accuracy of rifled muskets?

[ResearchPress]

I was raised to believe the Confederate Govt. produced the very best powder.

"Gunpowder, Explosives and the State" (Ed. Brenda Buchanan) has an essay by Bill Curtis on the 'Confederate Gunpowder Works, Augusta, Georgia'. This essay also cites Lt. O'Flynn's 1996 'Analysis of the Quality of Confederate Gunpowder Produced at Augusta Powder Mills'.

Apparently O'Flynn cites a number of contemporary sources on the subject of the inferiority of Confederate Powder. These relate to artillery which require "particularly accurate levels of powder quality", without which range tables of elevations and fuse settings would have been unreliable. Quoting again "The reports complained of shots falling short, the inability of mortars to reach out to their maximum range, and of the marked superiority of Norther powder when it was captured."

Curtis notes that regarding small arms and the comparatively short musketry ranges would have only been adversely affected by any tendency of poor powder to create an excess of powder fouling, making loading a problem.

G.W.Rains who was appointed to establish a gunpowder industry in the South delivered an address to the Confederate Survivors Association in April 1882. In the published text I have he does refer to the testing of the powder to "insure its equality of strength".

If you have information that contradicts O'Flynn's findings I'd be interested to know.

David

 

[RedFeather]

Didn't the Confederacy resort to using sugar in the manufacture of powder?

 

[G. W. Gill]

I wish I could buy the same quality powder today. I just completed a search bar type look at Augustus Powderworks. It looks like C.S. Govt. did good for its soldiers. As far as powder was concerned.

 

[Gary]

How accurate? Well, a man sized target could be hit with regularity at 500 yards by a competent marksman. I read one soldier's letter to his father where he bragged that he could hit a sandbag at 500 yards.

Now, most soldiers were not instructed in marksmanship. Only one regiment of Union sharpshooters (1st Michigan Sharp Shooters) received marksmanship instruction. Other (non-sharpshooter) regiments' training varied according to the officers. The Confederates under General Cleburne put a lot of effort into training and a manual was later written for the Army of Tennessee. The Confederates in the Army of Northern Virginia got very little practice - including their ad-hoc sharpshooter battalions (it helps if one recruits men with reputed as marksmen first).

 

[PanzerOfJustice]

Contrary to popular beleif, the standard for US made Springfields where quite high because the government could inspect the factories. The "low-quality" contractors were quite rare and usually from England or Austria. The originals had very accurate bore sizes.

Also Mr. Dupont would like to have a word with anyone who doubts the quality of his powder. He is still in business, after all.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Contrary to popular beleif, the standard for US made Springfields where quite high because the government could inspect the factories. The "low-quality" contractors were quite rare and usually from England or Austria. The originals had very accurate bore sizes.

Also Mr. Dupont would like to have a word with anyone who doubts the quality of his powder. He is still in business, after all.

Two interesting statements well thought out. The lesser quality contractors - P.S. Justice comes to mind, along with some of the early War work by Whitney and others - did not last long since they were after all non-standard arms. You are right to say that the government inspected the arms made under standard contracts and most, if not all of the inspectors did excellent work seeing to the quality of the arms made on their watch. But there were certainly variances, especially in the bore size - a few thousandths here or there actually makes no difference in the common soldier's rifle, the same thought follows even today with modern military and sporting firearms. In other words variations are allowed as rifling equipment wears but is kept in use as long as the standard deviation is not too great. When that variation from the standard gets to a certain limit a new tool takes its place.. Thus it was and will always be.

As far as Mr. Dupont's powder, he would be justified in his desire to straighten out someone's thinking if they accused him of making an inferior product, there was none better and his product was the standard by which ALL were judged - unfortunately Mr. DuPont was not the only one making powder for the Federal government at the time and some substandard powder did get by. It happens... :redface:

 

[Hunter300sav]

With roughly 275,000 KIA and about the same in WIA :shocked2: somebody must have been able to hit something :grin: I hit a bowling pin off hand at 100yds with an 1853 Enfield using the 500gr Old Style mine and 55grs of FFFg Goex bp! Bowling pins are made of hard maple cores and wrapped in hard plastic sheathing and as we all know can handle much abuse! The minie shot completely through the bowling pin and burried itself in the dirt behind it :shocked2: In my humble opinion you wouldn't be very safe at 300yds if someone with even a little shooting experience was firing at you :grin: Just my two cents worth :v

 

[Hunter300sav]

There is a web site that adresses this topic quite thoroughly called J. Stanage "The Rifled Musket Versus the Smoothbore" I don't know how to post links or I would have put it in here The Article shows from actual field tests that 300yds was not a safe distance These tests from what I gather were conducted in the 1800's while these weapons were still in general use Its an interesting read if nothing else! P.S. If anyone knows how I can post the link let me know and I'll post it! Take care fellas Wes!

