Musket Accuracy - Then and Now

With all the questions concerning accuracy we get and expect from the smoothbores we shoot, I thought perhaps a quote from the past would help narrow expectations and induce a desire for improvment. This quote is from a certain Bosworth, a civil engineer and supporter for the rifled armin military use. As he was also required to help with experiments with the muskets of the day, in the 1840's, Bosworth noted that:
: the musket is now all it ever has been, and in some points[url] improved....in[/url] the hands of one who has studied it's proeprties, it will throw a ball with an accuracy that would surprise a large portion of those who are in the habit of using it. What we seriously want is more knowledge among the soldiery, both of guns and gunpowder."end quote.
: I should note that allowances in those days allowed a maximum of 3/100's inch of bore size (.68" to .71") and 1 to 1/2" in barrel length. With these loose bore tolerances, it is no wonder some shot as poorly as they did, or lost their loads if the muzzle was pointed downward. They still expected, with only .63" balls in the .69's,(.68's to .71's) to hit a man at 80yds. 100% of the time. Increasing the paper ctg'd ball's dia. to .65, increased the hit ratio 22% at 100yds.
: We know today, with our 'truely bored muskets and parallel bored shotguns, to be able to keep them constantly in the 10" circle at 100yds, and with good load development, can indeed, keep them in 8", that is, no shots more than 4" from the aiming point.
: We do possess a positive advantage over the guns of that day, in quality, workmanship and close tolerances as we expect from the manufacturers of guns for the sport, today.
Daryl

 

[musketman]

People of that era also learned to USE their muskets, their life depended on it...

If it shot low, you just hold higher, and so on...

I wounder how much history would change if we could send a few thousand of Davide Pedersoli & Company's muskets back in time to our ancestors?

So much for the PRIME DIRECTIVE... :winking:

 

[Rocky Johnson]

MM- I think of things like that also,like AK47's at Bunker Hill or Little Round top. Rocky /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[musketman]

MM- I think of things like that also,like AK47's at Bunker Hill or Little Round top. Rocky /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

There was an Original Twilight Zone Episode called: "The 7th Is Made Up of Phantoms" (Ep. 130, December 6, 1963) - A trio of National Guardsmen conducting war exercises near Little Big Horn in 1964 encounters evidence that another battle is going on--one that occurred in 1876.

Remember that one?

 

[Claude Mathis]

I do remember it. Great episode.

Weren't they in a tank?

 

[riarcher]

Dang! :redface: I remember that too! We're all getting old (er)? :shocking:

 

[musketman]

I should note that allowances in those days allowed a maximum of 3/100's inch of bore size (.68" to .71") and 1 to 1/2" in barrel length. With these loose bore tolerances, it is no wonder some shot as poorly as they did, Daryl

That was just the tolerances allowed by one gun maker, (musket to musket, so to speak) I'm sure the tolerances opened up wider still from gunsmith to gunsmith contracted to produce the same firearm...

But it doesn't stop there, shot tolerances varied to ball to ball, just like we see variances when we cast, on the larger scale (shot towers and shot mills) there was probably no one to sort through 10,000 newly made musket balls to look for those 100 or so undersized projectiles...

 

Taht is why they went o swaged balls for both the musket and the rifle. The balls WERE .525" for the rifles and .52 Hall guns, rifle and smooth, and .65 being the largest apparently swaged for the muskets.
: The government parameters for barrels was 3 hundreths. That's from .68 to .71. A 'tight' musket, at .68 shot the governemnt ctgs.wth .65" balls, more accurately than one that should have had .68" balls. Even as of 1830, many of the muskets were called exceedingly ill bored. That could not only be the dia. but the variance inside the barrel. You would think reaming would take care fo that, but that wasn't the case. Mention prior to that complained of cast musket balls varying in dia. and some being too large for cintinuous shooting from a 'small' barrel. You can be assured it was the most accurate, though.
: From what I can glean, the Model of 1842, the FIRST percussion .69 musket, still having a front sight on the front band and separate bayonette lug, was the very best musket they ever had, compared to the 1795 model(which was actually the French Model of 1763. This 1842 model was the favourite rifle of many company's once they were re-called and rifled for the minnie in 1853-55. Not only was it the most accurate, it was also the first that used interchangable parts, musket to musket.
Daryl