accuracy of rifled muskets?

[CoyoteJoe]

I've seen the "experts" on the History Channel time and again proclaim the Civil War muskets were accurate to 300 yards or more. I know that modern day competition shooters do obtain that kind of accuracy. I also know that it requires bullets perfectly cast and sized to fit the individual rifle bore, with powder carefully worked up for that rifle.
We know from examining old cartridges that the "issue ammo" from the war varied greatly. Bullets were commonly .005" under size and some more than .010" undersized, out of round, with casting flaws, etc. Then the Ammo was roughly handled, adding more damage to the poor bullet. Add in the fact that bores were not held to exacting standards and the soldier's ammo was likely to be a very poor fit to his rifle.
So, my question for the experts on this forum: How accurate was the as-issued rifle with as-issued ammo? I suspect those soldiers issued the out-dated smoothbore musket were not so terribly handicapped in battlefield reality. :grin:

 

[Bountyhunter]

I was playing around last Saturday with my .53 Santa Fe, and was hitting in and around a sheet of typing paper at 300 yards with PRB and Hornady GP's, and Buffalo Ballettes. This out of a 66" twist barrel. I would speculate that with proper minies, and good sights that consistent hits, from the hands of a good shooter with a good rifle could be expected at 300.

That was part of the reason I posted those pictures in the photo forum.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I was playing around last Saturday with my .53 Santa Fe, and was hitting in and around a sheet of typing paper at 300 yards with PRB and Hornady GP's, and Buffalo Ballettes. This out of a 66" twist barrel. I would speculate that with proper minies, and good sights that consistent hits, from the hands of a good shooter with a good rifle could be expected at 300.

Kindly re-read the question. We all know what can be done with "proper" loads, but few soldiers ever saw proper loads. Issue ammo was the question. But thanks, I may try some minies in my Lyman, Oh dang yer hide, I'll have to buy another mold! :grin:

 

[MikeChapin]

I would imagine that a soldier during the civil war could hit a mass of moving men at 300 yards. With the ammo you are describing I would doubt that an individual would have a lot to worry about at that range.

The civil war people will probably correct me but I seem to remember that Whitworths were prefered for long range sniping.

 

[arquebus]

I think you're most like likely correct. As you say, those of use posting reports of good accuracy with Rifle-Muskets do go to the trouble of making sure all of our components are as close-fitting & uniform as possible. Still, all in all, I think even an undersized or slightly damaged Minie is going to be more accurate at extended range (100yds plus) than a RB from a smoothbore, when you consider that the Minie will slug up to fit the bore on firing.....& weren't the RBs that where used in the smoothbore muskets only loaded with the wadding from the paper cartridge (no tight fitting cloth patch)? I know the English-made smooth-sided Pritchard "Minies" that were made for the Enfields where very undersized & were wrapped in paper (from the cartridge) to add girth, however they were still hollow-based & would upset into the rifling. Just more fuel for thought!

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

I've seen the "experts" on the History Channel time and again proclaim the Civil War muskets were accurate to 300 yards or more. I know that modern day competition shooters do obtain that kind of accuracy. I also know that it requires bullets perfectly cast and sized to fit the individual rifle bore, with powder carefully worked up for that rifle.
We know from examining old cartridges that the "issue ammo" from the war varied greatly. Bullets were commonly .005" under size and some more than .010" undersized, out of round, with casting flaws, etc. Then the Ammo was roughly handled, adding more damage to the poor bullet. Add in the fact that bores were not held to exacting standards and the soldier's ammo was likely to be a very poor fit to his rifle.
So, my question for the experts on this forum: How accurate was the as-issued rifle with as-issued ammo? I suspect those soldiers issued the out-dated smoothbore musket were not so terribly handicapped in battlefield reality. :grin:

How accurate? 300 yards? The smart allec might answer "As accurate as it needed to be". A thoughtful person would say, "The rifle musket could hit a target 18 inches square (the size of a man's chest) at 100 yards most of the time, even with bad ammunition." The realist would say, "It depends". Let's take the realist's point of view:

(1) Given good ammunition and a good condition bore, your accuracy will be about as good as a trained rifleman can hold it and the 18 inch square target is a good one to count on. But remember, the gun begins to foul after about three shots and becomes difficult to load, dropping your loading time to 2 shots per minute from the military standard of 3. But your target is getting bigger and seemingly more numerous. :shocked2: Oh, oh...

