Va.Manuf.06 said:
Dan you are correct - in most cases. However, buck and ball cartridges were relatively short range cartridges and anything over 50 to 60 yards would call for use of the ball cartridge, the buck shot would be useless at any range beyond that. At 25 yards the buck cartridge could be used most effectively.
Remember that the buck and ball and buckshot cartridges (sometimes double loaded with projectiles) were what decimated Picket's Division at Gettysburg. The smoothbored musket was more common in ranks of the Army of the Potomac than in the Army of Northern Virginia at that time.
Muskets and the loads used are of only passing interest to me. But there are places to look for info.
A great many muskets were not capable of reliably hitting a man at 80 yards, either due to the inherent inaccuracy of the load, the quality of the barrel/its state of repair or the lack of skill of the shooter. (General markmanship training did not appear until the 1850s-60s and was sporadic into the 1870s.)
Actually in some looking I find:
"...three buckshot atop a .64 caliber ball. With the standard powder charge the buck and ball load had greater range than the buckshot cartridge, and made the musket more effective against individual targets that it was with a single ball. Tests at West Point in 1837 showed that from 9 buck-and-ball cartridges fired at 3 shots per minute, 16 out of 27 buckshot hit the target at 80 yards." [no mention of the 64 ball]
"...from 1835 to 1840, the Ordnance Department issued the regulars 2,700,000 buck-and ball loads, as opposed to 950,000 ball..."
In the 1820s there were apparently serious problems with the musket's quality in America.
Further soldiers, worried about passing inspection were taking the muskets apart with the result that parts, even trigger guards were bent so as to no longer fit the stock, if not actually worn down. Bent barrels were a problem and certainly would not enhance accuracy. Some soldiers were actually annealing the frizzens (as near as I can tell from the description), so as to polish them better. These muskets were relegated to garrison duty and workable muskets issued for field duty.
Thus it was thought that with the wear and tear that the average musket was only good for about 6-8 years before it was rendered unserviceable just from the constant polishing.
It was also found in testing that reducing the powder charge greatly increased accuracy with the musket fixed in a rest. The French found that reducing the windage (using the biggest ball that could be loaded easily) greatly increased accuracy at 100 meters.
I don't know of any shooter who uses a .64-.65 caliber ball in a .69 caliber arm today.
It would be interesting to test one with a .648 ball in a paper cartridge to see how it shoots. This is likely the 17 to the pound diameter I see mentioned for the musket in one place.
Hanger, speaking of the British Muskets of 1814 states that many were so ill bored as to not be able to strike a man at 80 years. Though a good one would and might at 100. But Hanger was a better marksman than the average infantryman of the time who, I suspect, might be firing with his eyes closed.
See"Firearms of the American West 1803-1865" Chapter 7.
In America "pressed" rifle and musket balls were being used by 1845-46 made at the Washington Armory. These apparently gave better accuracy than other balls at least in muskets.
I have read that shot towers were dropping musket shot by this time and thought this was probably how musket balls were mass produced, but apparently "pressing" was also used and perhaps dropped shot was abandoned? Or the material I had read on shot towers was wrong.
We are often at the mercy of what we find written down.
Dan
