Rifled musket?

[JackAubrey]

I have been reading a lot about the rifled musket lately. I keep finding that within actual contact ranges the smoothbore was just as, or more effective than the rifled musket.I would like to hear opinions. I was under the impression the mine ball was "history's deadliest bullet." JA

 

[nwtradegun]

you are posting in the wrong area. a rifled musket is a rifle. a smoothbore cant compete with it. rifled muskets where used for military conflicts after 1820 I believe. civil war use was for close to long range. the south used parker hale whitworth and volenter rifles long range 451 diameter 475 grin bullets out to 800 ormore yards.

 

[Grumpa]

(I think your original post, and my response, were lost in the server upgrade.)

As I understand it, the advantage of the Minie ball in the rifled musket over the paper patched roundball in the smoothbore musket is in accuracy of aimed fire at longer ranges, and retention of velocity and energy at longer ranges.

I would not think there is any difference in the speed of loading. Within 50 - 70 yards or so, there should be little meaningful difference in accuracy.

But double the distance to 150 yards, and the rifled musket Minie combination is in its own league. Double that distance again (300 yards) and the rifled musket /Minie is playing by itself. And it could do so at even greater ranges.

This is due to the poor ballistics of a round ball, the better ballistics of an elongated, heavier bullet, and the advantage of rifling.

Obviously, the round ball was dealing devastation to deer, elk, moose, bear and men long before Minie invented his bullet. The Minie just did it better, at greater range.

Unfortunately for the soldiers, the military tacticians of the day did not fully grasp this fact.

Others should be along who will add to this, or maybe say that I don't know what I'm talking about, and show us why. :grin:

Fact is, I get educated, and re-educated, every day on this Forum.

 

[tenngun]

The round ball is a crappy projectile at best. When compared to a . 58 Minnie it loses on almost all fronts. The one advantage a ball has is that it is such a poor projectile. It loses velocity within very short range. Thinking about sheading velocity we have to think what that means. The ball absorbs the energy of the burning powder, turning the force of the explosion in to velocity. Sheading velocity means dissipating that energy in to the air. In a vacume the RB would keep its velocity until it hit something. Down here on earth as soon as a ball leaves the muzzle the air starts robbing it of energy. Living flesh robs it of energy even faster then air. In that one way a ball is better then a Minnie, it delivers energy to the target faster then a Minnie. A 1200 fps RB will deliver more energy to the target then a 900 fps Minnie. How ever it will make little difference to the target. Dead is dead. A RB that loses 50% of its energy passing through a human at 20 yards will have a nasty life threatning wound as deadly as the same human shot with a Minnie that only lost 30% of its energy. By 50 yards the Minnie will have higher velocity then the RB, Around 100 yards it will have caught up. Beyound that its n contest, below that its meanlist.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Smooth bores were often loaded with buck and ball combinations, making them devastatingly effective.

The mini balls deadliness was attributed to its ability to pass though on man and continue on tumbling, killing and maiming. Medical technology of the time for treating such horrific wounds was an almost certain death sentence.

 

[tenngun]

One thing I would think is that shooting a flintlock musket would shoot faster then a precussion rifled musket. I got four shots a min. With my centermark FDC and one time 9 in 2 min, I saw Ted spring shoot 26 times in 3min and 45 seconds. The last few shots were slowed as he ran out of ammo and took some cartridges from other guys in his group.
The best I got with a Zouave was 5 shots in two min. Facing an enemy charging across a field one extra volley may be the tide turner of the battle, for the want of a nail.

 

[smoothshooter]

I agree with you on the effectiveness of the smoothbore.

Contrary to popular opinion, a rifled musket in the hands of the average soldier was not a death ray. There is substantial evidence that the smoothbore musket loaded with the standard buck-and-ball load was MORE effective than rifles because 4 projectiles were launched with each pull of the trigger as opposed to 1 for the rifled musket.

