Civil War ballistics

[PoppyLee]

I am a graduate student in history at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green. I am appalled at the depth of ignorance I see in civil war historians regarding ballistics. I am preparing an article on "Ballistics for Civil War historians." I need some information--what is the ballistic coefficient of a round musket ball? What was the muzzle velocity of a smooth bore musket used in the Civil War? What powder charge was used in the rifle muskets?

 

[ResearchPress]

The charge for the Springfield Rifle Musket was 60 grains of musket powder.

The charge for the Enfield Rifle Musket (at least British ammunition) was 2.5 drams, or about 68 grains.

See also the following discussions in the Civil War section:
The Souths Sharpshooters and the Enfield

Confederate Sharpshooters

David

 

[JackAubrey]

The first two questions will be rather difficult to answer.There were ALOT of different weapons on the battlefields,particularly in the early part of the war.The Confederacy was even more diversely armed.It was not uncommon to find state miltia companies armed with M1816/1822 conversions in .69 calibre,M1842's also in .69 calibre,M1841's in original .54 calibre and later re bored to .58 calibre.All of these round ball firing muskets would fire under bore sized balls to facilitate reloading in the ever increasingly fouled bore.There are stories of soldiers hitting their ramrods against trees to seat the ball down bore!I have read the 1842 used a .64 calibre ball but again,it wasn't a standardized thing since buck and ball were common loads as well.So ballistic coeffecients would have to be almost worked out on a case by case basis or at least a generalization of a particular arms model.As to muzzle velocities we run into the same issues we did previously.They weren't really good at writing stuff we find interesting down I have noticed.Having said all that I may still be able to assist you to some degree.I do know that their "musket powder" was similar to modern goex 2f powder.In the 1842 Springfield smoothbore musket the standard U.S.Army service load was 110 grains by volume.I do not have any modern load data for a .64-.68 calibre ball but I do know that with black powder loads being more inefficient than nitrocellulose based powders the muzzle velocities would generally be under the speed of sound(1100 fps).The more common rifled muskets in service were M1855's,M1861's,M1863's and M1863 type2's as well as British P53's and P58's and Austrian Lorenzes.There were others but these represent the more common types.The M1855,M1861 M1863 and P53 Enfields had a standard service load of 60 grains of musket powder.They fired a minie ball bullet in the .577/.58 calibre range.We'll call it .58 calibre.The load data for a 505 grain minie ball is as follows:ballistic coeffecient:.160,Powder charge:60 grains Goex 2f,Velocity(fps):703,Pressure(LUP):3,140,Muzzle energy(ft/lbs.):504,Energy@ 100 yards (ft/lbs.):405
Hope that helps some.Best regards,J.A.

 

[Many Klatch]

I recommend that you contact your local North South Skirmish Association (NSSA)chapter. They all shoot Civil War period guns and would be thrilled to show a historian what they shoot. In competition they often shoot reduced loads but the guns are very efficient killers with a full service load.

BTW, if you look in Grants Memoirs you will find him saying that he preferred the smoothbore loaded with buck and ball to the rifle with only a single projectile.

Many Klatch

 

[PreglerD]

Hello from Germany,

you can calculate the ballistic coeffizient of every bullet when you know its weight and caliber. There is a special formula for it. I knew it, but have forgotten. Must search a bit and will come back again.

Regards

Kirrmeister

 

[PreglerD]

Here the formula for ballistic coeffizient:

bulletweigth in grs/10640xDiameterxDiameter.

That gives you a result of 0....
The higher the numbr behind the point the better the coeffizient. RB's have relatively poor coeffizients. So a .45 RB with .440 dia and 133 grs weight has about 0.145.

Regards

Kirreister

 

[jdstrang]

PL:

Might I suggest you ask your college library to get you a copy of the following document (the title page of which I type here in the style in which it is presented):

Reports of Experiments
with
Small Arms
for
The Military Service
by
Officers of the Ordnance Department
U.S. Army
-----
Published by authority of the Secretary of War
-----
WASHINGTON:
A.O.P. Nicholson, public printer
1856

I have said document in a nifty printed edition self-published by Dean S. Thomas of Arendtsville, PA.

It is a compendium of the testing that resulted in the adoption of the (nominal) .58-cal. Minie (more properly Burton) ball, the powder charge, etc. If you would understand the basic Civil War musket, this book is damn near indespensable. Replete with illustrations, charts, graphs, etc.

BTW, the "Secretary of War" who authorized its publication was none other than Jefferson Davis.

Get hold of this tome. It will help you greatly.

And if you want any N-SSA info, send me a pm. I'll be glad to put you in contact with knowledgable people.

 

[Bountyhunter]

That is an excellent book PB.

 

[gjkershul]

The Lyman Black Powder Handbook-1974- lists the following for the #575213 "Old Stlye .58 Minie at P.138 out of a 32" barrel.

60gr. charge Goex 2f=vel 793, Muzzle energy 641, Energy at 100 yds. 510

Ballistic coefficient .145

Another good source for your project would be Arms and Ammunition of the the United States by Malachi if you can find it. Malachi, if I recall correctly was a pre Civil War ordinance officer who surveyed all the new rifled musket technology.