(2) You are being shot at. More often than not, you have no cover and people on both sides of you are getting shot. Adrenalin is pumping and under those conditions, screams from the wounded and maniacal yells are common ”“ there goes your concentration with you mess mate grabbing at your leg begging for help after having half his face blown off by a .58 cal. slug and your ability to load is quickly going down to one and one half rounds per minute and that is not necessarily well aimed fire ”“ you just wish that your enemy was at 300 yards because you and he have been slowly closing on each other in ranks by command (Damnation, another distraction!!) since you started shooting at each other at 100 yards. So, no matter how cool, calm and collected you may be at the weekend shoot where you are shooting against 10 or twelve others or at an N-SSA National at Ft. Shenandoah, things are different when the target is alive and it has murder in its heart.

(3) Now, let’s go back to (1) for a moment ”“ in that I made use of the words “trained rifleman”. We have to remember that the VAST majority of Civil War soldiers were not “trained riflemen” and usually had no idea if they hit what they aimed at and really didn’t care ”“ there was no score at the end of the day, only survival for the lucky. The myth of the superbly accurate shooting of the American soldier has always been just that, a myth. A soldier was trained to load and fire his gun as efficiently as possible and that gave him more confidence in his ability than anything else, hitting a target, even if not the one aimed at, was icing on the cake. In other words, you could learn to be steady under fire through experience but that experience was always tempered with the thought of the next time and what it might bring. This applies to both sides, Northern and Southern, city boy or farm raised ”“ it’s a different world.

(4) We are talking about two armies armed with the rifle musket and a few smoothbores (not a bad weapon at all under 100 yards) on both sides thrown in for good measure. The new made arms are made under war time pressure with the demand to get them out the door as quickly as possible so sighting problems will happen, bore dimensions may not be as close to standard as that of a peace-time product and the ammunition will be of all different configurations and diameters with powder charges that will vary by a grain or two (or three, maybe more) and there is always the chance that you will drop a few grains on the ground while loading with shaking hands.

So, how accurate was the rifle musket? I would almost have to say that the smart alec’s answer would be the one I would go with: As accurate as it needed to be. And I might add, be glad that the sergeant didn’t let you throw away that bayonet; you’ll need it at the end! (But that’s another thread.) Don’t worry about the 300-yard target; the rifle musket’s accuracy was good enough to hit a target the size of a man on a horse at 900 yards. And that’s a quote from the manual”¦

:snore: I know, rambling again. :winking:

 

[J.D.]

Federal troops sniped at Confederates at ranges slightly in excess of 500 yards at Gettysburg, using issue rifled muskets and ammunition.

Federal sniping from big round top was so effective that the Confederate advance was stopped at the Devils den long enough for Federal troops to extend the left of the line to little round top.

How many rounds were fired to stop the Confederate advance? I dunno, but the Devil's Den was not a good place for Confederate troops that day.

 

[RedFeather]

I've caught a couple of those "expert" shows on tv and usually end up shaking my head. The tests are rather unscientific and don't, to my mind, usually prove or disprove whatever it is they are testing. The rifled musket may not have been as accurate as a later cartridge gun like the .45-70, but the most import thing is it was still deadly at 600 yards. That meant a soldier could begin firing long before he saw the whites of their eyes. I would suspect that a soldier who had previous experience with rifles would have been pretty effective at 300 yards. A man-sized target is pretty big. It also depended upon the sights, too. My replica Zouave's sights are pretty crude compared to an Enfield's.

As to dented or slightly deformed bullets, when spun at a high rate of speed, the voids, et cetera, tend to cancel out. The BC of a Minie is vastly superior to the round ball, as well.

