How did American forces reload in battle?

[smoothshooter]

Wrapping the ball with a patch is fine for rifles, Germans were known to do that, but there is no documentation of 18th century folks patching for smoothbores. YES the matchlocks were carrying premeasured powder, and that evolved into the paper cartridge in a box. The method I described is also mentioned in older text by people that used it. Steps? pretty mush the same steps one takes when using cartridge, and hundreds of thousands used that method through time....

LD

18’th and even 17’th century shooters would have known about shooting patched balls in smoothbores, whether the did it themselves or saw others do it. It is not a radical concept by any means. Human curiosity would have encouraged people to try it to see how well it worked, if nothing else. If it proved satisfactory with the components available in their gun, they would have had that as an option.

 

[smoothshooter]

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.

I suspect in some battles or skirmishes, a man only needed between 2 and 10 shots before it was all over with anyway.

 

[smoothshooter]

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.

Because it was likely the only gun you owned, and your familiarity with it made you trust it.
What COULD be a problem would be if you showed up with a rifle and was forced to take a musket if spares were available. What do you do with the rifle if you don’t want to sell it? Where would you store it until you were discharged to prevent it from being stolen or captured? There was no 1700’s equivalent of UPS or Fed-Ex.

 

[Tumbledown]

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

Humans are different animals, and war is different than hunting. When hunting, you have time to aim at vitals. War is shooting at a body, and smaller calibers just didn't do enough damage reliably to be used.

There's a reason militia were required to have military muskets, and not just hunting pieces.

 

[Tumbledown]

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.

This is all pure conjecture and does not fit the historical record.

 

[nkbj]

The buck and ball loads of the 1860's war... in the war for independence why didn't they use double ball loads? Or maybe they did and we don't have any way of knowing about it. It certainly would have occurred to me if those red coats were lined up and ready to charge once I'd fired.

 

[Grenadier1758]

We know that buck-and-ball was used in the AWI based on the X-Ray of a recovered Land Pattern musket from 1782.

View attachment 243052

Looks like two loads. A conventional buck-and-ball load with another load of swanshot or smaller buck shot above it.

“This is a CT scan x-ray image of a Brown Bess musket, believed to be a 1769 short land pattern, that was recovered in 2012 by LAMP (Lighthouse Archaeological Maritime Program) archaeologists from the Storm Wreck, a colonial period shipwreck believed to have wrecked on 31 December 1782. This vessel was likely from the final fleet to evacuate Loyalist refugees and British troops from Charleston to St. Augustine at the end of the American Revolution. The x-ray shows that this musket was loaded with the "buck and ball" commonly used by American Rebels (and in this case, by British redcoats). The Lighthouse Archaeological Maritime Program is the research arm of the St. Augustine Lighthouse & Museum. Photograph should be attributed to Lighthouse Archaeological Maritime Program.”

 

[Penny B]

this may have been covered. In which case I apologize. In the heat of battle how did one reload with a bayonet mounted?

 

[springfield art]

So I've done this.... We wanted to see if one gets a decent amount of powder or not... and can it be done..., quite easily.....

The musket butt is on the ground, held upright by the right hand,
The shooter grabs a ball from his left waistcoat pocket with the left hand, and secures it in his left palm with his left thumb,
The upper portion of the musket held by the right hand is then moved to the left elbow,
The right hand then grabs the powder horn, moves the tip to the shooters mouth, and the teeth are used to pull the stopper,
The right hand uses the horn, and pours the powder into the palm of the left hand covering the ball ; the musket all the while is still cradled in the left elbow...
The right hand when done pouring moves the horn back to the shooter's mouth where the stopper is replaced, and the horn is released, but it's still on a cord around the body of the shooter so it does not fall...
The right hand then grasps the musket where it did before, allowing the left hand with powder and ball to be free to move to the muzzle, and the powder is poured in while the fingers keep the ball from falling...
The ball is then dropped in, and then the shooter removes the ramrod and rams the ball home to be sure it has reached the powder in the breech...
The musket is then brought up and primed...,
Ready to Fire

It sounds complicated, when written, but it's pretty quick.
We were quite surprise when we did this and checked the amount of powder, and it was enough to give the shooter a good load. Might not go much past 100 yards..., but that's whey they volley fired....

