How accurate is a Civil War Smoothbore Musket at 100 yards?
2023 ж. 22 Там.
503 756 Рет қаралды
According to preeminent KZhead comment scholars, the smoothbore musket is utterly useless beyond the range of 75 yards, “a total crap shoot,” as they say in technical language. And people who disagree with this deep historic wisdom are truly pseudo experts, misleading the community with BS that they yank out of their butts.
But… is it possible that this conventional knowledge may be wrong? Could somebody be wrong on the internet? Could a KZhead comment actually be proven to be incorrect through experimental archaeology?
I remember a reddit thread where I pointed out that muskets were reasonably effective out to 100 yards and got a ton of downvotes with everyone and their mother calling me an idiot. Even when I cited period documentation about infantry training requirements and various military treatises written about the effective range of muskets, nothing would convince people that muskets were useful at such ranges. I even had some people claim that muskets couldn’t even reach 100 yards, just absolute lunacy shielded in conviction. Yeah if you go by modern accuracy standards it’s pretty bad, but in linear warfare being able to reliably hit a person sized target is all the accuracy you need and for that it’s perfectly capable.
The smoothbore inaccuracy myth seems to have achieved a kind of religious frenzy, and if you question it, you are a heretic who must be purged. I don’t think in battle (especially ACW battle) soldiers did much aiming anyways, but to claim that the smoothbore musket simply cannot hit at 100 yards due to inherent limitations in the weapon system itself, is ridiculous. I don’t know where this myth came from.
smooth brain smoothbore haters.
For some reason, people believe that only the "newest" technology is the "best" way to do things, which is ironic, since they're talking about blackpowder rifles versus smoothbore. When people could only afford smoothbore guns and their survival was based on their skill to hunt for food or fend off predators, they tended to be more serious and skilled with the tools they brung, not rely on technology to bring home the bacon or save their skins. And they weren't drilled for hour after hour, day after day like professional soldiers. I think some people need to use some moistened corncobs instead of Charmin to see a whole new perspective on life instead of being a hemorrhoid online. :)
@@wittsullivan8130 I always love reminding those kinds of dead end tech that is now cutting edge due to changes in not just the technology itself, but also changes in ideals and sensibilities. Old isn't always bad. But there is this thing in the shooting community where they think they are special forces. It is one thing to learn how to shoot well, but it is something completely different to degenerate someone because they like something different or don't want to chase trends, which is what this sort love doing. Why would you stick a magazine in the side? Why would you go with a smooth bore. Why would you want a light, fast bullet. On and on and on.
Here's something i found to ponder about > " Southern arsenals had approximately 175,000 modern shoulder arms on hand at the beginning of the war. Of these, about 140,000 were smooth-bored, not including arms provided from private citizens. " Well those first battles of the civil war the confederates were kicking arse and also didn't Stonewall Jackson say the buck and ball was devastating against massed troops !
In my gun club here in Austria, we have some musket enthusiasts firing old 1809 muskets from the Napoleonic era (the Tyrolean uprising against Napoleon and his Bavarian allies), and they perform quite well up to 100m, scoring consistently in a headsized circle. Definitley nothing to underestimate.
100m=about 109 yards.
The ammunition weight and powder weight used in 1809 would have varied enough to affect the accuracy.
@@alexbowman7582 They shoot from benches, with modern black powder, they cast the bullets themselves. Still, pretty impressive
@@AllTheGoodNamesGoneReally WW2 snipers would have a preferred bullet, sometimes even subsonic, same weight same powder preferably. Modern bullets are close to 100% similar to each other, back in old times and if your making the bullets and powder the accuracy would be different for different bullets.
also from austria in which gun club are you because my people use M1798 Austrian smoothbore muskets and old tyrolean scheibenbüchsen and im in tyrol
I love my Harper's Ferry 1842. One of my very favorite firearms; however, I struggle a little at longer ranges. I attribute most missing to ME, though, and not to the smooth bore. One of these days I'll drill some holes into this antique and install a Leopold scope! :-) And if I do, I hope someone will have me arrested immediately!
I think the 1842 is the very best of all the smoothbore muskets, in terms of balance and accuracy, quality, the lock, etc. And be careful, just threatening to drill an original gun for a scope is illegal in Pennsylvania.
I installed a peep sight like my great grandfather's on my Flintlock and the groups improved dramatically. Scopes are not allowed in PA for hunting!
ITS HICKOK45!!!!!
Also make sure to put anti can't bubble on that thing lol
Just duct tape it on and you'll be fine! ;-)
Let's not forget that the enemy soldiers were standing pretty close together. The round that missed wide might very well hit someone to the side or the rear so "pretty good" accuracy becomes absolutely dangerous downrange. This was enjoyable, not just because a hater got taught- and I'm pretty sure the lesson went in one ear, rattled around like an undersized ball and exited leaving only dents and scrapes, but because the fire drill, though paced because nobody was shooting back, was damn interesting. Subbed, the content was terrific and I got a book recommendation. Also, poking fun at someone who probably hunted with his smoothbore weapon and so was at least reasonably proficient seems like a truly bad idea.
Can confirm: we dress elbow to elbow contact, so we are quite literally touching. The line is solid, ideally
@@daniel_sannguyenDefinitely gotta be too in case cavalry comes your way. A sparse firing line because a pin cushion for their lances.
yeah, a 15% hitrate would already be devastating to be on the receiving end of; there's a reason smoothbore firearms were often considerd effective out to and even beyond 200yards (though that is not going to be the most ideal range to be shooting from), and there's good reason every culture that was introduced to the smoothbore musket quickly adapted them into their arsenals; these weapons were deadly to a degree no muscle powered weapon could even hope to match, and while rifles brougt accuracy (and with it, the range) to a new level entirely, the idea that a musket is useless beyond 75yards is just ridiculous; weapon would have never even be able to supersede ancient technology like the bow and javelin on the battlefield if this were true.
@@captainnyet9855Bow, javelin, spear and sword all take a LOT of practice to be any good at it, and armor can negate its lethality. Firearms negates armor and anyone can be reasonably trained to fire one in a couple of minutes with minimal effectiveness or weeks/months to proficiency. Archers take years to become proficient.
That’s exactly what I was thinking you just aimed in front of you and you had a good chance of hitting something.
It matters not how much evidence you provide, or how much proof you can provide, you won't ever change their minds. Keep up the good work 🇬🇧
"Never argue with an idiot. The world won't know who is who." ~uncle Harry
I don't know about round balls but slugs out of a smooth bore shotgun group 2" at 75 yards and then start rapidly degrading. I would say effective range (50% hit probability) on a 16" target (approxinate width of an adult male torso) is roughly 200 yards.
"No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot".
The mistake is thinking they have`minds`. Inevitably, they don't.
@@gk5891 What are you talking about " hitting a 16 inch target at 200 yards with a smooth bore " you would be lucky to hit a barn door at that range 🤣🤣. But 2" at 75 yards with shotgun slugs now that sounds like a good deer hunting gun !
