Buck n' Ball

[George]

Also was size buck shot were you using in your 62 ?

I believe they were .285" which I had cast for my .30 caliber rifle.

 

[George]

Amazing photo. Thanks

Notice that the Bess is loaded with 3 buckshot under the ball and then 5 swan shot are added. There are many descriptions of loads which show that the old boys stuffed lots of lead of different sorts down the bore. In 1775 on the Ohio river Nichoas Cresswell said, "Out of twelve Guns five were rendered unfit for present use by the wet, mine happened to be in good order and I loaded her with an ounce bullet and seven swan shot." When they encountered some NAs that same day he then said, "I put a pistol bullet upon the load I already had in my Gun."

Spence

 

[Twisted_1in66]

I believe it can be loaded either way. With loose ball and shot I'm sure one would want to put the buck in first, then the ball, or the buck would/could roll back out the barrel. (unless one was shooting uphill)

These muskets were normally loaded from pre-made paper cartridges and the paper was rammed down the barrel after the powder and ball had been dumped in to keep the undersized ball from rolling out. So it doesn't really matter which went in first.

Twisted_1in66
Dan

 

[Elnathan]

Again, I can't speculate about that. All I can do is report holes on target rather than misses. Try a smoothie with single ball on a B-29 or similar silhouette target at 100 yards. Try it again with buck and ball. Then try it once more with straight buckshot. Then decide which you'd rather shoot.

Theoriticians can play with the effect of wounding all they want, but I'd still rather have hits than misses. I did the shooting. I compared the results. I got my answers. Anything less than shooting for answers is theory, and there's always too much of that going around for my tastes.

BrownBear,

Since to the best of my knowledge no military ever made buckshot the standard load for muskets instead of a single ball or buck and ball, your suggestion that buckshot is a superior general-purpose load implicitly argues that everyone from 1500- to 1850 Got It Wrong. I find that implausible on the face of it, and was suggesting some reasons why they saw a need to retain the large ball in their musket loads.

As for theory, the difference between a wound that will eventually kill a man and one that is immediately incapacitating is a factor that has been discussed in depth for a very long time. It isn't even limited to firearms - one of the reasons why narrow-bladed stabbing swords, despite a theoretical superiority, never completely displaced cutting swords as military weapons is because the wound they made, while more likely to actually kill, wasn't severe enough to immediately cripple a man and prevent him from killing you before expiring. I'm merely applying a well-known principle to the discussion at hand.

And again, the need to stop a charging at horse at range was a practical requirement for a military shoulder-arm prior to mechanization. As late as 1911 the US army still wanted a pistol cartridge capable of killing a horse with which to arm its cavalrymen. It has to be taken into account in this kind of discussion.

I don't have a musket with which to go out and experiment with patterns, alas. I'd be kind of interested to know what kind of penetration buckshot has on, say water jugs (the poor man's ballistic gelatin), at different ranges. Just looking at patterns seems to miss some important aspects, though.

 

[tenngun]

BrownBear,

Since to the best of my knowledge no military ever made buckshot the standard load for muskets instead of a single ball or buck and ball, your suggestion that buckshot is a superior general-purpose load implicitly argues that everyone from 1500- to 1850 Got It Wrong. I find that implausible on the face of it, and was suggesting some reasons why they saw a need to retain the large ball in their musket loads.

As for theory, the difference between a wound that will eventually kill a man and one that is immediately incapacitating is a factor that has been discussed in depth for a very long time. It isn't even limited to firearms - one of the reasons why narrow-bladed stabbing swords, despite a theoretical superiority, never completely displaced cutting swords as military weapons is because the wound they made, while more likely to actually kill, wasn't severe enough to immediately cripple a man and prevent him from killing you before expiring. I'm merely applying a well-known principle to the discussion at hand.

And again, the need to stop a charging at horse at range was a practical requirement for a military shoulder-arm prior to mechanization. As late as 1911 the US army still wanted a pistol cartridge capable of killing a horse with which to arm its cavalrymen. It has to be taken into account in this kind of discussion.

I don't have a musket with which to go out and experiment with patterns, alas. I'd be kind of interested to know what kind of penetration buckshot has on, say water jugs (the poor man's ballistic gelatin), at different ranges. Just looking at patterns seems to miss some important aspects, though.

