Civil War ballistics

[Pigman]

One problem with using NSSA shooters to teach about CW accuracy is that they do not shoot CW sights.

While the NSSA shooters are very good they modify their rifles so that they use modern improved sights on them. Most CW weapons used a bayonet lug as a sight not a 2 inch tall brass blade.

If you ever want to have fun hand an NSSA shooter an army standard rifle from the CW and see if they can hit any target at 25 yards. I even had one tell me that he would never fire one with the original sights because it was so inaccurate it was unsafe. His opinion not mine.

If you want to shoot clover leafs at 50 yards you can’t do it with a standard CW infantry weapon with original sights. If you want to shoot a 1 foot circle at 50 yards you can, with some work.

Don’t forget that by the end of the war both sides were issuing seriously undersized ammunition to facilitate faster loading.

Thanks,
Foster

 

[poordevil]

Get your self a civil war musket like a 3 band Springfield or Enfield and something like the 1841 Missippi or the little Murry carbine. Many will let you shoot their guns if you can not or do not have these and see for yourself. There are many Wifes tails RE civil war guns and guns in general.

I made a 15-20 shot almost one raged hole standing at 50 yrds. with my musketoon issue sights and smooth sided Prichett style bullets. I say almost because I am no world class marksman, but these guns are very accurate.

P.

 

[poordevil]

By the way...this response was to PoppyLee

Thank you kindly

P.

 

[jdstrang]

U.P.:

Where to start, where to start. :hmm: How about at the beginning...

One problem with using NSSA shooters to teach about CW accuracy is that they do not shoot CW sights.

True, most don't, but there is a considerable subset of competitors who do. And they do quite well, considering they're shooting Kentucky at ranges shorter than those for which the sights were designed.

While the NSSA shooters are very good they modify their rifles so that they use modern improved sights on them. Most CW weapons used a bayonet lug as a sight not a 2 inch tall brass blade.

Haven't seen any of those two-inchers - they catch too much side wind! :haha: Most of those "modern improved sights" are no more than a 1/2-inch high front sight, and possibly a hole drilled into the rear leaf to make it a peep. No adjustables, etc. (except for the 1st Model Maynards, which came that way.) And, while many rifle muskets did combine the bayonet lug and front sight, that little piece of metal on top the lug that kind of resembles a barleycorn kernel made - and makes - a passable sight, too. When I figure out how to use the bayonet lug on my '42 smoothbore - tucked as it is on the bottom of the barrel - I'll give you a point there.

If you ever want to have fun hand an NSSA shooter an army standard rifle from the CW and see if they can hit any target at 25 yards.

Happened to me last year at the local rifle club's black powder shoot. Guy had an unaltered Dixie Miroku '61 Springfield, and he couldn't hit jack with it. After the competition he asked me if I'd care to try his. So I took his rifle, one round of MY ammo (Lyman old style minie sized about 4/1000 under his .580 bore, 44.5/weight 3f), held at 4 o'clock 11 inches low on the range 6-inch gong 50 yards out, and "BONG." Moral? Know where guns tend to shoot, and use good rounds.

I even had one tell me that he would never fire one with the original sights because it was so inaccurate it was unsafe. His opinion not mine.

Yeah, there's idjuts everywhere. You apparently met one of ours. :shake:

If you want to shoot clover leafs at 50 yards you can’t do it with a standard CW infantry weapon with original sights...

I wouldn't want to tell that to Hiram Berdan's boys, or the fellows from both sides who quite effectively sniped at each other with issue muskets at Little Round Top / Devil's Den. And Gen. Sedgwick might have had a word or two about it as well, but it turned out to his momentary chagrin that they could hit something considerably smaller than an elephant at "this distance"...

If you want to shoot a 1 foot circle at 50 yards you can, with some work.

See "BONG" above.

Don’t forget that by the end of the war both sides were issuing seriously undersized ammunition to facilitate faster loading.

An undeniable fact on the face of it. And many a good man still died every day.

All that to say this: The problem with "CW accuracy" was not the guns, but rather the minimum emphasis placed on actual shooting practice by most federal commanders. The men who knew how to shoot, or were drilled on live fire, did relatively well even with the admittedly less-than-ideal sights they had.

Of course, the doctrine of the time generally called for mass fire at massed troops, and discouraged such "incidentals" as careful sighting. Those who did know their sights and guns - both then, and now in the N-SSA - find them to be very accurate indeed. :thumbsup: :v

 

[Tumblernotch]

I've never had a problem getting a tight group at 50 yds. with the original sights. I've made many 5 shot groups no larger than a 50 cent piece. Occasionally, you get a flyer from a bullet that wasn't culled because of missed voids, &c.

As I get older, the rear sight is getting a little harder to work with. It always has been the one thing I've had against the 3 band musket. For me, the sight needs to be farther forward or closer to the breech. But that's the nature of the beast and you have to adapt. I can still shoot my Richmond offhand better than I can my longrifles even though the sights are easier to use on the longrifles.

Many killing shots were made during the CW at much longer ranges with the original sights. I think the problem lies with the shooter who fails to properly use the sights that are on the weapon. However, since more of the shooters who are using these guns now are probably middle-aged or older, using these sights is a bit harder than it was for a 20 year old soldier back in the day. If it is a problem, I suggest some sight modification, but first I would see if I couldn't get used to the original sights.

 

[Dphar]

The SB musket ball would have a Ballistic C of about .095 or so.