This is basically the sacred fudd lore of muzzleloading
😂😂😂
Protofudds
First, as everyone on KZhead knows, lead at that distance may penetrate a paper target, but it won't pierce the thick Civil War uniforms. In fact, more people died from heat rash than bullets during the War between the States. Lastly, the deadliest battle happened at Stone Mountain, Georgia because they have lots of stones there and people stopped using smooth-bore muskets and used slingshots like David did with Goliath. (Good video!)
Finally, someone who knows real history! My next video is testing the accuracy of a Stone Mountain slingshot.
Modern bullet are still made of lead and at 100 yard it gonna penetrate even if is a musket ball it still have enough power to kill a man at that range
@@papercartridges6705 If you're talking about a shephard's sling, those things are extremely deadly in the hands of a skilled person, and quite accurate even at a decent distance. I saw one being shot at about 30 yards or so, and the results were devastating and destructive on the target. He used a fist-sized round stone, and radar showed it to be moving at around 200mph. So it would be really interesting to see you test one out! Loved this video of the smoothbore musket, that was educational and fun!
I love the twist on the Korean War myth that Chinese soldiers had “bulletproof” coats that .30 carbine couldn’t pierce. Or that .30 carbine is somehow anemic.
Im hoping you are joking bc no battles took place at stone mountain 😂
I have a .577 Enfield which is reasonably accurate in my range experience, I've never fired it in a combat situation, which is an entirely different reality. During the Civil War, the quality of the ammunition and caps, weather conditions, enemy fire and the training and experience of the soldier were determining factors in how effective a weapon could be.
I notice that no one is offering to stand off at 100 yards to be the target of a smoothbore shooter trained in it's use.
Well, some British general actually offered against the Brown Bess...
In the heat of battle accuracy figures fell off markedly.
I get groups between 4-6" at 100 yards with Brenneke Slugs out of a smooth bore shotgun. That's essentially what a smooth bore musket is.
@@daviddavey1727 British experiments in parks used as firing ranges, under ideal conditions, suggested the Brown Bess could be reasonably accurate. Battlefield conditions were something else. The 18th century French general de Saxe maintained he had seen a full battalion volley in battle that only killed four men outright on the opposing side. The Russian Suvorov is quoted as saying something along the lines that the bullet was a fool but the bayonet was a wise fellow, and perhaps he was commenting on the lack of accuracy of smoothbores, at least in battlefield conditions. To be fair, the accuracy of rifles in battlefield conditions would also drop off considerably.
@TyaxCompOne of my favorite quotes is "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, except the A10, that'll just kill you"
I'm not an expert in this topic, but my gut tells me in the high stress situation of combat, mechanical accuracy was likely not always the limiting factor in the effectiveness of small arms fire.
Wasn't the high stress exactly.. these are conscripts drafted against their will who have fired with a 2 week training before they marched out. More emphasis was put on reloading and viewing instead of how to Line up the sights. Fear does mess it up quite a bit. But a toddler that's scared and a toddler that isn't scared both aren't going to be very proficient with how to aim
The lesser accuracy of the smoothbore is going to be exaggerated by the soldier in line combat. That's why the French didn't bother adopting rifles in the Napoleonic wars some other armies, their light skirmishers used smoothbores and were still effective because they were properly aiming before shooting. Line infantry didn't aim so much as just level their muskets and fire. If i remember right one thing constantly reinforced was to get the men to stop pointing their muskets at a high angle which they would instinctively do for some reason during volleys but to keep them flat and level.
@@jason200912 Buddy seemed choked about not being an expert. Odd. He didn't prove much here besides he shot a model 1842 a few times.
@@ElZilchoYo right up until after WW2 all armies really struggled to get soldiers to actually want to hit the enemy. So how accurate the guns were was frequently irrelivent. I would imagine the persistence of line infantry in this period aiming too high was simply because most of them were normal decent people and didn't want to kill anyone. Its only with modern psychologically guided training methods and professional volenteer armies post WW2 that soldiers can be relied upon to aim at their opponents in combat
On my last trip to Gettysburg some 20 years ago, I recall the rangers telling us there was one rifle found with 27 unfired loads in its barrel! Someone got a little excited during the battle.@@presidenteden6498
Grandfather used a wood gasifier truck (got into a fight with a local township in the 60's about it) and a smoothbore similar to that one, I forget the model. He said anything closer than 150 yards was basically cheating and used his for deer hunting till I was a teen. So..... if it was good enough to keep food on the table in the 20's, I'm sure it can work a man size target over at 100 no problem. Excellent rebuttal my man!
I'm helping a buddy make a wood gasifier hybrid out of an old chevy s-10
At 100 yards I'd expect pretty good results. Rifling helps to stablize the more traditional "bullet" for flight, but it would have add little if any benefit to a musket ball in flight. As you said 300 yards, should be about the maximum effective point target range. Snipers were barely getting into the 500 yard range if memory serves during the civil war. I'm a Marine Expert qualified riflemen. That doen't make me an expert on all things firearms related, but I've spent a fair amount of time around shooting. I'm always looking to increase my knowledge, and I really appreciate your shooting exercise. Thank you Paper Cartridges.
It never ceases to amaze how confident people can be in their own stupidity.
Dunning-Kruger effect.
They’ve usually had a lot of practice.
Those are the same kind of people who (wrongly) believe that confidence and certainty is the only measure of intelligence. While this is excusable behavior among hormone-ridden teens it's rather disturbing that a rather large number of people seem to have peaked at this low cognitive level.
@@McLarenMercedes Agree. It heralds the death of expertise.
My grandfather dispelled this at a gun range her in Ohio several years ago. He has passed on since that time. He shot ten rounds and used a rest. He hit a five foot target that was 30 inches wide, nine times. They were spread 3ft and a few inches more, top to bottom. We were not sure about the missing one. We believed it hit wide right. He said what you did, it’s not perfect but I sure as hell would not want to be on the other end.
At 10 yards. LMAO
Unfortunately troops back in the day didn't have the pleasure of using a rest. They were on a battlefield getting shot at
@@hardcase-69 What does a rest have to do with getting shot at? The rest keeps things consistent for testing purposes. A rifle or smooth bore without a rest in the hands of someone being shot at would both suffer in accuracy.
@usnchief1339 yes, exactly. If it's a lot easier to miss with a rifle then it's waaayyyyy easier to miss with a smoothbore
People lying and Berring false facts in the comments section of KZhead, never heard tell of it.
As someone who hasn't properly looked into it and always just believed the general "wisdom", this was fascinating. I found the evidence pretty undeniable here. So I'm sure some hardened opinions will be looking to argue why the results are invalid, but you've at least changed my mind. It definitely wasn't a waste of time to run this test, I'm sure there's a lot more like myself who now have a more reasonable opinion of the smoothbore musket.
My experience! It wasn't the bore, but switching from round ball to Minié ball that made a striking difference, bringing groups to 3 inches with a flintlock!
Completely agree. A spin does nothing to a spherical ball. Spin is only useful to keep orientation, but a sphere has no orientation.
Thanks. I was trying to figure out what ammo they were using. A round ball is going to lose accuracy over distance. The Minie ball was a major upgrade and pretty much made line tactics obsolete.