LD

When I re-enacted, I could recite the 13 step flintlock musket loading procedure, but if I were to do it now, it would be like riding a bike, it would come back to me!~ We all recall the illustrated sequence of loading and firing, right? (I did Rev War 75-85)

 

[Johnnyntrain]

https://allthingsliberty.com/2021/03/riflemen-run-riot-the-mutiny-at-prospect-hill/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]

This is all pure conjecture and does not fit the historical record.

The problem is that there is no historical record for some things, and a lot of the records that do exist are incomplete.
For example, we know that some people two or three hundred years ago had lace-up boots or shoes.
Now, try finding detailed instructions on what kinds of knots the laces were tied with, and how those knots were tied.
Point being, that a lot of things and habits were so commonplace that no one thought they were worth writing down.
Sometimes pure conjecture ends up being right.

 

[smoothshooter]

Humans are different animals, and war is different than hunting. When hunting, you have time to aim at vitals. War is shooting at a body, and smaller calibers just didn't do enough damage reliably to be used.

There's a reason militia were required to have military muskets, and not just hunting pieces.

I understand why muskets were preferred, but sometimes war is a lot like hunting.
The frontiersmen used hunting guns fighting the Indians, for the most part.
The Indians used a lot of middle caliber rifles and smoothbores for hunting and fighting as well.
There are surviving accounts from the Revolutionary War from British and American contemporary sources documenting the use of hunting rifles in the middle calibers (.43 to about .48).

 

[oreclan]

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.

There is a lot of fiction in this post!
Calibers of 18thC rifles tended to be over .40 caliber.
The European calibers were developed over centuries of military gun development and not because of " fumbling with cartridges", in fact cartridges were not even developed until the 1700s.
Most engagements were not fought in " leafy woods and heavy brush."
Colonists of all types fought from townsmen to farmers to back country men.
There were no "pea-shooter caliber smooth and rifled" muzzleloader firearms used by the militia, state or Continental troops. Types of firearms were specified by the various state militia and Congressional laws.
Casualties on both sides were horrific depending upon the particular engagement. Large lead balls smashing through clothing, flesh, and bone would cause gruesome wounds or death at close range .

 

[Tumbledown]

I understand why muskets were preferred, but sometimes war is a lot like hunting.
The frontiersmen used hunting guns fighting the Indians, for the most part.
The Indians used a lot of middle caliber rifles and smoothbores for hunting and fighting as well.
There are surviving accounts from the Revolutionary War from British and American contemporary sources documenting the use of hunting rifles in the middle calibers (.43 to about .48).

So now you're going from pea-shooters to medium caliber??

Stop the conjecture and speculation. Please.

 

[DementedMindOfJac]

I watched a amateur documentary where these students found a bunch of civil war skirmish sites with metal detectors. They did all kinds of theories about experience levels of soldiers, but it sure looks to me like more bullets were dropped by both sides, than fired.

 

[Tumbledown]

I watched a amateur documentary where these students found a bunch of civil war skirmish sites with metal detectors. They did all kinds of theories about experience levels of soldiers, but it sure looks to me like more bullets were dropped by both sides, than fired.

Since this thread is under Flintlocks, it's safe to assume it's about the Rev War. The Civil War was a much different scenario.

 

[smoothshooter]

So now you're going from pea-shooters to medium caliber??

Stop the conjecture and speculation. Please.

To say that hunting rifles are not suitable for warfare is worse than conjecture.

 

[smoothshooter]

There is a lot of fiction in this post!
Calibers of 18thC rifles tended to be over .40 caliber.
The European calibers were developed over centuries of military gun development and not because of " fumbling with cartridges", in fact cartridges were not even developed until the 1700s.
Most engagements were not fought in " leafy woods and heavy brush."
Colonists of all types fought from townsmen to farmers to back country men.
There were no "pea-shooter caliber smooth and rifled" muzzleloader firearms used by the militia, state or Continental troops. Types of firearms were specified by the various state militia and Congressional laws.
Casualties on both sides were horrific depending upon the particular engagement. Large lead balls smashing through clothing, flesh, and bone would cause gruesome wounds or death at close range .