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

It is a great article, here ya go:
[url] http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/2000/stanage.html[/url]

Just cut and paste the web address into the article, that should work.

 

[G. W. Gill]

I would like to quote sourses. Alas I cannot. I believe the fuse mfg. supply factory had a problem. I believe this is the reason why Picketts charge did not succeed.
The ink marks and the #"s on the fuse were wrong. They layed a nasty barrage that overshot the union lines at Gettysburg. It was not the powder from Augusta but the fuse MFG. factory. From memory it was the Columbia Arsenal Fuse was changed to Richmond fuse supply and they did not chang the cardboard istructions on the limbers. the shells themselves blewup nicely

 

[Tumblernotch]

And remember to throw in the fact that the soldiers on the line weren't aiming at individual enemy soldiers in that line 300 yds away. They were firing at a "line" of two ranks plus file closers. The key to linear tactics was to mass your fire to break up an assault. Of course, some individuals who were good shots would take more care in aiming even at that range and try to pick off mounted officers and standard bearers.

 

[Threeband]

Here's a point about practical accuracy I only recently came to appreciate, based on something I read in a library book (sorry no citation!).

Minie balls require relatively light powder charges to avoid blown skirts. Velocity is much lower than a Whitworth bullet, or a patched round ball. I believe the round balls from the smoothbores had higher velocity also.

This means a high, arcing trajectory. Proper range estimation and sight settings were CRITCAL. Even if your sight setting was correct, the bullets would be coming down at a pretty steep angle at the longer ranges. The "beaten ground" was thus a narrow band, and having passed through it, advancing infantry would have most of the shots passing over their heads.

It would be necessary to frequently re-adjust sights as the attackers got closer. If your sights were set for 500 yards. the enemy might be relatively safe beyond 525, or within 450 yards.

Before the war, there was a lot of discussion (within the British army) of the importance of extensive training in range estimation and sight adjustment. There were proposals to issue NCOs with simple range-finders,and train them to supervise the sight adjustments of the men. I believe George McClellan brought these recommendations back to the States after his tour observing the Crimean War. Of course nothing came of it.

Minie balls were used within such a narrow window of time, these problems were little appreciated. By 1863 the British were converting to breech-loaders, and the Americans were two years later.
Trajectories were still high, but getting flatter over the next 10 or 15 years.

 

[rebel727]

One thing nobody's touched on is that quite a few Enfields were used by the U.S. and a lot of them were used by the C.S. The Enfield was .577 caliber but both sides used more U.S. made .58's in them. That's a pretty tight fit from the get go. Granted after a few shots fouling made it very difficult to load but those first shots were undoubtedly(in my mind at least)very accurate.

 

[faw3]

I put a test by NG and HC some time back maybe a year, useing 5 of the most common rifles in CW shooting was out to 300 or 400 yds (belive 300) anyway out of 15 shots the Witworth got 15 hits , the Enfield 13 Springfield SP 12, Reg Springfield 7 or 8. The Enfield was greatly helped they belived by useing the over size Springfield 58 swaged way down and ramed down the smaller bore. ? If any of that helps , it kind of covers all of what you put up, since this was rifles and bullets from the CW. FRED :hatsoff: (The Springfield SP sounds like a real good rifle if you could find one by the one of a handfull of real good ones from different makers.)

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I use the same .575 Minie in all of my rifle muskets. They are great in my '63 Springfield, but they really shine in my '53 Enfield. I use them as cast in the Enfield's .577 bore, and they load easily every time. It amazes me that these guns are so low in recoil, yet approach the .45-70 in power.

 

[ResearchPress]

Minie balls were used within such a narrow window of time, these problems were little appreciated. By 1863 the British were converting to breech-loaders, and the Americans were two years later.