 

[Zonie]

If by saying "...-what is the ballistic coefficient of a round musket ball?..." you mean a spherical lead ball that may have been used in a .58 caliber Rifled Musket in lieu of a Minie' ball the ballistic coefficient for a .570 diameter ball is .080.

 

[Tumblernotch]

I don't have the ballistic co-efficient in front of me, but I do have the various initial (muzzle) velocities of small arms used in the Civil War.

Rifle Musket, Model of 1855: 963 fps. (Elongated Ball, 510 grs.) 60grs. Musket Powder,

Rifle, Model of 1855: 914 fps. (Elongated Ball, 510 grs.) 60 grs. Musket Powder

Altered Musket: 879 fps. (Elongated Ball, 740 grs.) 70 grs. Musket Powder

Pistol Carbine: 603 fps. (Elongated Ball, 468 grs.) 40 grs. Musket Powder

Musket, Model of 1842: 1500 fps. (Round Ball, 412 grs.) 110 grs. Musket Powder

The altered musket would have been any of the flintlock muskets altered to percussion and rifled and sighted to use the elongated (Minie) ball. These were generally the M1816 and M1835 flint muskets, some of which were also altered using Maynard's tape priming system.

The M1842 smoothbore percussion musket, which was also rifled and sighted in many instances was mostly used in its original state. The 110 gr. powder charge was a leftover of the flintlock period. Generally about 10 grs was used as priming and the remainder dumped into the bore. Since priming wasn't used in the '42, it was just assumed that the full charge was loaded into the musket. Note the difference in the initial velocities of this gun compared to that of those using the elongated expanding ball. Patching was not used with this round ball load, though usually the paper enclosing the ball was left around it, at least until the fouling became great enough that the ball was loaded bare. The rest of the cartridge was used as a wad to keep the ball in place.

You may also notice the difference in velocities between the M1855 rifle-musket and the M1855 Rifle. They use the same charge and bullet weight, but the barrel of the rifle-musket is seven inches longer than that of the rifle.

 

[tg]

I am curious, is it a case of the historians are not addressing ballistic or improperly calculating them? I would suspect that the ballisticians of the time might well use the piles of arms and legs in liew of mathmatics.It was obvious early on that the projectille tech. had developed way past the Napolionic battle methods.Keep us posted on your findings it is an interesting topic.

 

[trent/OH]

I suspect the best way to approach this topic will be as a joint effort with a mathematician. BC changes with diameter of the ball, and a .44 pistol ball will have a tremendously different BC than a 12 pounder. BC also changes with velocity, being higher at lower velocities (drag increases very rapidly as velocity increases).
I'd love to read the article when it's published.

 

[Okwaho]

You might look at a copy of "Civil War Small Arms", an American Rifleman reprint and occasionally still available on the after book market.It was reprinted at various times the last time being 1960. It features two excellent articles by Jac weller who fired a number of original long arms both Confederate and Federal and published the results.
Tom Patton

 

[Zonie]

The people studying ballistics by the time the Civil War rolled around measured the velocities with fairly good accuracy without the use of arms and legs.

One of the more common devices consisted of a pendulum which swung upwards from the impact of the bullet or ball. The distance it swung was recorded and knowing its mass and that of the bullet permitted them to calculate the velocity with rather good accuracy.

Now, what the historians did with that information is another matter. In fact, it is the subject of this post.

 

[Tumblernotch]

Capt. Benton's Electro-Ballistic Pendulum was also used with great accuracy. It was used to measure initial velocity. It would be easier to measure cannon velocities than musket with this, as the projectile had to break two wires at 20 feet and 120 feet from the muzzle. It doesn't give a lot of detail for the target set-up, but I would say that wire mesh was probably used since a 16 gauge wire would be tough to hit at either distance.

 

[Pigman]

One thing to remember is that the Army tested a lot of weapons and had good reasons for accepting or rejecting them. Doing a little research will give you a whole new appreciation for how smart people in the past realy were.

Thanks,
Foster

 

[Tumblernotch]

Yep, they were far more advanced than what we give them credit for. In fact, I believe that in some ways they were more advanced than we are. I only wish that more contemporary detailed documents had survived the last 150 years.

 

[jdstrang]

... a 16 gauge wire would be tough to hit at either distance.

Oh, I dunno, bud. Seems every skirmish SOMEbody sends an otherwise undamaged tile or pot pancaking down from a frame at 50 or 100 yards, and every time he SWEARS he really WAS aiming for that li'l ol' wire!! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
(Sorry, folks, that's a li'l skirmish humor there...)

 

[Tumblernotch]

You've got a point! I've seen that happen a few times myself. But, like you, I think it most likely happens by chance. :hmm:

The diagram for the contraption I was talking about shows the wires strung horizontally and to me would be pretty much impossible to hit with a Minie. I think the odds would be better if aiming at a vertical wire. Actually I think it would be odd if I hit either!