Lastly, those were the days before pennicillin or sulfa drugs. Get hit about anywhere at 300 yards and you were in trouble.

 

[Trot]

I don't know about Confederate bullets, but most of the Federal minies were swaged not cast, thus they were very close in size and excellent quality. The original rifle muskets were more uniform in bore size than todays repros, also they had progressive rifling which is supposed to aid accuracy. I would say acceptable accuracy at 300 yards would not be much of a problem.

 

[silverfox]

How accurate at 300 yards. The Enfields sights go to 1100 yards guess there was a reason for that. I have shot at man sized targets at 300 yards off hand with about 70% hits don't know what you could do with a rest like a sniper would use. It's true we may have better ammunition now but some of those old boys knew how to load and how to shoot even with poor ammunition. Now the average soldier thats what volley fire was all about. As was mentioned you wouldn't want to get hit with any of those balls at any range.
Fox :thumbsup:

 

[Slamfire]

Given the standard load 60 grains of FFg, and the standard minie ball, velocity was under 900 fps. Not that it all goes away, but at three hundred yards the hold over must have been pretty large.
I spent a lot of time on the battlefield at Gettysburg, and don't believe that rifle fire from Big Round Top was responsible for delaying the Confederate advance on Little Round Top. The terrain is pretty tough, and Big Round Top was passed over as being too vegetated to mount cannons on.

 

[J.D.]

I did confuse the locations of little round top and big round top. Sorry 'bout that.

I've walked little roundtop, big roundtop, Devils Den, Seminmary Ridge, and Culp's Hill, to name only a few of the locations I've visited at Gettysburg.

In talking to one of the site historians, while visiting little round top, he talked about how that was the end of the Federal line at that early point in the battle. The Federal commander ordered his troops to fire on the Confederates at ranges of a little over 500 yards, to good effect.

This firing ws done with rifle muskets, no artillery was involved in that action, to the best of my knowledge.

The Confederates attempted an attack intended to turn the Federal left flank, which ended on little round top.

That action slowed the Confederate advance until more Federal troops arrived to extend the line around the side of little round top, protecting the Federal left flank.

One of my family members, of the branch of the family that remained in Virginia, commanded the artillery battalion supporting Picket's charge, so I am interested in all aspects of that battle.
J.D.

 

[Pigman]

Could a Civil War solder hit a target he aimed at?

That does not matter what matters is that he hit more at longer ranges with the rifled musket than with the smoothbore. He may only have had 10% hits at 300 yards using a Minnie ball but it was a far higher percentage than with round balls. As much as I love round ball shooting. If I had to choose between the two for fighting with in the Civil War the rifled musket wins hands down. It shoots farther and more accurately.

When my then 11year old son first fired an 1861 Springfield with a Minnie ball he could hit a 6” group at 50 yards. He had never fired anything bigger than a BB gun before. The untrained Civil War soldier could probably have done as well considering most people back then had not ever fired a gun. If you don’t believe that look into the history of the NRA!

Thanks,
Mark C. Foster

 

[silverfox]

slamfire: At 300 meters I set the slide on my sight at its highest point without raising the ladder and held about 1/2 a man high to hit about mid target. I think this shows about 400 meters on the sight. Quite a drop as you said this is with a 55 gr. load and a 515 gr minnie.
Fox :thumbsup:

 

[kaac1221]

Joe,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after reading your post several times it appears to me that you are questioning the "mechanical" accuracy of the rifled musket. I read-somewhere-a long time ago that the standard for the Springfield musket was that it should be able to put 10 shots in a 4" circle at 100 yds from a machine rest.

I have an original Enfield musket with a bore that's nothing to write home about but it will still stabilize a minie ball and shoot 7"-8" groups at 100 yards---from a rest. Extrapolate that 8" out to 300 yds and you still have a 24" group. I really wouldn't want someone shooting at me with my Enfield at 300 yards!! :shocked2: So I tend to agree with Va. Manuf. '06: Those guns were as accurate as they had to be.

Throw in the human/fear factor and that's a whole different story.....