Marksman ship training was almost non-existant. Most troops went into their first battle without having fired their gun before. Using ammunition for practice was generally considered a waste of government property and was frowned on, and often punishable. It was a rare soldier that could shoot up to even the lower end of the potential of the rifled musket.

Even with units equipped with rifles, the majority of enemy casualties were inflicted at ranges under 100 yards. Then as now, it is difficult for troops to get a high percentage of hits for shots fired at over 50 yards under combat conditions with any sort of small arms.

Quartermaster's reports still exist from the Civil War showing the expenditure of ammunition during campaigns and individual engagements, sometimes broken down by unit. By comparing this information to known and estimated enemy casualties, it becomes readily apparent that the hits obtained for shots fired were pretty abysmal. The saying that it took a soldier's weight in fired bullets to kill him was pretty accurate. It would have been somewhat unusual for an individual soldier to be hit by another soldier who was AIMING AT HIM, especially with a rifled musket.

There was a lengthy discussion on this very subject a few months ago you may find interesting.

 

[TNGhost]

Given the pro-smoothbore logic in this thread, the shotgun should be the general issue weapon for all armies. It's called progress :wink:

 

[smoothshooter]

Sometimes it's called looking for an equipment solution to a training problem.

Law enforcement agencies are particularly succeptable to this mindset, even to this day.

Shotguns and smoothbores have always been the most effective small arms in the hands of the average soldier until serious efforts at individual marksmanship training became more common in the 1870's around the world. Then, as now, most civilians had little experience with rifles. Most hunting was done with smoothbores, and most people did not hunt. And don't forget to factor in whatever percentage of soldiers with uncorrected vision problems.

 

[JackAubrey]

I appreciate all the replies. The whole reason I was wondering was for deer hunting. I have a Brown Bess I like to hunt with. I just recently bought one of the new Pedersoli Silverline CW rifled muskets,an 1861Springfield.

I haven't shot it yet,but I'm reading about rifled muskets and beginning to think this is too much gun for deer.What I mean is, its got a match grade barrel and all, but in the heavy, dense forest where I hunt, a " long range"shot would be 75 yards...with 50 yards being the norm.

Still, 60 grains of powder is cheaper than 100 grains.I've never had to track deer too far after hitting them with Bess.Do you all think the Minnie will be less effective?

 

[tenngun]

Armies still carry them today. The op was about close range. No doubt rifle is better at range. Across a field in WW 1 the 1903 was great, in the trenches the shot gun

 

[TNGhost]

Armies still carry them today. The op was about close range. No doubt rifle is better at range. Across a field in WW 1 the 1903 was great, in the trenches the shot gun

I agree, smoothbores are the most useful and versatile firearm. If I could only have one flintlock it would be a smoothbore, for a percussion a double 12 or 10. Same would go for today's firearms

When we started wandering into the territory of, most soldiers can't shoot even today......and would be better off....,that's when I beg to differ.

In the War of Northern Aggression, they were quick to replace smoothbores with rifled muskets at any opportunity(and yes they still made use of shotguns) :grin:

 

[Artificer]

I appreciate all the replies. The whole reason I was wondering was for deer hunting. I have a Brown Bess I like to hunt with. I just recently bought one of the new Pedersoli Silverline CW rifled muskets,an 1861Springfield.

I haven't shot it yet,but I'm reading about rifled muskets and beginning to think this is too much gun for deer.What I mean is, its got a match grade barrel and all, but in the heavy, dense forest where I hunt, a " long range"shot would be 75 yards...with 50 yards being the norm.

Still, 60 grains of powder is cheaper than 100 grains.I've never had to track deer too far after hitting them with Bess.Do you all think the Minnie will be less effective?

Good Heavens, NO!!!! A .58 cal. Minie Ball is MORE than enough gun for deer and more accurate at 75 yards than your Brown Bess. Please note that this opinion is from one who LOVES the Brown Bess Musket.