Dan

 

[Zonie]

If anyone is interested the LYMAN BLACK POWDER HANDBOOK & LOADING MANUAL gives the BC for several modern minie' balls.
Listed are:

Lyman #575494, .577 dia, 315 grains BC = .067

Lyman # 575213-OS, .577 dia, 460 grains BC = .145

Lyman # 575313, .577 dia, 510 grains BC = .160

Lyman # 575611, .577 dia, 530 grains BC = .180

Lyman # 575213PH, .577 dia, 566 grains BC = .160

 

[ResearchPress]

If you want to shoot clover leafs at 50 yards you can’t do it with a standard CW infantry weapon with original sights. If you want to shoot a 1 foot circle at 50 yards you can, with some work.

You obviously need to do some load development work or training on shooting skills.

Target below was shot in the MLAGB National Championhips at 50m offhand. Shot to MLAIC rules, best ten of 13 shots in 30 minutes and scores 97. The nine ring is 4" diameter.

The rifle is by the Birmingham manufacturer Thomas Turner and dated 1866.

David

ps. It's a shame Mr. PoppyLee who instigated this thread hasn't contributed further.

 

[ResearchPress]

While the NSSA shooters are very good they modify their rifles so that they use modern improved sights on them.

Most of those "modern improved sights" are no more than a 1/2-inch high front sight.......

That's where I have never really understood the NSSA. The appear to have a lengthy list of Civil War arms that must have been issued in a minimum number to be eligible for use in NSSA matches. So the aspiration appears to be to use 'period correct arm'... then they permit variations such modified sights, glass bedding which were not of the period. I am sure by the numbers that compete they have created a hugely enjoyable sport, but there just seem to me to be some strange anomalies in their rules. No flame intended, just an observation form the UK.

David

 

[jdstrang]

David:

No flame received. It's a fair and truthful observation.

It IS an anomalous system, to be sure, that sometimes leaves even its most ardent devotees, your servant among them, scratching their heads looking for the rhyme or reason behind some rules and exceptions. Suffice to say, it's like The House That Jack Built, assembled piecemeal over the past 58 years now by those captivated by, and dedicated to, its unique mix of shooting and history.

But secondary issues like sights and glass bedding notwithstanding, at its heart of hearts skirmishing remains the passtime of coaxing the maximum performance out of 19th century military-design firearms using cast lead, black powder and percussion ignition systems, and doing so against the clock in the bracing, competitive company of some of the finest, most interesting and generous people it may ever be one's privilege to meet.

Perhaps a bit like scrambled eggs and kippered herring, or kidney pie: a dish not suited to all, but beloved by those who have savored it. And, God help me, I'm at that table and ready for another helping! Even so, come quickly spring! :thumbsup:

 

[jan buck]

i just ordered this book on amazon for 15.00. hope it is a good read and thanks for sugesting it.

 

[Dphar]

I am sure by the numbers that compete they have created a hugely enjoyable sport, but there just seem to me to be some strange anomalies in their rules. No flame intended, just an observation form the UK.

David

There are sometimes obscure reasons. While I am not a CW re-enactor type I was around at the start of BPCR Silhouette. They banned the Borchardt and the Peabody-Martini. No exposed hammer. They, Doc Carlson and Al Hill, were fearful that allowing these would result in the competition being taken over by the inline striker action. While I disagreed with it, it retrospect it was a good call. It has pretty well prevented the mass production of a repro Borchardt and this is a shame but rules are rules and the NRA would not budge on this one.
Probably saved a lot of original Borchardt military rifles from the rebuilders bench too.

I am sure there were good reasons for requiring the arms they do in the NSSA. Having the sport dominated by some effective but obscure firearm would defeat the purpose.
Or they just wanted the equipment to be "typical of the era" and having too many of an odd item would have upset this.
Glass bedding a Rifle Musket, for example, while not historically correct, does not alter its looks and that is what would matter to the NSSA.

Dan

 

[winfield813]

I am also interested in the ballistics of Civil War arms. I am astounded at the mistakes by historians who claim that the smoothbore had a greater muzzle velocity than the rifle musket! They also frequently misunderstand parabolic trajectory, assuming that a bullet arcs above the line of the bore.
Does anyone have any chronograph data on the muzzle velocity of various smoothbore muskets?
I have some data on minie ball, rifle musket chronograph data.
Also, has anyone ever seen a terminal ballistic comparison between the two in ballistic gellatin? :hatsoff:

 

[Tumblernotch]

The smoothbore did have a greater muzzle velocity than the rifle-musket. Still does.

 

[winfield813]

Any chronographic data on this? How is this possible since there is gas escaping around a smoothbore projectile whereas the minie projectile seals itself in the rifling?

 

[winfield813]

Also, is there any data on the terminal ballistics? It seems to me that the Minie ball would expand more and cause more damage than the round ball. Anyone ever seen a ballistic test on these in ballistic gellatin?

Addendum:
I found this link with some good data: http://www.whitemuzzleloading.com/long_range_muzzleloading.htm

 

[TFoley]

David:

'...or kidney pie...'

I've lived here on and off for at least half of my 64 years, and I've never heard of or seen a 'kidney pie'.

Do you mean a 'steak and kidney pie'?

tac

 

[poordevil]

The smoothbore is pushing a lighter ball with more powder and while being packed with the paper from the ctg. makes a pretty tight fit. The minnie does fit somewhat thightly after fireing, but not a welded type fit, and gases escape around the minnie ball before its skirts out enough to effect a tight seal. Also, any smothbore with a same or heavier weight powder charge is going to be faster as the spin/drag of the rifling slows the bullet.

 

[poordevil]

I have seen them shoot balistic gell on the history chnl. with round ball and minnie ball. Both are pretty fierce! I don't think eather one would expand like a hollow point for example.

 

[winfield813]

Do you happen to recall what show it was on the History Channel?