@@kissmy_butt1302 The main thing is the minie ball expands when fired to grab the rifling so the rifle doesn't quickly become super hard to load from the fouling, this is why rifles were rarely used in combat prior to it existing. I'd imagine they are more accurate though
@@renedupont6116 "A spin does nothing to a spherical ball." Then explain to me a curve ball. Spin with a random orientation to the direction of travel causes random and continuous curving of the sphere's path. Rifles existed in the Revolutionary War era WITH SPHERICAL AMMO. They existed FOR A REASON. They had greater accuracy and range FOR A REASON, because the uniform spin imposed around the axis of pointing prevents it from spinning any other way. Prior to the invention of the conical "minie ball" projectile, you had to ram the ball through the rifling to muzzle load a rifle. This made the rate of fire slow and arduous. If there were not a compensating performance advantage, rifles would not have existed, even for hunting.
@@digitalnomad9985 Curve balls are a matter of friction or of the degree of non-sphericity. As for the Rev. Era Rifles: if you have one with its ammo, try it out. Maybe you're rght, mabe not.
Years ago, I was teaching a 'basic marksmanship' class. One dear old lady who brought her husbands Police Positive was concerned about group size at 5 yards. [She was putting every round in the black, I had no concerns about her grouping!] I held the target-paper up to my chest and asked her "What would the bad-guy think of your grouping?" I miss her.
Bet she was a hoot.
Why 5 yard practice? I can blind fire on the paper at that distance
@@jason200912 practice for self defense.
@@jason200912Because most violent interactions will be around 3 seconds with 3 rounds fired at roughly 3 yards. According to FBI stats anyway.
@@savagedabs8536 and that's why police notoriously are known for the worst aim imaginable Train for 15 yards if you want to handle everything at 15 and below. Train for 3 yards if you want to miss your shots when an attacker is at 6 yards
The MLAGB in the UK used to have a competition where you had 5 minutes to shoot as many shots as you could at a man sized target at 100 yds. The Brown Bess always performed pretty well.
Which was a Revolutionary War era musket, if memory serves.
@@sandman9924 Spot on, but the only real difference was that it was flint lock.
@@sandman9924 Right, which means that there is a slight delay between squeezing the trigger and the ignition of the charge. There is also a rather disconcerting flash that occurs when the powder in the pan ignites, but just before the weapon fires. One has to be used to that slight delay and the flash when firing the weapon.
@@fearlessfosdick160the phrases “don’t go off half cocked” and “flask in the pan” originate from these guns.
@@alexbowman7582 Flash in the pan. It is a phrase used to denote the circumstance in which the charge in the pan goes off but does not ignite the main charge.
Back in the 1980s I knew an ex Vietnam Vet, who had a great collection of firearms from all eras, his smoothbore muskets were are joy to behold. We regularly went shooting on a range and he always hit the target at 100 yards with said smoothbore of which he had several. He was also a talented gunsmith and made the most amazing one-off fire arms.
It’s a lead ball moving very fast onto a target. Obviously it won’t be moa accurate but with a long barrel and decent technique you’re gonna nail it I love the way you’re lining up the shot and just going for it, when I was in the navy I did exactly the same with a modern rifle, sometimes you just gotta trust yourself
Fantastic work! This reminds me of what Dennis Hart Mahan said about muskets that it was "sighted" for a range 120 to 130 yards. "Beyond 220 yards the effect of the fire is very uncertain. Beyond 450 yards the ball seldom gives a dangerous wound."
@@davidandrew1078Not to be pedantic, but ACKSHUALLY, muskets aren't rifles. 😂
@@carlericvonkleistiii2188 Firearms then. Just for you.
@@davidandrew1078 🤪😂
@@carlericvonkleistiii2188if it has rifling groves it is a rifle But not legally
Are they Klingons circling Uranus? They are firearms complete with the fire.
50 year old Norwegian here. I learn alot from your very well made videos. Most surprising lesson came in this video; canned Lutefisk exist! Given the fact that I had no knowledge of the existence of such a product, and therefore cannot say anything about it's quality, I suspect bringing such a product to the table in Norway would have resulted in the gathering of the first lynchmob since the last great war. Or pretty much the same outcome as for the guy with the can in the video.😅
It's a joke, Sir, like spray-on gravy..
Lutefisk på boks høres ut som noe jeg hadde skutt med en musket.
@@readhistory2023 pickled herring can be quite good, with some spicy mustard and rye bread.
@@readhistory2023 Story goes like this; When the vikings crossed the seas, they brought stockfish as food. Eventually, the spray from the sea mixed with the ashes from their fireplace (yes, they had those in the boat), creating lye, in turn dissolving the stockfish in the bottom to the consistency wich we know as lutefisk. And, at some point, someone was hungry enough to try to eat it, and didn't die. That's the most positive thing to say about lutefisk. Since then, all of the norwegian generations have been haunted by this dish for some reason. Luckily it is almost always served along with a decent amount of the holy Bacon, and if you're lucky mustard. Correctly treated and cooked, lutefisk tastes almost nothing, with a texture that makes it easy to swallow. Which makes it even more incomprehensible why we still have to eat it... I use it as an excuse to eat a lot of Bacon!
Fucking ludifisk
Well done. Lot of fun. Stumbled on this on a Saturday morning and am well entertained and informed, thanks to your demo.
Shooting at 100yrds offhand and hitting consistently tells me all I need to know. I bought into the short range myth myself because it's what you hear. But hearing a thing compared to seeing and experiencing it, are 2 completely different things. You clearly showed that yes indeed, 100yrd shots are not that difficult and fairly quickly achieved with a smoothbore.
I love this demonstration. I always suspected that smooth bores were more accurate than most authors admit.
Smoothbore muskets are such a massively uderrated weapon that you'll constantly see people on the internet comparing the weapon unfavorably to bow & arrow; it's a bit ridiculous. I think videogme mentality plays a large role here; people hear "a rifle is ten times more accurate than a smoothbore" and assume that means muskets will lose to rifles every time when really, the shooter is going to be by far the more deciding factor. (case in point, most people are not good enough shots for the rifling to actually make a significant difference; and only with extensive training in long range shooting can the rifle's accuracy be put to use)
@@captainnyet9855 "Videogame mentality". A.k.a. parroting whatever other parrots repeat endlessly. Simple, fast answers must be true... Memes are a universal truth... I've heard many thousands claim this therefore it must be a fact.
