How did American forces reload in battle?

[oldschoolhunter55]

I was wondering about this the other day. For irregular forces like the militia who used their own rifles and were not issued paper cartridges, how did they measure powder for reloads in the heat of battle? Did they really take the time to put powder from the flask into a charge measure before dumping that down their muzzle while taking incoming fire? Or did they just go by "feel" from the powder horn straight to the rifle or musket? To me it seems like fiddling with a charge measure would be a cumbersome fine motor skill that would be very difficult to perform under stress and movement of battle. Was paper common enough that even farmers and common folk carried their own home made cartridges with pre-measured charge and ball?

thats a good question

 

[stephenprops1]

Baron Von Stueben taught the Colonial Army many European maneuvers during the winter of 1776-77. I believe he taught them to load by the numbers. Also, when the situation allowed it, the soldiers/militia probably had the rank and file operate on a system, similar to the British square, where groups of men fired while other groups were loading. With 2 or more groups the army would most always have some men firing. This would work even for non-square formations.

 

[Greg Y]

I'm reading all of this and thinking to myself.....now imagine it's pouring rain and guys are dying around you.

 

[Juice Jaws]

I was wondering about this the other day. For irregular forces like the militia who used their own rifles and were not issued paper cartridges, how did they measure powder for reloads in the heat of battle? Did they really take the time to put powder from the flask into a charge measure before dumping that down their muzzle while taking incoming fire? Or did they just go by "feel" from the powder horn straight to the rifle or musket? To me it seems like fiddling with a charge measure would be a cumbersome fine motor skill that would be very difficult to perform under stress and movement of battle. Was paper common enough that even farmers and common folk carried their own home made cartridges with pre-measured charge and ball?

After reading all the post like many things in this sport we just don't know for sure. Muzzle loaders are slow loading no matter how you do it and that was all they knew, and remember the other side was slow loading also.

 

[Sun City]

If they were advancing in another direction.....they did it on the run!!

 

[WalnutRed]

You're assuming that most militiamen were riflemen. On the east coast a smoothbore would have been more practical to have on hand because of the capability of handling shot. A rifleman would have made up some paper cartridges for quick loading when danger was close and accuracy was less important.

 

[Salty Cracker]

So even militia were normally armed with a cartridge box of some sort. "Independent fire at will" was more of a rifleman thing back then and the riflemen had the time. The men with muskets would fire at a rate that we would think was "slow", and move to load upon command, so even those with horn and ball had time:

Archive of Maryland 1775-1776
And therefore it is recommended to such of the said in-
habitants of this province as are from sixteen to fifty years of age,
to form themselves into companies of sixty-eight men; ...,
and use their utmost endeavors to make themselves masters of
the military exercise: That each man be provided with a good
firelock and bayonet fixed thereon, half a pound of powder, two
pounds of lead, and a cartouch-box, or powder-horn, and a bag
for ball, and be in readiness to act on any emergency.

That every non-commissioned officer and private of the minute
men and militia appear at the time and place appointed for their re-
spective appearance, for mustering, with his firelock and other ac-
coutrements in good order, and there orderly, diligently, and obe-
diently attend to instruction, and perform his exercise in arms, ac-
cording to the commands and orders of his officers, and if any min-
ute or militia man shall not appear at the time and place of muster
with his firelock and other accoutrements in good order, ...,
he shall forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding five shillings common
money for every such neglect or misbehaviour,

Emergency loading of a musket when one does not have a cartridge is done as was mentioned. Cup the ball in the palm of the left hand and pour powder over it to just cover it. Use the left thumb to hold the ball in place, and pour the powder from the hand into the barrel. Then release the ball and let it drop into the barrel. Ram it home. Then prime the musket pan. So that's a form of "eyeballing it" but not direct from horn to muzzle.

When you don't have enough time to do a proper measure of the powder that is also the WORST time to be trying to pour from the horn directly into the musket, for that is when you are most likely to have fired several previous shots, and to have an ember within that will blow you up when it cooks off what comes down the barrel.

Further, IF you're providing your own powder, you do not want to dump it willy nilly... it costs money, and some method of regulating it means you have live ammo as long as you have ball. Pour too much and you're out too soon, and then you're down to a bayonet vs. professional bayonet fighters aka Redcoats.

LD

Best answer. You are correct.