That’s an interesting view. There were more wounds then shooters at the Boston Massacre leading to the accusation that the British guns were double shoted. Modren forensics suggests that one ball caused two wounds. However I wonder if there would have been that suggestion at the time unless it was sometimes done.
Buck and ball loads were used here at Wilson creek, but that southern army was mostly militia.
Above is an X-ray of a musket with buck and ball but it’s sea service, and few ships in the day were fifty yards long, most closer to thirty.
Things that make you go hmmm

 

[Elnathan]

Oh, I'm

That’s an interesting view. There were more wounds then shooters at the Boston Massacre leading to the accusation that the British guns were double shoted. Modren forensics suggests that one ball caused two wounds. However I wonder if there would have been that suggestion at the time unless it was sometimes done.
Buck and ball loads were used here at Wilson creek, but that southern army was mostly militia.
Above is an X-ray of a musket with buck and ball but it’s sea service, and few ships in the day were fifty yards long, most closer to thirty.
Things that make you go hmmm

Oh, I'm sure that it was done. The buck and ball load was the standard load of the Continental Army by the end of the war - they were no longer making cartridges with a single ball at all - and other armies also routinely used 'em as well, I think, though I don't think that any other army went as far as to discontinue the single ball. Pure buckshot cartridges were also issued, but I think only in comparatively small numbers and I've always read that the buckshot loads were intended for sentries pulling night duty or other special circumstances, not for use in pitched, open-field battles. IIRC, there were some units in the ACW that preferred smoothbores over rifle-muskets because they liked the option to fire multiple projectiles.

Euro-American professional military stuff isn't really my area of interest, though, so I don't have many sources on the subject immediately available. There are others here who could probably tell us who used what and when far better than I can.

 

[George]

From the Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Va., February 1st, 1757..

"His honor (Governor) was pleased likewise to lay before the board two letters from Colo. Read dated 24th of january (1757)....
"In his second letter he desires that a sufficient quantity of large goose-shot may be sent, which is judged preferable to bullets,..."

Spence

 

[tenngun]

Oh, I'm


Oh, I'm sure that it was done. The buck and ball load was the standard load of the Continental Army by the end of the war - they were no longer making cartridges with a single ball at all - and other armies also routinely used 'em as well, I think, though I don't think that any other army went as far as to discontinue the single ball. Pure buckshot cartridges were also issued, but I think only in comparatively small numbers and I've always read that the buckshot loads were intended for sentries pulling night duty or other special circumstances, not for use in pitched, open-field battles. IIRC, there were some units in the ACW that preferred smoothbores over rifle-muskets because they liked the option to fire multiple projectiles.

Euro-American professional military stuff isn't really my area of interest, though, so I don't have many sources on the subject immediately available. There are others here who could probably tell us who used what and when far better than I can.

Well even to modren time buck shot in smoothies had its place on the battlefield. Ww1 trench sweepers, the island of the pacific twenty years later and the jungles of Vietnam. We had a few aboard my boat in the navy( submarine, so it’s ok to call its boat). I don’t know if they are still issued.
I wonder if the fact European battles tended to be fought in more open country as opposed to thicker forest leading to closer ranges (?) lead to American adopting more buck? While Europeans armies didn’t feel the need.

 

[toot]

I love the X RAY it shows how the load was used in real time, no question!!!

 

[Elnathan]

[/QUOTE]

From the Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Va., February 1st, 1757..

"His honor (Governor) was pleased likewise to lay before the board two letters from Colo. Read dated 24th of january (1757)....
"In his second letter he desires that a sufficient quantity of large goose-shot may be sent, which is judged preferable to bullets,..."

Spence

Without much context it is hard to be sure what Colonel Read was doing, but given the date and the fact that he is writing to the Virginia government for supplies suggests that he is out along the Virginian frontier, which indicates Indians, trees, and an irregular style of warfare. Dealing with Indians in thick woodlands might also a specialized application in which buckshot would work well. Daniel Boone seems to have thought the same, as I mentioned earlier.

Doesn't really shed much light on the use of buckshot against troops in line of battle on an open battlefield, though, which was the point under discussion.

 

[Dave Orchard]

Re. Buck n' ball for wolf packs in E.Wash./Rat's posting
Couldn't figure how to do a PM, so I'me letting fly ;-)
I'me in Ferry Co.
The Profanity Peak pack is finally being "lethally removed" after repeated livestock kills.(Perhaps the deer population will go back up too?)
I don't get around much but I did get acquainted with John Lindman in Spokane, barkcanoe.com.
John is a very interesting gentleman and I'de love to get a birch bark canoe from him
Rat, if you are ever up Republic way, give me a call@ 775-2668.
Dave

 

[Dave Orchard]

Hadn't checked this thread since I started it...
Got lots of info plus that great photo of the loaded Bess

I've mainly loaded loose buck n' ball.
1/2 doz. buckshot kicked no harder than 4 that I could tell.
I go with dia. That stack in pairs rather than three to a layer.
For ME, larger buck patterns more tightly.