@@captainnyet9855At 100 yards or maybe even 200 yards, training/rate of fire will matter the most, absolutely But at increasing distances the smoothbore muskets will start to become ineffective a lot faster than the rifles So it really depends on the conditions/circumstances of the fight If you’re talking about 400-500 yards, some of the rifles could still be effective at such a range, and none of the smoothbores would be terribly effective, so at that point I’d rather have (decently) trained soldiers with rifles, over highly trained/skilled soldiers with smoothbores But for shorter ranges you’ll pretty much always pick the better trained/skilled soldiers That’s my take, at least The rifles gave you the ability to be effective at a longer range, but that only actually mattered some of the time
@@captainnyet9855many people still believe bow and arrows are superior than muskets and that they only get replaced because bows are harder to train (ignoring every other parts of the world with long archery traditions that quickly dropped their bows once they got a hand on firearms)
As a long-time F&I and Rev War reenactor shooting 1st and 2nd Model Brown Bess muskets - and a 22 year Army Veteran and Army officer - I concur with your points. I haven't done a lot of target shooting with my Brown Bess muskets but two things come into play - learning how to fire your particular weapon and how round the ball is and how tight it fits in the barrel. I know many reenacts who hunt with their Brown Bess muskets and regularly take deer at 75-100+ yards. I know people who regularly target shoot with their muskets and they're fairly good, regularly putting rounds on target. The crap shoot comes into how good the shooter is, the quality of the powder (and hang-time), and how round the ball is. Even in 18th and early 19th c. naval battles gun captains would look for the most perfectly round canon ball for their first broadside. The canon balls would often be chipped and checked as part of routine maintenance to ensure they were smooth and round. The same is true of round lead balls. Taking the sprues and other odd lead bits off the musket ball to get it as round as possible makes a major difference in how it travels down and exits the barrel, impacting its overall flight path. So tell those jackasses to get a real job and do real research before they spout their stupidity and prove how wrong they are! 🙂
Mad respect for empirical, hands on experimentation, pro-action and hard data collecting. Firearms are not my groove, but this is excellent content and an inspiration to get off one's arse and do something with intent and meaning, whatever that is.
KZhead is full of "experts" who havnt even touched these weapons let alone fired 1 - well done containing yr patience..
Old retired LEO here, I have a lot of police B-27 and FBI Q targets. I shoot with the N-SSA and have a .69 1842, (made 1848) . At 100 yards 5 for 5 on the target in the 8 ring or better.
This is the kind of proof we need to see! Shooter skill does make a difference. You need to be posting video of this on KZhead!
Could you translate that in to English please, some of us didn't follow the jargon.
@@tompiper9276 The B-27 and FBI Q target are both human silhouette targets that approximate the upper torso of a man. The B-27 has elongated bullseye type rings around the center of mass whereas the Q target has none. N-SSA stands for the North-South Skirmish Association and they are a competitive shooting organization that use civil war weapons (period and reproductions of small arms/mortars/cannons) in their competitions. Located in Winchester, Virginia. During their big annual competition upwards of 1000 attend.
This “banks of the Potomac” part of this video is SO funny! And I’m glad to see the 100 yard myth debunked too!
Allow me to compliment the outstanding form of your musketry, sir. The way you handle that rod is supreme, as is your aim. Well done! And that smirk and smile. A man who knows he knows what he's doing. Good to see it!
Excellent video. I always took for granted people knew what they were talking about with the smoothbore musket. Of course I never had a chance to check it out. I didn't have a dog in the fight, but congratulations. I'm always glad to learn something real.
Thanks for the video. Not long ago, I heard that an old marksmanship manual was found in British archives. Reportedly it stated that a British soldier was expected to hit a man-sized target at 150 yards at least 50% of the time, and the same target at 100 yards at least 75% of the time. I've been considering buying a 1st model "Long Land" Brown Bess Musket in which to use both ball and shot (not at the same time). Now, I'm closer to doing that.
If you are planning to buy a reproduction musket do not buy one made in India. While they are commonly used by reenactors the brown bess made by Petersoli is much better. The one from India are fundamentally wall hangers that can be converted while the Petersoli is designed to be fired.
@@mcampbe41Your correct about the early Indian reproduction’s but the latest ones are very good and half the price of the Italian repro’s.
Thanks for some of the most informative videos out there. I'll confess that I was one of those that thought 50 yards was the most effective range of a smoothbore musket until I watched 11 Bang Bang and Duelist 1954 shoot out to 100 yards and hit the target. Now your video reinforces you can hit out to 100 yards and past it. Be safe on deployment.
This discussions reminds me of a contribution from "someone on the scene". General James Martin of North Carolina was placed in command of a very inexperienced group of troops, mostly the 17th NC Infantry (an older regiment but badly disabled by being captured at Fort Raleigh on Roanoke Island early in the War and kept as prisoners in Boston harbor for a long time), the 42nd NC Infantry made up mostly of men who had spent most of their service as prison guards at the Salisbury NC prison camp, and the 66th NC Infantry, a rag-tag assortment of ex-railroad guards and "Partisan Rangers". The Brigade was rushed into service in time to take part in the Bermuda Hundreds fight with Burnsides in May of 1864, then were moved to fill holes in Lee's lines at (2nd) Cold Harbor. Here is a quote from Captain Charles Elliott, Brigade Asst. Adjutant General, who wrote the Brigade history in a consolidated series of volumes of histories collected, compiled and and edited for the State by Walter Clark just before 1900. The quote refers to the actions of the new brigade at Cold Harbor during the Confederate defenses against the charges of Grant's troops. 1) "General Martin cheered his men and their enthusiasm was great. Mostly armed with smooth-bore muskets, they poured an incessant fusillade of buck and ball into the brave lines that charged and re-charged, and fell, many of them, on our works. The slaughter was terrific. ....... A few days afterwards, meeting a Federal surgeon under flag of truce while burying the dead in front of Martin's brigade, he told me that his command, "Corcoran's Irish Legion" (My Note: the "other Irish Brigade", made up of the 155th, 164th, 170th and 182d New York Regiments served in the field, principally in the 2d Corps, Army of Potomac, in the Corcoran Brigade) 2) from New York, had but twelve men who had escaped death or wounds in that charge, our buck-shot peppering nearly all of them. No men or officers ever made a braver charge than did these Federals on 3 June. But the flame of continuous fire from Martin's Brigade was too much for them or any men to overcome and our line would not yield an inch." 3) 1) "Histories of the Several Regiments and Battalions from North Carolina in the Great War, 1961 - '65, Written by Members of the Respective Commands", edited by Walter Clark (Note: Walter Clark was Lt. Colonel of the 70th NC Infantry during the War and later Chief Justice of the NC Supreme Court) 2) "museum.dmna.ny.gov/unit-history/new-york-civil-war-brigades/corcorans-brigade-or-irish-legion", NY State Military Museum and Veterans Research Center. 3) "Clark", Page 532 Et Seq. (My Comment: Yeah, those old smooth-bores -- useless, inaccurate, low-powered, and ineffective by the time of the War -- except they WEREN'T!)
After watching Turn: Washington’s Spies, I’m just happy to watch more musket accuracy and practical application videos on KZhead. Thanks a lot for the experience!
Man, from a relic hunter and enthusiast here in Sharpsburg Maryland, I can tell you with certainty this is the most entertaining thing I’ve seen on KZhead in weeks. I’ve found dropped round balls and minie balls. Seems to me they’d be ready for re-use. Is that the case? Could you imagine firing 160plus year old bullets from the Maryland campaign?!?!? Subscribed. Excellent content.
If it’s in good shape & you have the proper rifle, HEAVE TO GOOD MAN!!!