 

[Tumbledown]

I don't fault the militia. To me it is totally stupid to march out shoulder to shoulder onto an open field 50 to100 yards away form another group of idiots who have done the same thing and trade volleys. Me I'm going to find a tree to hide behind while I reload and pick them off one at a time with my rifle. I would not have made a good soldier of the regulars. But really when you had a commander who understood the limitations of the militia they performed well. The biggest problem with the militia was the lack of a standard caliber of the weapons they had. That made it pretty much impossible to resupply then with ammo if they were running out during a battle.

The biggest problem with the militia was the lack of training and discipline. They often broke and ran at the first volley, sometimes without firing a shot. Running out of ammo was not a problem as they carried far more powder and ball than they could possibly shoot in a field engagement- when they did shoot. It only became an issue in a protracted battle, which were relatively few.

If you're militia, it was quite unlikely you would have a rifle. You would have shown up with a fowler or been issued a musket. Riflemen would have been used as a unit, even if they were strategically scattered. But it wasn't unusual to place clusters of muskets in woods or treelines.

 

[Tumbledown]

Ah but the militias were known to break and run long before they were having ammo issues. Hence the Morgan strategy. The British were well known to get the Militia and Continentals as well, to fire a volley at the Brits at 100 yards or so, and then the British would charge with bayonets. They could cover the distance faster than the Militia and even the Continentals could reload. See With Zeal and Bayonets Only by Matthew H. Spring. Von Steuben put an end to that tactic with getting bayonets for the Continentals AND then training them to deal with a bayonet charge.

LD

Von Steuben also convinced Washington to order bayonets remain fixed. He realized a bayonet in the scabbard was useless in battle.

 

[DixieTexian]

The biggest problem with the militia was the lack of training and discipline. They often broke and ran at the first volley, sometimes without firing a shot. Running out of ammo was not a problem as they carried far more powder and ball than they could possibly shoot in a field engagement- when they did shoot. It only became an issue in a protracted battle, which were relatively few.

If you're militia, it was quite unlikely you would have a rifle. You would have shown up with a fowler or been issued a musket. Riflemen would have been used as a unit, even if they were strategically scattered. But it wasn't unusual to place clusters of muskets in woods or treelines.

If you were mustering for a militia, why would you even bring your expensive rifle? There's a pretty decent chance it gets lost on the field of battle, and it is much slower too reload.

 

[ronaldrothb49]

If you were mustering for a militia, why would you even bring your expensive rifle? There's a pretty decent chance it gets lost on the field of battle, and it is much slower too reload.

Not everyone back then owned a fancy expensive rifle just like today not everyone owns a $100,000 car. If you look at the militia laws from back then you were often required to show up with a suitable fire lock and ammunition for it. also a knife, tomahawk or bayonet. you were also supposed to have other items suitable for a campaign and you could face a fine for not having all these items.

 

[B P Maniac Shooter]

During heated battle, most soldiers didn't care about the "safety" aspects of the hobby that are pushed on shooters today. You did what it took to survive. One way was to fill the palm of your hand with a round ball in it. That would get you close to the amount needed to shoot.

If you're in a running battle, the running & reloading method works well too and those that perfected it, survived on the frontier.
For the new shooters reading this...that means you are running away from the battle ( or towards it ) using the powder horn to dump powder into your barrel, ( no messing with a patch, tow, etc ) dropping a round ball into the barrel and stock tamping the gun on the ground to seat the ball, turn and shoot. All of that can be done roughly in 20 seconds depending on terrain.

Interesting topic of discussion.
I just put together a running & reloading video to post soon showing how that method works.

Below is the powder in hand method on video:

 

[DixieTexian]

Not everyone back then owned a fancy expensive rifle just like today not everyone owns a $100,000 car. If you look at the militia laws from back then you were often required to show up with a suitable fire lock and ammunition for it. also a knife, tomahawk or bayonet. you were also supposed to have other items suitable for a campaign and you could face a fine for not having all these items.

No disagreement there. I was merely saying that if someone had a rifle, they weren't likely to muster with it because it wouldn't be practical and would risk losing a valuable gun.

