Bowling for British.
"Better musket" by what standards? Perhaps before cartridge rifles, one deciding factor was ball size. The bigger the better.
I recall during Basic Training that the instructor said that jacketed bullets were superior because they did not expand. Paraphrasing: “We’re not trying to kill the enemy, just disable him. A disabled soldier often requires two men to help him and wounded soldiers cause more moral problems than dead ones. Besides a jacketed bullet is more likely to pass though one man and hit another.” Twofers! The .75 was just the weapon to yield twofers.
My guess is that the .75 was the largest piece that a typical soldier could march with over long distances ”“ as were the M-1s and M14s that I carried. A .90 would have been great, but it would have been like carrying and firing the WW2 era BAR.
In the flintlock days, the rapidly-loaded, rapidly-fired, poorly-aimed volleys probably resulted in lots of poor hits in the first rank that carried into other ranks. Perhaps the mass firing was more like bowling than sharpshooting. In other words, a Patriot was “bowling for British.” How any of you bowl with a ball less than 16 pounds?
My guess is that the workmanship was somewhat less important than caliber, but finding or training men willing to stand and fire until they were themselves were killed was the far more important.
"Better musket" by what standards? Perhaps before cartridge rifles, one deciding factor was ball size. The bigger the better.
I recall during Basic Training that the instructor said that jacketed bullets were superior because they did not expand. Paraphrasing: “We’re not trying to kill the enemy, just disable him. A disabled soldier often requires two men to help him and wounded soldiers cause more moral problems than dead ones. Besides a jacketed bullet is more likely to pass though one man and hit another.” Twofers! The .75 was just the weapon to yield twofers.
My guess is that the .75 was the largest piece that a typical soldier could march with over long distances ”“ as were the M-1s and M14s that I carried. A .90 would have been great, but it would have been like carrying and firing the WW2 era BAR.
In the flintlock days, the rapidly-loaded, rapidly-fired, poorly-aimed volleys probably resulted in lots of poor hits in the first rank that carried into other ranks. Perhaps the mass firing was more like bowling than sharpshooting. In other words, a Patriot was “bowling for British.” How any of you bowl with a ball less than 16 pounds?
My guess is that the workmanship was somewhat less important than caliber, but finding or training men willing to stand and fire until they were themselves were killed was the far more important.