I grew up in Kennesaw GA, and have found numerous minie balls as well. Honestly, I've cleaned a few of them up because I've had so many of the damn things laying around lol. They look genuinely in good enough shape to be fired to be honest with you.
@@vielumiereg9794 Yeah man I’ve forgotten one or two of them were left in my pocket when they were thrown in the washer/dryer. They come out shiny almost like new.
Intro/ outro was very amusing. 😂 Thanks for sharing your experience regarding the never to be definitively resolved 🙄 question of musket accuracy.
Well I’ll tell you Brett, I have an 1829 Army issue, N. Starr 69cal. That I restored and shoot. It had been a flintlock converted to cap lock in the 1840s and at a hundred yards I certainly wouldn’t want to be the target. Back last September my daughter visited from Portland Oregon and because we both love history, we’ve often visited Gettysburg over the years, I live in Lancaster Co. so before we visited Gettysburg, I took her to the range and we shot the old 1829 so she could get an idea of the power experienced by all those soldiers in the Civil War. My results with 80 grains of powder are much like yours. Of course learning your musket is also a factor. I shot mine quite a few times and the more I did the better I became. Oh yes Sir, that old 1829 will do just fine at a hundred yards! I’ve seen many of your Fine Videos I might add, and you’ve proven more than once that a smooth bore ain’t nothin to laugh at. Then you imagine a long line of men firing smooth bores and Holy Moly, a wall of lead. It gives me a huge Appreciation for those soldiers and a much better understanding of what they went through. So Kind Thanks Brett and Many Blessings and for all your research! It is super interesting and greatly Appreciated! DaveyJO in Pennsylvania
Absolutely love it! 👏 I have never seen this channel before, but loved this video. It's obvious there is one person that has closely studied this subject and one who sounds like they may have breezed over an article about the Crimean War once 😂
Great video debunking the theory that the smoothbore is somehow “terrible” by mid-19th century standards. Remember everyone: rifles may have been more or prevalent, but in the American Civil War when you’re fighting with regiments that have hardly any concept of ballistics or marksmanship instruction (at least early in the war) it doesn’t exactly matter on if you have a rifled musket, or a smoothbore. Most soldiers contrary to popular belief did not actually have good musket training until their first engagements. Great video though, glad the smoothbores are getting some love on the channel.
Definitely Brett's thesis on why these rifled-muskets were so woefully and terribly employed. And Rob over at BML can attest as much as Brett to the importance of the School of Musketry at Hythe. Which the US nor CS Armies had time or the ability to create and "train the trainers" to return to their regiments and teach all these time consuming lessons to.
I would point out that the battle of Gettysburg, when most troops north and south had rifles, and the battle of Waterloo when most troops had muskets had similar numbers of troops, and the fighting took place at similar ranges, and the casualties were about the same percentage , the two battles having about the same number of men involved
One technique that improves smoothbore accuracy no end is a thick felt shotgun type wad both sides of a fairly loose fitting ball rammed down hard on top of a fairly heavy charge. Recoil is pretty heavy but accuracy is surprising.
By the US Civil War, smoothbores were definitely on the way out, and even muzzle-loading rifles were obsolescent - the future belonged to the breechloader.
@@stevekaczynski3793 The better muzzle loaders were more accurate than the best cartridge rifles for quite some time.
As someone who can’t own guns in his country and is fascinated with the Civil War, I am so glad to have come across your channel. Thank you and please keep up the amazing content ❤
Hmmmm? Cub Med, nice place to never visit. FYI Black Powder arms are Knott "guns?" in This Country! and can be Shipped to your door like a Toaster! God Bless! I Pray you found your Way.
What kind of country do you live in ? and what kind of Government don't trust its own citizens to own guns ? ..if i was you i would move mate !
@@sheepsfoot2Remember there are more politicians in the USA fighting against gun rights than for. We might end up in the same boat if we dont watch whats happening and speaking on it, and voting accordingly.
YOU ARE NOT! ME "Mate!" YOU GAVE UP YOUR "ARMS!" MATE! WILLINGLY! out of Our Cold DEAD Fingers!@@sheepsfoot2
@@sheepsfoot2 I say this as a fellow American; There are 190+ countries on this planet and majority of those restrict guns in some or all capacity. We are one of the few with right to gun ownership enumerated in our laws. We really need to stop acting like we are the center of the universe and everyone elses way of life bends to ours because it really makes Americans look bad, besides when you think about it we are quite privileged to be born here and experience these types of guns laws since the vast majority of the people in this world cant or wont.
This is a perfectly reasonable response against someone armed with lutefisk.
Smoothbores are very common until late 1862 even in Union Army … the 69th NYSV, Fighting 69th, even had Smoothbores “Buck and Ball” ammo at Gettysburg….. says so on their Payrolls (I have them) and at the Gettysburg National Park. My notes say they were issues Rifles in Early 1864. What you get is great long range with Rifles….. and that “Wizzzz” or buzzzz as the pass over.
Thank you for the video. Glad you used a .65 ball from your .69 model 1842. Too many modern shooters try to use too large a ball when shooting. You are a good shot hitting 7 out 8. I cringe when people say smoothbores were woefully inaccurate past 50 yards. Keep up the good work.
Love the intro. Very MacKenzie like from British muzzleloader.
Thank you. My father was in the Marines and I agree with you about the accuracy of the smooth bores. Thanks again.
BRILLIANT video! I used to shoot a .45" cal tightly patched Hornaday lead ball through a Kentucky / Pennsylvania style smooth bore musket at 65 yards and get approx a 9 inch group accuracy at the distance without trying too hard. Do not underestimate the accuracy of a smooth bore, if you are using the correct load of powder and a tight fitting patched lead ball in the bore. Rob, UK.
I have witnessed on multiple occasions an 1812 era smoothbore flintlock CONSISTENTLY shoot a 4" group at 100 yards from a bench. AND a .69 caliber lead ball doesn't leave just a flesh wound no matter how it hits you. Another factor that doesn't really apply anymore is that the guns that these soldiers were shooting were often the same gun that they grew up with and used their whole lives. Personal, repeated experience and familiarity with their personal gun's nuances made it possible for these men to fine tune and make shots that we really can't replicate today using their level of technology. Rifles are better - no argument there, but if rifling was such a leap in technology, why didn't EVERYONE make the upgrade ASAP? After all, the Civil War was several generations after the Revolution. Answer: The guns they already had were "good enough."
bull shit. People lie and you are right now.
During the revolutionary era there was a distinct difference between a rifle and a musket, by the civil war the rifled musket had been invented and everyone WAS upgrading to that asap... and you can do a lot from a bench on a calm range. Not so much on a battlefield while being shot at, that goes for both rifle and musket
@@hardcase-69 I believe corwinchristensen260 was discussing the 'potential' accuracy of the smooth bore musket. Of course anyone's aim can suffer in the heat of battle, even with modern arms. With my Hawken and it's 34" Green Mountain barrel and 32" brass scope, 1" groups and less at 100 yards are the norm. My Les Baer 1911 is capable of just under 1" groups at 50 yards. Again this is their potential accuracy. Now would I be able to pull that off in the middle of a battle? Hardly, but the potential is there. 8 )
@@Glasher1 Shot my 50cal Hawken many times too at that distance and sometimes longer. It was consistently in the black with a flyer every now and then. I wasn't a good shot, but good enough to know I'd never willingly stand in for a target.