Dryball

 

[Iron Jim Rackham]

I would disagree with the premise that 19th century ammunition was inferior to that produced by 21st century home casting. Civil War minie bullets were swagged not cast, and were manufacturered to higher standards than can be duplicated by todays hobbyiest. The gain twist or progressive depth rifling used in the 1858 Enfield and 1855 Springfield produced excellent accuracy at 300 yards.

I'm an active skirmisher, and the game is played against the clock. The most clays hit in the shortest time results in winning. No one cleans between shots. 8 men shooting 32 clays, should translate in to each man hitting 4 clays (at 50 yards) in about 1 1/2 minutes. Invariably some people miss resulting in some team members shooting less than 4 clays, and some shooting their own 4, plus some of their team mates. We also shoot 6" tiles at 100 yards, and the elevation adjustable ladder or leaf sight of the period make this much easier than someone used to a fixed rear sight would think.

I frequently shoot a standard 100 yard target off at 200 yards and rarely score under 40. Civil War muskets are very accurate. What soldiers lacked weren't accurate arms, but sufficient training in their use to have realized the full potential of their weapons.

 

[BillinOregon]

Coyote Joe: Interesting question. My guess is that if the guys had the right ammunition for their muskets -- Enfield ammo for the Enfields and Springfield ammo for the Springfields -- the fellas who had mastered the rudiments of sight use, squeeze and follow-through could probably count on hitting their man every time at 100 yards, as they were trained to shoot for the belt buckle, and guns were sighted to hit high. But once the opposing forces began to close on each other, ammo quality and sight picture became less important and the volume of fire moreso. Given the choice between a three-groove 1:72 musket and one of the shorter Enfields with a five-groove 1:48 barrel, I would always choose the latter. I would be very interested in seeing accuracy results with an original 3-groove slow-twist musket and original-spec ammunition, some of it roughly handled, at 200 and 300 yards.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Yes it would be, finding the original ammo might be a bit expensive though. I know that neither of the two muskets I've owned, the three groove 1:72 Zouave nor the five groove 1:48 Parker Hale could be counted on to hit a 12" target at one hundred yards with minies cast .005" under bore size and I've read somewhere that the standard issue minies of Mr. Lincoln's war were .005-010" undersize to assure loading down a fouled bore.
Now with a clean bore and bullets that were a snug fit the P-H would go into 3" at one hundred but only with 90 grains 2fg, any more or less opened groups.

 

[RedFeather]

Duplicating original ammo is possible but only to a limited degree. First, there are no longer the powder factories in existence during the Civil War and much discussion has been made of what "orginal" powders were like. Second, CW ammo would have been made by many different manufacturers using components from all over, so there was no real uniformity. Sort of like ammo from WWII where every batch shot a bit differently. (Same today?)

A lot has been said about the original specs muskets, especially their being held to closer tolerances than today's replicas. I don't know as how I would buy into that 100%. For one thing, there were literally tons of sub-standard guns produced and foistered on the US by uncrupulous manufacturers during the war. Also, the machinery had a lot of tolerances built in. I once had an 1879 Argentine rolling block with a great bore. When I slugged it and brought it to a knowledgable friend for examination, he pointed out that some of the grooves were a bit different in depth than the others. When I asked why, he chuckled and said perhaps the guy working the rifling machine did half the barrel, went to lunch, and then reset the cutter for the other half. Shot well, but it wasn't to tight specs by any means.

Suffice it to say that, regardless of their level of marksmanship, the CW soldier with the rifled musket was deadly. That due to the 18th century battle tactics employed early in the war. Line up at 100 yards with smooth bores and round balls and you might survive a glancing hit. Try that with a 500 grain minie and not only you but the guy two files back were gonners. Effects were so devestating that both sides accused one another of using exploding bullets.

 

[G. W. Gill]

I was raised to believe the Confederate Govt. produced the very best powder. Thier powder works were the envy of the world. The Union supply was from subcontractors. Those subs had problems... Sorry Union Guys, This is true.