to and including 700 yards. Had they done so, I'm sure it would have MORE than encouraged them to become better shots.

OK, I don't wish to take anyone to task personally who posted otherwise, BUT Volley Firing to 1,200 and even further distances WAS PRACTICED by British Soldiers at different ranges, so they had recorded the sight settings to repeat it.

NO, they weren't talking about single aimed shots taking out single enemy soldiers at those distances.

The idea was they would rain down bullets in enemy STAGING AREAS or BIVOUAC AREAS where the Enemy was not drawn out in Battle Lines, but rather clumped fairly closely together. You not only got their Infantry, but you also got their Supporting Elements that way and that could really mess up the Enemy's plans and their Morale. It was and remains an extremely effective tactic.

Gus

The modern equivalent would be harassing machine gun fire

 

[maillemaker]

It was and always will be a trade off , and "Combat Accurate" will always be the norm with Service weapons like rifles and pistols .

To give an idea of expected "combat accuracy" in the United States, target practice started (or was supposed to start, given the scarcity of actual training) at 150 yards and the target was 22" wide x 72" tall. As the ranges progressed out farther the width of the target grew. The target at 1000 yards was 6 feet high and 22 feet wide.

A System of Target Practice for the Use of Troops, Henry Heth, 1862:

 

[SwanShot]

I recall a saying that it took the weight of a man in lead to have killed him. It has been worked out that there were around 7,000 shots fired for each of the causulties

My Parker-Hale musketoons and my ArmiSport Richmond are tack drivers out to 100 with .570 RBs

The Musketoons will shoot ragged holes the size of a golf ball at 50 with patched round balls .

For probably different reasons but the 1:77 twist of the 3-bander rifles plays well with tightly patched balls , putting a slow spin on them

The 1:48 twist and short barrel of the P-H Musketoons , plus the Progressive Depth rifling makes them accurate with easier loading .570 balls and .010 patches

Of couse you and you rifle can do that while artillery rounds crash down around you. and people are shooting at you.

 

[SwanShot]

Why did British troops do so poorly later, such as during the Zulu War of 1879 and the Boer War?

Gross over confidence.

 

[Artificer]

Gross over confidence.

That and poor reconnaissance because of over confidence.

Gus