@@nifty1940 The Hawken is certainly a fine rifle. The only change I would make on my Hawken would be to swap the .50 cal barrel out for a .54 cal.
Very nice. As General Layette commented, " no soldier was hit at 200 metres by a musket that WAS AIMED AT HIM" Meaning at 200 meters you likely hit the soldier next to your aim. The whole point of the smooth bore musket was the high rate of fire, so devastating in volley fire. Rifles were a precision weapon which took time to load.
Yes! That was the trade-off in the muzzle-loading era; rate of fire versus accuracy. This is why Gen. George Washington preferred the vast majority of his troops to have smoothbores, so they could sling more lead the enemy's way over the course of a battle. He also allowed for a few designated riflemen to "seek targets of opportunity," usually officers.
The minie rifle got around the loading issue to get the best of both though
As someone else said, the tactics were more similar to archery in the ancient world. It was about sending a wall of lead into a grouping of soldiers, not necessarily a one-to-one engagement. Once the enemies got close enough, they closed for melee. I haven't read your book, but I've talked extensively about the failure of command to adjust tactics based on how effective the rifled musket was and how the Napoleonic tactics of past wars meant that many, many more men died in the meat grinders of Civil War battlefields.
Great lesson and education. A lot we can learn from the past in breaking down incorrect notions of older technology. Another interesting video idea I'd like to see is using a ballistic dummy and the effects of a Minie ball on it.
I am just right now cleaning/restoring a Springfield 1842 smooth bore from 1850 that looks to be in good enough shape to shoot. The only problem I see with it is the lack of a rear sight. I have a couple of BEIC smoothbore .75 cal percussion muskets that have a rear sight and that makes a huge difference in hitting something at distance. I thoroughly enjoyed "The Destroying Angel" and "Like Fire and Powder" and am currently reading "The English Cartridge". I recently finished reading "Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom" which I think you would enjoy, if you haven't read it yet. Small arms are not the main focus but the "Enfield Rifle" is talked about some in the book in a way that is worth considering in the 1850's-60's but seems to be forgotten about in the West. "Imperial Twilight" by the same author is also worth a read.
I live in wisconsin, can confirm as a southerner living up here some of them do tend to talk like that.
Great video, I have always thought the smoothbore was never given its due. "The true dispenser of wisdom is KZhead commenters" cracked me up. You will never be short of armchair experts on KZhead.
I've never fired a smooth-bore, but I've always been told that firing a musket ball was like throwing a paper airplane at a target.. Love when someone actually does a real world test.
Wow, you are incredibly fast with the reload on that musket. Never seen your channel before but I'll be subscribing! Great work
even faster at 2X speed !
Cool demo! When I worked for NC historic sites, I had to certify with a repro model 1816 Harper's Ferry musket. At 25 - 30 yards it had surprisingly decent accuracy, considering it had no sights.
Tell me more what was your job duties with this job and what did it have to do with qualifying with a musket??
I have limited experience with black powder and muzzle loaders, but I've shot plenty of slugs out of smooth bore shotguns at 100 yards. I was able to hit a 6 inch bull consistently. I was shooting from a bench. I think you clearly demonstrated the accuracy of a smooth bore.
My ancestor's regiment (12th NJ) originally got the Austrian and quickly were rearmed with the smooth bore "Buck and Ball". The monument om Cemetary ridge prominently features that buck and ball load. These were fighting soldiers who participated in most of the major engagements with the Army of the Potomoc not internet commandos. They had great confidence in the weapon and load and proudly carried them through the entirety of the war. They were proud of the title of a Buck and Ball regiment!
You are correct from my experience of Brown Besses and the like. About a 6" group at 50m isn't unusual and about 18" at 100m. And with the bullet drift is just as likely to head towards the point of aim as away from it. I have a smoothbore matchlock that easily shoots 3" groups at 50m with a big charge.
Beautiful range there, Brett. Much like our own here in UK - I love the grass and trees around it - exactly like ours! I might try and find a Model 1842 musket here in UK - not easy - but as it's classed as a shotgun, a lot easier to get authorised. Those big round balls are surely going to leave a serious dent in that Yankee's ego.
Glad to run across this video, I had no idea how accurate a smoothbore musket was, nice job. Subscribing as well.
Congrats on how successful this video’s been man! Wishing you much continued success. You had me at LORENZ lol 😂
So many, "Experts", so few have ever been to a range, let alone fired a rifle. Mom's Basement makes an ideal place for Internet Warriors to espouse their knowledge.
Darn I though there would be cans of lutefisk blasted.
Best to keep it sealed up in its containment vessel. Otherwise I have to call hazmat to clean up.
@@papercartridges6705hazmat won’t touch it cuz it’s that bad, best to nuke from orbit…..to be sure.😳😳🙂🙂😌😌
@@moojuice369they can BILL me. 😂😂😂
Buck and ball was a common load for muzzle-loading muskets, and was frequently used in the American Revolutionary War and into the early days of the American Civil War. The load usually consisted of a .50 to .75 caliber round lead musket ball that was combined with three to six buckshot pellets. By the 1840s, buck and ball was issued in prepared paper cartridges that combined the projectiles with the black powder propellant charge to facilitate rapid loading of the weapon. Like any other paper cartridge, the rear of the cartridge would be torn open to expose the powder, which would be loaded, and the remaining paper, ball, and buckshot would be rammed down on top. Claud E. Fuller, in his book The Rifled Musket, shows tests of a rifled musket firing Minié ball, and a smoothbore musket firing round ball and buck rounds at various ranges against a 10 by 10 inches (25 cm × 25 cm) target. The firers consisted of several men in line shooting in volley. At ranges of 200 yards (180 m) and under, the buck and ball from the smoothbore musket, while less accurate than the rifled musket, produces a greater number of hits due to the greater number of projectiles. At 100 yards (91 m), 50 shots by smoothbore buck and ball against the 10 x 10 target result in 79 buckshot hits and 37 ball strikes, as opposed to 48 Minié ball hits in 50 shots. At 200 yards, 37 of 50 Minié bullets struck the target, vs. 18 of 50 smoothbore balls and 31 of 50 buckshot, for a total of 49 hits in 50 shots. Beyond this range, the buckshot will have lost too much energy to be effective due to its lower ballistic coefficient. The Union Irish Brigade retained their smoothbore muskets until late so they could fire buck and ball during the relatively close range battles. The 12th New Jersey Infantry Regiment also preferred to use buck and ball, which they did to deadly effect at Gettysburg, and so continued carrying smoothbore muskets.
Internet is gonna internet, thanks for this video. I hadn't considered the rifles but a similar test with smoothbore cannon, the Vasa Museum cannon tests, showed how effective they were at range so it stands to reason that a small version would work well also.
I think your southern accent was very convincing. Now, a Baltimore accent, that's a tough one...