 

[smoothshooter]

I was wondering about this the other day. For irregular forces like the militia who used their own rifles and were not issued paper cartridges, how did they measure powder for reloads in the heat of battle? Did they really take the time to put powder from the flask into a charge measure before dumping that down their muzzle while taking incoming fire? Or did they just go by "feel" from the powder horn straight to the rifle or musket? To me it seems like fiddling with a charge measure would be a cumbersome fine motor skill that would be very difficult to perform under stress and movement of battle. Was paper common enough that even farmers and common folk carried their own home made cartridges with pre-measured charge and ball?

They would have loaded in any way humanly possible.

 

[smoothshooter]

I was wondering about this the other day. For irregular forces like the militia who used their own rifles and were not issued paper cartridges, how did they measure powder for reloads in the heat of battle? Did they really take the time to put powder from the flask into a charge measure before dumping that down their muzzle while taking incoming fire? Or did they just go by "feel" from the powder horn straight to the rifle or musket? To me it seems like fiddling with a charge measure would be a cumbersome fine motor skill that would be very difficult to perform under stress and movement of battle. Was paper common enough that even farmers and common folk carried their own home made cartridges with pre-measured charge and ball?

Contrary to another post on this thread, hunting calibers would have worked just fine for most military use. Even calibers in the thirty’s and forties for human targets.
In the colonies, most engagement distances would have been around 100 yards or less. A lot of times WAY less.The European armies liked the larger musket calibers because the larger paper cartridges were a little more fumble resistant, and they were better at taking down artillery and cavalry horses.
In America a lot of confrontations took place in the leafy woods and heavy brush in the warmer months when the distances of shots taken would have been taken at feet, not yards.
The battle at King’s mountain is a good example. By most accounts the American forces were made up of largely hard-core southern Appalachian backwoods men, who would have been armed with almost every type and caliber of gun imaginable. It is very likely a lot of them were pea-shooter caliber smooth and rifled barreled guns.
It was a very short-ranged engagement in heavy foliage with heavy losses on the British and Loyalist American side.

 

[smoothshooter]

No disagreement there. I was merely saying that if someone had a rifle, they weren't likely to muster with it because it wouldn't be practical and would risk losing a valuable gun.

It would depend on the County and Colony and how closely a particular unit followed any official directives.
In a time of crisis, I don’t see a militia Captain sending an otherwise able man home because his gun was not to standards. Sometimes they took what they could get.
The main concerns would have been:
- Was the gun functional?
- Was there ammunition on hand?
- Could the owner see well enough to load and shoot it in the right direction?

 

[smoothshooter]

"Standard" musket size had less to do with the convenience of preloaded cartridges and was more the effectiveness of bullet size. Hunting calibers were underpowered for warfare.

 

[smoothshooter]

"Standard" musket size had less to do with the convenience of preloaded cartridges and was more the effectiveness of bullet size. Hunting calibers were underpowered for warfare.

Disagree.
If even smaller hunting calibers worked for deer, bears, wolves, buffalo, elk, etc, why would they not work well against humans?

 

[smoothshooter]

Hi,
Most organized and well led militia loaded their smoothbored guns from prepared cartridges. Those that did not were at a great disadvantage and likely before they were in the "heat" of close combat, they ran away. Riflemen took more time, always, because their one advantage, accuracy at distance, depended on it. It was that time needed to load that made them so vulnerable to attack by fast moving light infantry and jaegers. It was why they eventually were grouped with and supported by American infantry and light infantry. Rifle companies generally tried to keep their distance from the enemy and when they did not, as at Freeman's Farm, they got in trouble. I think a lot of folks think of Kings Mountain as the typical fight involving riflemen. It was an exception. The more typical deployments were Harlem Heights, Fort Washington, Freeman's Farm, Bemis Heights, Brandywine, Monmouth, Cowpens, etc. where they operated along with infantry.

dave

Agreed.
While the American riflemen at times were a valuable component in some engagements, their impact in battle has often been way overestimated. The majority of battles won by the Colonists were fought using smoothbore muskets in line formations just like the British and Germans.

 

[smoothshooter]

Additionally to what Dave wrote, as late as the mid 19th century when they made up the specifications for what became the M1855 Rifle Musket, it was expected to "STOP" the charge of a (cavalry) horse at 300 yards and be able to hit a man sized target at 600 yards.

Gus

It would have been a very rare occurrence if a man was hit at even 400 yards, let alone 600 yards by the guy aiming at him.
I think the effectiveness of rifled muskets compared to smoothbores shooting buck and ball loads in the hands of 90% of soldiers has been greatly exaggerated.