I'd question what is meant by a "narrow window of time". The Pattern 1851 Rifle Musket ('The Minie Rifle') was issued to British troops from early in 1853. This .702 cal rifle was superseded by the Pattern 1853 Rifle Musket ('The Enfield Rifle') of .577 cal. The breech loading conversion of the Enfield rifle, the Snider, was approved in 1866. Although a breech loader it still used a bullet of the Minie priciple. Bullets of the Minie pattern did not disappear until over 20 years after their introduction in Great Britain, when in 1874 the .45 cal Martini-Henry replaced the Snider. Two decades would appear to me to be a lengthy period over which to develop an appreciation of problems that might be associated with the Minie bullet.


'Pickets' versus Bullets on my web site is an article originally published in 1859 and gives an overview of musketry instruction in the British Army. The importance of judging distance is stressed for as the article says "it is necessary that the future marksman should be taught to judge, with a considerable degree of accuracy, the distance he is from the object he is to fire at; for, unless he can ascertain that, the new rifle will be scarcely more destructive in his hands than the old musket."

David

 

[Threeband]

I agree entirely. I was aware that "minie-type" bullets were used for some time after the adoption of breechloaders, but wasn't certain of the specifics. That's why I threw in that vague bit about "over the next 10-15 years": I was trying to verbally jump the gap to the adoption of the Martini. I believe the Martini used solid based paper patched bullets at higher velocities than the Snider.

I stand by "narrow window". Round balls were used for centuries. Solid based bullets have been the norm for 130 years. In between lies a brief interlude of a mere 20-25 years. It's relative, of course.

Your quotation from the 1859 regulations makes the point exactly: extensive training was necessary to bring out the potential of the new weapons. Those high trajectories resulted in huge "dead zones" and narrow "kill zones".

The recommended training programs being impossible to implement in wartime, both Yankee and Confederate officers had good reason to restrict the fire of their men to close range. They knew from experience that long range fire went high.

The point is brought out very well in the Justin Stanage article referred to in a previous post:[url] http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/2000/stanage.html.[/url]

The problem wasn't really solved until smokeless propellants allowed "battle sight" settings providing point blank ranges over 500 yards.

I used to be active with the NSSA, and all my shooting has been at exact, known ranges. I try to remind myself that the real world is a different place, and 20 years is a narrow window.

 

[ResearchPress]

I stand by "narrow window". Round balls were used for centuries. Solid based bullets have been the norm for 130 years. In between lies a brief interlude of a mere 20-25 years. It's relative, of course.

Well if you're comparing things to roundball, then it is a "narrow window"; however to suggest as you did in your earlier posting that this window was so narrow that problems associated with blown skirts and an arcing trajectory were "little appreciated" seems to be pushing matters.

The recommended training programs being impossible to implement in wartime, both Yankee and Confederate officers had good reason to restrict the fire of their men to close range. They knew from experience that long range fire went high.

Surely this shows that problems of arcing trajectory were appreciated and that some officers took appropriate action when leading inexperienced troops. There's enough tales of Civil War sharpshooters to demonstrate that such problems could be overcome with proper training/skills.

David

 

[rebel727]

I've got a history book(don't ask me which one)that has a conversation between several Confederate soldiers about how far away a group of hogs are. One soldier says 600 yds. and adjusts the sights on his Enfield to 600 yds., fires a round and a hog sqeals. He says yep, 600 yds.

 

[RedFeather]

Anecdotal sources aren't always to be taken in their entirety, especially about shooting prowess like the 600 yard pig mentioned, above. My guess is that the "traditional" battlefield strategies employed early in the war colored the use of the then new rifled muskets. Ranges were kept short because earlier tactics required them. Add to this heavy triggers, rudimentary sights, effects of fouling on successive shots and the heat of battle and I would guess that closer ranges made some sense. (Anyone tried a ten shot string and then a Williams wiper bullet to see how well a musket will settle back down? I have some but don't want to shoot them.) Not all soldiers practiced marksmanship on a regular basis and enjoyed the luxury of combat shooting from a steady rest. In defense of the rifled musket, it was far superior to the round ball musket if only in its power and retained energy. It did reshape warfare which was a long learning curve for the troops of the time. Having to figure out how to best employ your weapon while using it says something about the resoucefullness of the Civil War soldiers.