You know, you should refer to this guy that I have seen on KZhead that is REALLY knowledgeable about this kind of stuff. I mean, the guy makes his own Black powder using research from the old books and then tests it with a period firearm and chronograph to show that it is delivering the same energy as the original. Heck, he even wrote a book about it. He also researched and wrote a whole book on the (oh, what's the word; something like para-something) change in going from shooting at 100 yards to 800 yards. This guy is so hardcore that he even had a machine made so that he can swage his bullets and not cast them just like the originals. I really wish that I could remember his name; you'd really like him. He even has an original portrait of the old English guy who was somehow important to old firearms. Civility will return when Dueling returns.
capandball ?
The Destroying Angel by Brett Gibbons (covering the paradigm shift of warfare from an entire army using rifles) The English Cartridge by Brett Gibbons (The development of the Prichett bullet) Like Fire and Powder by Brett Gibbons (making black powder) Handbook for the School of Musketry by Brett Gibbons The Universal Rifleman by Brett Gibbons (I only have No. 1 Vol. IV) The man does his research and experiments to back up the research and doesn't just repeat everyone else.@@Firevyth
I love the intro. Very funny. I been shooting rifled pyrodex long guns for 40 years. They are very accurate. I never shot a smooth bore. They both have there pro and cons. The smooth bore can be loaded faster and does not foul as quickly as a rifled long gun. With volley fire the most common form of engagement, the sheer volume and continuous rate of fire was pretty devastating. Also, you must factor that those marksman of the musket era were better shots with those weapons with crude fixed sights than we are today. There weapon was like an extension of there body.
Great video. Love the reference to “lutefisk”. I’m swedish and it’s right about time for lutfisk in Sweden (traditional food coarse on Christmas eve). Thank you. 😅
I wanted to just say that I've scanned through the comments and was unable to find a response from Todd. Can anyone else find a rebuttal from Todd in case I missed it? Thanks
Same...nope
Likewise. He has slunk off, tail between legs @@birddt3
If Todd had not been a pompous pocket expert with a poor attitude then no one would have picked on him a little or a lot! Good video, better myth bursting.
I use a rifled Hawken, but my hunting buddy has dropped bull elk with a smoothbore and ball rifle at around 100 yards a couple times. Nice work on the vid!
Very cool video with useful historical information. I just got to visit Gettysburg yesterday. So this had some very interesting stuff in it
Todd strikes me as more of a “Mouseketeer” than a “Musketeer”! (Nice video, and good shooting Brett👍🏼)
I think what I'd be most interested to see.. Is how any kind of musket would perform against modern body armor... -- Taofledermaus did a video using steel balls out of a 12 gauge and they tore through modern Kevlar vests like a sweater.. Said to myself, "If one were ever in a position where they had to defend themselves from attackers or unknown agents wearing modern body armor, steel round ball would be the way to go."
that intro was awesome, I caught myself being immersed in the story, then I was no longer immersed in the story, but then I realised it was awesome.
My Friend you’re doing such great work!!! I can’t wait to buy your book!!
What about the infamous “Buck and Ball” load? It would be interesting to see the effect at 100 yards. There must be a crossover point where BNB becomes less effective due to lower mass of the projectiles. Common sense would say that would be around 100 yards. Not to mention the spread would be enormous. Then again the advantage of hitting the guy your shooting at for sure has a nice ring to it, and I would think it would be hard to not put a hole in a man sized target from 100 yards with BNB.
I've found it to be pretty disappointing at 100 yards. After I shot these 8 rounds my friend Nick (who owns the musket) shot at it some more with buck and ball, and only a couple buckshot hit. It seems to fall really fast, at 100 yards you need to aim about a foot above a soldier's head to get the buckshot out there. But at 50 yards it's wicked.
Basically it's a 200 plus grn ball depending on shooter and weapon, or what was avalible with THREE .38 cal balls, or a truck followed with angree bees! hitting a target. So a 45 acp and 3x9 mills down range at once!
You must be a pretty decent shot 💪 I was a LE range instructor for many years and I’ve had people who couldn’t hit a man size target for 7 out of 8 from bench rest with an iron sight AR lol Seriously though this was neat to see because I’ve always heard that smooth bore myth and didn’t know the truth either way. I would be interested to see this repeated from bench rest to see even more what the musket is capable of under ideal conditions
EXACTLY. Take the human/operator error out of the equation as much as possible.
Cool video. I'd never actually seen a guy load and fire a Civil War error weapon from start to finish before watching this video. It would have been rough to reload one of those in the heat of battle, but the guy in this video made it look easy.
Wow, I'm impressed, I would have never guessed you'd have that kind of accuracy with a smooth bore. Then again, I've never shot a smooth bore gun. They had good accuracy for the technology of the day. It would be interesting to see a side by side comparison of the two types of guns at 100 yards.
As one commenter noted, the cost of a rifle was higher, and so a lot of common folk couldn't afford them. Once a rifle was in the family it was passed down over the generations. Probably pretty hard to come by for a very long time.
Most impressive for a hand held test; I expected you to mount the rifle on a stand. You can quantify the weapon's accuracy as CEP (Circular Error Probable) that is 50% of the shots fall within a circle of radius CEP.
I thought Karl at InRange did a video on this, but I was mistaken he used a rifle musket not a smoothbore, but he was getting 200 yard hits. I know a few guys who have used Brown Bess's and Charleville's for deer hunting, and if they use a proper thickness patch and good powder load to get a good tight seal, they have taken deer at 110-130 yards. I was lucky to hit the target at 75 yards when I tried it, but they know their muskets and are much more experienced shooting BP than I am. I just dabble, they hunt with their muskets year round. Deer, feral hogs, Mule Deer, Moose, Antelope, and Chet has taken 2 bears with his. And they tell me the range is usually between 70-120 yards.
I dunno, with similar dispersion as in this video, shootin at a deer past 100 yard seems to me like it would lead to a lot of excercise.
@@juslitor I've gone hunting with them a few times and I've seen them take deer beyond 100 yards 3 times. And they never take more than 1 shot to get their deer. I know they weigh their loads and use T/C speedload containers with Swiss Powder. I was lucky I got my deer at 80 yards with my .50 frontier rifle. They had to help me track it almost a half mile. I got a good hit, but not good enough at the angle I hit it.
Here here, I've just put in my comment, that you need a good tight fit for it to get any type of accuracy.
My Father bought a 43-70 (43 caliber, 1870) black powder, rolling-block, Spanish American War Surplus rifle. (The advertiser promised that it was guaranteed to still have some lands in the barrel!) It had a brass cartridge as long as my index finger and shot a lead bullet as big around as my thumb. Cleaned up and all, it shot about a foot low and a foot to the right at 100 yards. (It's accuracy was mostly because it was old and abused for 50+ years.) It was a hoot to shoot, especially at night! Spewed seven feet of orange flames and a cloud of black smoke! My Dad used it for deer hunting. I don't know if he ever shot a deer with it. He preferred to shoot deer at less than 60 yards so he could get a clean, killing shot and not have to chase or track a wounded deer.