I'vetried dbl bore-size ball loads too.
Total projectile wt. seems close to buck n' ball.
I'm my limited experience you get more even patterns with a bit less powder by volume when using birdshot or buckshot.

Smaller buckshot loses it's stopping power as range increases as well as it's penetration.

Look up "Malaysian loads" where Brits used mixed coarse birdshot & SG or SSG buckshot out of 12 ga. against communist insurgents at very close ranges where even birdshot could inflict severe damage.

I still love rifles, but I am not quick enough or sure enough to remove the head of a pigeon bobbing nervous grouse at 25 yds anymore, Smoothbores in small gauges are my choice in ML or breech loader these days.
Dave

 

[Rat]

Well...Roger's Rangers liked them, so I think I'm going with B&B over buckshot.
Warning: Off topic! (sorry moderators)
Dave, my dad was from the woods and wilds far above Ontario Canada, and knew how to make birch-bark canoes. Funny you should mention it. There seems to be twice as many packs in North-East Washington now. (going up there tomorrow, bear season almost done) I think the whole re-introduction thing is a flop. On the other hand, I would not shoot one, and find it kind of disgusting that when they do get out of hand, they gun them down from helicopters. Just wish they had left the wolves alone. ! Pretty sure when the deer and elk populations are reduced to "protected" status, the wolves won't be buying hunting licences to fund the Fish&Game department. Oh well. Yes, I get up to republic sometimes.

 

[George]

Doesn't really shed much light on the use of buckshot against troops in line of battle on an open battlefield, though, which was the point under discussion.

If you will read the OP's first post you'll see the point under discussion was "anti-personell" loads, situation unspecified, Rogers Rangers mentioned. Discussion of B&B in line of battle is the usual thread drift.

Spence

 

[Elnathan]

If you will read the OP's first post you'll see the point under discussion was "anti-personell" loads, situation unspecified, Rogers Rangers mentioned. Discussion of B&B in line of battle is the usual thread drift.

Spence

Ah, I see. I thought that you were posting it as some sort of refutation of my assertion that no military ever went to buckshot-only as a standardized load, which didn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

[George]

Ah, I see. I thought that you were posting it as some sort of refutation of my assertion that no military ever went to buckshot-only as a standardized load, which didn't make a whole lot of sense.

Wasn't posting it at anybody or anything, only as a data point. A little primary documentation comes in handy in the midst of so much speculation, occasionally.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Probably the best documentation that can be found to show British Regulars used Buckshot from the very beginning of the AWI and in HUGE quantities.

From Small Arms of the British Forces 1664-1815 [De Witt Bailey], Page 250, Under the section entitled “Buckshot.”

“General Cleaveland, writing from Boston in May 1776, noted that the troops there had made up 600,000 cartridges containing 4 buckshot each, and requested five tons be sent out, which was complied with by September.” *40

(Footnote: 40) WO/47/86, 9-10 July 1776. The Board said three Buckshot lay in the same circumference as a musket ball.

Brigadier General Samuel Cleaveland, RA, was the Commander of the Royal Artillery during the American Revolution, 1776-1781.

Now what is not explained is that the "4 buckshot each" was in addition to the ball in the standard cartridge.


Gus

 

[George]

"THE VIRGINIA GAZETTE
December 9, 1775

LONDON, August 26.
The officers of the 32d regiment, now at Chatham barracks, have received orders to hold themselves in readiness to embark for America.
Two additional companies are to be added to all the regiments destined for America; and two additional battalion raised to augment the royal Americans.

The plumbers at the tower are now casting great quantities of buck shot in imitation of those used by the Americans."

Spence

 

[BrownBear]

The plumbers at the tower are now casting great quantities of buck shot in imitation of those used by the Americans."

After actually shooting the stuff at "combat" ranges from the day, it makes perfect sense to me. Even a poorly trained troop aiming badly could cause some damage. A guy's aim with a single ball is off by a foot or six from flinching or poor eyesight or general fear, it's a miss. Point the same way with a load of buck and see what happens. Looks to me like a huge jump in effectiveness with only a change in load. From a practical standpoint, that's a whole lot "cheaper" than seasoning troops to the point they could actually hit something with a single ball. Maybe.

 

[George]

In Sept., 1778, Col. Thomas Hartley’ regiment was sent by the Board of War of the Pennsylvania Congress to Tioga Point to “destroy some of their villages and break up their places of rendezvous.” On his return he wrote to the Congress of his success. His report was printed in the Pennsylvania Packet.

The Pennsylvania Packet
October 17, 1778
May it please the CONGRESS.
“The men of my regiment were armed with muskets and bayonets, they were no great marksmen, and were aukward at wood fighting. The bullet and three swan shot in each piece, made up in some measure for the want of skill…..”

Spence