State and Continental troops would have used the type and general caliber of standard Infantry guidelines.
In SOME militia units from backwoods areas, and irregulars, the guns and calibers would have been more of a manure shoot, at least until enough muskets were purchased or captured to achieve some semblance of standardization. Some units like Morgan’s riflemen, never gave up their rifles as far as I know. The Continental Congress and various State Legislatures were strapped for cash a big part of the time, which was a serious hindrance to arms standardization. Especially early in the war.

There are those who would have us believe that no “hunting rifle “ was ever fired, not even once, at a British, German, or Loyalist soldier by any American fighter in America.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
I've been spending a lot of time reading histories of several important British regiments while serving in North America, specifically the 33rd and 47th. In addition, I recently read Don Hagists' book on British grenadiers and light infantry during the Rev War. A key point made in all of them is the British rarely engaged in long fire fights. There are some examples such as Monmouth and Oriskany but most often they approached very closely, fired 1 volley and maybe 2 and then charged with the bayonet. Firing was meant to "destroy the cohesion" in the enemy line, which opened them up to destruction or rout by the bayonet. They learned to counter American riflemen very effectively by moving fast, accepting a few casualties and attacking the riflemen with bayonets. They learned to fight in looser formations when firing but come together tightly when attacking with the bayonet. Bayonet charges by loose formations are not nearly as effective physically and psychologically on the enemy as tight packed formations. The British were masters at moving from one formation to the other even in rough terrain. It became clear very early on that riflemen needed protection by musket armed infantry or they had to run away. The British could hold their own very nicely even in sustained fire fights, but were trained to act flexibly, move fast, and adapt to the conditions, which is why they won most of their battles against Americans. They had very well trained NCOs who could lead smaller dispersed units and adhere to the "mission" despite being out of direct contact with their commanders. For American riflemen, the accuracy of their rifles depended as much on consistent loading then as it does now. They usually engaged at a distance and/or from cover facilitating careful loading. If the enemy got too close, they ran away.

Fighting in open ranks was neither stupid or ineffective. You can hide behind trees and walls, which both Americans and British did, but it is very hard to take an enemy position that way unless you have that protection right up to the enemy's lines. At some point you are exposed and have to mass firepower to overcome the enemy. The only way to do that during the 18th and most of the 19th centuries was to mass your men. Moreover, without radios, controlling widely dispersed units was tough so having command and control meant being close together within drum, bugle, whistle, voice, or rider contact. Finally, I don't believe our successful war of independence was a miraculous close run thing after 1776. Howe's New York and New Jersey campaigns in 1776 could have crushed Washington and his army and ended the war. However, he did not. After 1776, I don't believe the British had a chance to win the war because they could not operate successfully more than 100 miles from a major port. They also did not turn out vast numbers of loyalist troops because most Americans supported the patriot cause or were neutral. Washington just had to keep his army alive long enough enough to wear the British down financially and politically, which he did brilliantly (with some help from the French).

dave

 

[smoothshooter]

There is a lot of fiction in this post!
Calibers of 18thC rifles tended to be over .40 caliber.
The European calibers were developed over centuries of military gun development and not because of " fumbling with cartridges", in fact cartridges were not even developed until the 1700s.
Most engagements were not fought in " leafy woods and heavy brush."
Colonists of all types fought from townsmen to farmers to back country men.
There were no "pea-shooter caliber smooth and rifled" muzzleloader firearms used by the militia, state or Continental troops. Types of firearms were specified by the various state militia and Congressional laws.
Casualties on both sides were horrific depending upon the particular engagement. Large lead balls smashing through clothing, flesh, and bone would cause gruesome wounds or death at close range .

I agree that rifles “tended “ to be over .40 in that time period. But that does not mean they all were. It is just human nature ( that never changes ) that some shooters wanted even smaller than .40 caliber rifles for reason of economy of powder and lead, and the ease of being able to carry enough ammunition to last for months that did not weigh an excessive amount.