This is a really good demonstration that really cuts to one of the most persistent myths of the war - that modern weapons made the war so bloody. As Paul Lockhart points out in Firepower, the Civil War wasn't particularly bloody for its time, but it was particularly large. If the musket had been worthless the Confederacy would have been crushed in the early war. My own take on this is that officers understood that their troops were seldom well trained as marksmen or held to the bunker hill myth and so only opened fire at absurdly close ranges. I'll have to give your book a read. It's the first time I've seen anyone look at the Civil War with so much as a mention of contemporary European conflict. Closest I've seen out there is Paddy Griffith and he's comparing it with WWI. Even if I decide you're a KZhead pseudo expert, you get some massive points in my book.
You might appreciate this video I did a few months ago: The Rifle-Musket did not really influence the Civil War kzhead.info/sun/iLmmlbppnGqXfYk/bejne.html
Well holy crap. Just watched it and you freaking nailed it. Thanks a lot for putting this out there. Being able to share that instead of trying to correct people will make me a much better cocktail party guest.
Thanks for the video demonstration. On the topic of hitting standing man-sized targets at 100 yards, something I'd be interested to learn more about is soldiers lying down while fighting. It seems that many civil war accounts are full of this behavior while other blackpowder warfare is not? Does the rifle musket have anything to do with it, is it just a uniquely American approach, or have I been misled about the frequency of troops seeking cover in earlier wars?
A lot of it has to do with reloading, I am sure. Pouring powder down the muzzle doesn't work so well when you are prone. And then, prior to the US Civil War it was expected that you might have to close in and fight with bayonetts, or that the enemy would close with you. And if you are flat on your belly when the enemy charges things probably won't go so well for you. But, by the time of the US Civil War you had better quality black powder. You had many breechloading and cartridge firearms starting to show up. And you had the Minie Ball. This is a bullet with a hollow base that can be dropped down the bore of a rifle fairly easily. Then when the powder is ignited the pressure expands the bullet out so it grips the groves of the rifle. (I think there was a built in plug that actually expanded the bullet in most cases, the effect is the same.) You saw how easy it was to get the ball down the muzzle of this musket in the video? That's because the ball is a tiny bit undersized. But had that been a rifle instead of a musket he would have had to have hammered the bullet down as the bullet has to bite into the rifling when loaded. That meant muzzle loading rifles were significantly slower to load than a musket, thus most militaries relied mostly on muskets often with some rifles around for the sharpshooters. And that's what the Minie Ball changed, loads as fast as a musket and as accurate as a rifle... since the projectile is a bit more aerodynamic than a round ball, even more accurate. Also, the percussion cap replaced the flintlock ignition system. That gave you a shorter lock time, the time between pulling the trigger and the gun going bang, which increased accuracy a bit too. So, pretty early on in the Civil War it became obvious that you really should seek some cover whenever possible, hide behind a wall dig a trench, something. And, by WW1 with smokeless powder bolt action rifles firing streamlined jacketed bullets... You were asking for it if any part of you could be seen by the enemy.
Hope you also have some insight on revolvers and other BP pistols. I myself use to think that smoothbore flintlock pistols were virtually useless but as of recently i'm not so sure.
USELESS? Stonners are Sawed OFF SHOT GUNS! called Pistols! the skill is the reliability of ignition, not the smooth of a bore. But I too would Love him to cover period pistols!
Love the video. I feel like people tend to miss the forest for the trees on topics like this to prove themselves "correct" rather than contribute anything to the conversation.
I like this. You appear to be putting the paper in behind the shot and powder, ramming the charge, and using a percussion cap. Nice shooting. Always wanted to see our version of the Brown Bess test fired. AND I was not aware that many southerners carried muskets in the Civil War; I assumed virtually everyone carried a rifle. Thanks. Your smoothbore was more accurate than I would have guessed from my past reading. Don't assume you KNOW the facts when you don't. Check.
Their guns were extremely accurate to the user they grew up shooting the same gun. It could be shooting curve balls at 100 yards but they knew where the curve would break.
Wrong.
Being from the south, this is exactly how we perceive northern people to talk😂
That looks like minute of man to me Sir. I have to admit, quite a few years ago I was obsessed with MOA being the standard of what I thought accuracy was. Shoot I wouldn't even deer hunt with a rifle that couldn't achieve that standard I had in my mind. But Hickok45 opened my eyes with an old video he made banging the hell out of steel plates with a smooth bore Super 90 and store bought rifled slugs at something like 240 yards. That video made me rethink my whole way of thinking. I have since had WAY more fun in the woods enjoying taking game with firearms I NEVER would have prior. My favorite is a patched ball out of my first gun, a Single barrel H&R 12ga shotgun.
Parabéns... através do seu trabalho, podemos aprender um pouco mais sobre esse episódio tão importante, não apenas para os EUA, como para os demais países.
e verdade !
I am wondering if there were problems with the quality of the powder provided by the federal government at that time which may have limited the range of both the smooth bore and the rifled musket.
Interestingly enough the US Army purchased all its powder from private manufacturers during the Civil War. Mostly Hazard and Du Pont. For the most part it was pretty good powder, much better than the Reb stuff. The Confederates had no major powder mills in the south at the time of secession so they had to build government powder mills.
The typical limits on range and accuracy with a smooth bore are, just as with with a rifleman, the shooter. Any muzzle loader can have problems in consistency because of things like the accuracy of powder measured between shots. Another problem can be consistent ramming. If the ball is not compressing the powder load equally at each shot the muzzle velocity can vary some due to inconsistent powder ignition rates. That is true even using a muzzle loading rifle, where windage can be considerably easier to control than elevation. Military riflemen and hunters were trained or learned to be very consistent in loading the rifle (or musket) for consistent results.
Thank you.@@papercartridges6705
It’s honestly amazing how the Civil War saw the use of everything from and including smoothbore muskets to Gatling guns, and all of them had at least some viable use.
Well, the rifled musket certainly has advantages in both accuracy and range, that is just plain fact. However, the 1842 smooth bore is also very effective within its effective range. Troops fighting in ranks, such as the Civil War were essentially targeting the entire front rank, not individuals. They were essentially shooting at a wall of enemy troops, and the smooth bore was very lethal at this. Fairly well known story that when the NJ troops opened fire on the Confederates during Pickett's Charge, it was noted that that portion of the Southern line disintegrated. What more proof do we need than that.
This is really good battlefield historical archaeology. My interest in smoothbores muskets is confined to the Napoleonic battles in Europe, where most firefights were around 75 to 150 metres. The accuracy of the Brown Bess and the French equivalent were good enough that there were few hand to hand melees in the Napoleonic wars. Outside of this, studies on the accuracy of historical weapons in battle conditions should also consider the human, environmental and logistical factors influencing the accuracy of weapons. The environmental factors include smoke, fog of war, sometimes rain and vegetation cover. The logistical factors include variations in the quality of weapons, powder and ball, and the lack of ammunition in some cases, lack of food and water for soldiers. The human factors include fatigue, the lack of training in some cases, and the lack of intent to kill in some situations. There is some historical studies that note not every soldier on the battlefield is ready to shoot accurately at an enemy for many reasons.