Gus

 

[coloradoclyde]

When we started wandering into the territory of, most soldiers can't shoot even today......and would be better off....,that's when I beg to differ.

I don't beg to differ....
Tactics also play a role but......
If you look at the kills per rounds fired ratio of wars.
Here are some approximate numbers..
Civil war 20,000/kill
WW1 10,000/kill
WW2 10,000/kill
Vietnam 50,000/kill
Afghanistan 250,000/kill

 

[TNGhost]

When we started wandering into the territory of, most soldiers can't shoot even today......and would be better off....,that's when I beg to differ.

I don't beg to differ....
Tactics also play a role but......
If you look at the kills per rounds fired ratio of wars.
Here are some approximate numbers..
Civil war 20,000/kill
WW1 10,000/kill
WW2 10,000/kill
Vietnam 50,000/kill
Afghanistan 250,000/kill

I agree, you're onto something there. Quick, get a hold of your friends at the White House and let 'em in on the secret, they need to re-arm with smoothbores now! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

 

[coloradoclyde]

I agree, you're onto something there. Quick, get a hold of your friends at the White House and let 'em in on the secret, they need to re-arm with smoothbores now!

Yep! Those with nothing to contribute, tend to make jokes..... :shake:

 

[larry wv]

There wasn't a Marine in my boot camp platoon that couldn't kill a man at 500 yards with one shot . The poor shot idea is way off mark. :wink:

Larry

 

[tenngun]

With in acceptable range 50 yards or so a bess or charley or fowler or matchlock is deadly, At 100 yards can be deadly. A rifled musket can triple that range and todays arms far beyond that....on the range. Fire fights don't take place on the range. Fear, smoke, noise, your buddy down and screaming, the fog of war, cover, and covered enemies all conspire to send lead in to the ground.
No matter how well a man is trained he has a hard time controlling his fire. In a wonderful kill zone like Gettysburg and pickets charge, or Fredricksburg, most of the men that walked on to that field, into that zone, walked off of it. At D day inspite of great postion and prepared defenses, pre sighted artillery and machine gun nest, most of the men how went ashore survived, even at Omaha. Even today much of fighting takes place in ranges were a smooth bore could be effective. You have to see what your shooting, and more then 100 yards away its easy to disappear in the back ground.

 

[hawkeye2]

I appreciate all the replies. The whole reason I was wondering was for deer hunting. I have a Brown Bess I like to hunt with. I just recently bought one of the new Pedersoli Silverline CW rifled muskets,an 1861Springfield.

I haven't shot it yet,but I'm reading about rifled muskets and beginning to think this is too much gun for deer.What I mean is, its got a match grade barrel and all, but in the heavy, dense forest where I hunt, a " long range"shot would be 75 yards...with 50 yards being the norm.

Still, 60 grains of powder is cheaper than 100 grains.I've never had to track deer too far after hitting them with Bess.Do you all think the Minnie will be less effective?

Good Heavens, NO!!!! A .58 cal. Minie Ball is MORE than enough gun for deer and more accurate at 75 yards than your Brown Bess. Please note that this opinion is from one who LOVES the Brown Bess Musket.

Gus

I'm 100 % in agreement with everything Gus said and I would like to point out that with premade cartridges and a cap pouch you can load and fire the mini rifle every bit as fast as if not faster than the Bess and I speak from firing both in competition where speed was of the essence. BTW you could take 20 grains off the Bess charge and still have more than enough for a deer. I found the most accurate Bess charge for my Pedersoli was 80 grains of 2f. 60 grains of 2f is all you will ever need in the Springfield.

 

[smoothshooter]

Much of the demand for the rifled muskets was because of the prestige of having the newest, shiniest, and technologically advanced musket available.The individual soldier's ability to make use of the new technology was of secondary importance.

Almost all rifled muskets were less than 10 years old by the end of the war. The newest smoothbores were at least 12 years old at the beginning of the war, with many 30 years old and older, and most would have looked it.