How Far Is “Musket-Shot”?

[Grumpa]

We must also remember that it is possible that some of the early sources quoted in the article misunderstood "point blank".

LD

More likely, the "definition" has evolved over the centuries.

Captain George Smith's 1779 Dictionary: "Common experience, together with some of the greatest artists in fortification, unanimously agree" on the distance."

"Even the French held the same view of musket capabilities."

Not to argue apples (smoothbores) and oranges (rifles), or go ff on ctg guns, but, if you are familiar with the "Plevna Delay", the Ottoman Turks used Peabody-Martini .45 caliber rifles to badly damage the Russian forces with plunging fire at (a premeasured) 2000 yards! (When the range closed, the Turks switched to 1866 Winchesters, and annihilated them.)

Brown Bess volley fire at 300 yards, "when attention is paid to the loading" and trajectory, would likewise have a worthwhile effect.

 

[Grumpa]

Obviously, you have posted a most interesting, thought provoking thread. :thumbsup:

 

[Zonie]

Sure is, i never had any idea they volly'ed shot at those kinda ranges. Guess a big lead ball at 3-400fps still packs a heckuva wallop.

Just for giggles I made a few assumptions and then poked them into my ballistics program.

Guessing the original Bess roundball was about .690 diameter I used that value.

Also guessing that because of the amount of "windage" between the .69 ball and the actual bore the powder charge might not get the ball moving much over 950 feet per second at the muzzle, I poked that number into the calculator.

It said the ball would still be moving at 502 feet per second as it passed the 300 yard distance and it would have 277 lb/ft of energy.

Actually hitting a specific place would require aiming at a point 26 feet, 4 inches above the target but at 300 yards range that would only require pointing the barrel 1.7 degrees higher above the normal aim that would be used at the debated "point blank range".

(300 yards = 900 feet. 26.333 feet/900 feet = tan A = .0293 so angle A = 1.676 degrees elevation)

In other words, this would not require pointing the gun at some wild angle towards the sky. With the troops just slightly raising the muzzle there would be a good chance of hitting someone in a big clump of soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder at 300 yards.

A soldier might survive getting hit with a 493 grain ball traveling at 500 fps but I think it would definitely put him out of action.

 

[Grumpa]

A factor not taken into account by anyone in this discussion is the fact that the soldiers firing the volleys would likely be standing on elevated platforms on the walls of the fort, and might therefor require little or no elevation of the musket to achieve the desired trajectory.

 

[bpd303]

When I was in the service (USCG) we studied naval engagements of navy ships during the the AWI. Many times the term "within Musket Shot" was used when ships were closing on each other. I recall the distance was given as 120 fathoms which equates to 240 yards. This was in relation to the Marines in the rigging being able to clear the decks of the enemy ship with musket fire.

 

[pargent]

:thumbsup:

 

[Artificer]

Even though the angle of the shot at 300 yards would not have been a great deal more than point blank, they still had to have an aiming point. At 300 yards, that is more than the height of four soldiers standing on top of each other OVER the heads of the enemy soldiers one wanted to hit.

Soldiers up on walls in forts and American or French Marines in the Fighting Tops of ships were both in elevated positions to be sure. (British Marines were normally forbidden to fire from the Fighting Tops as they worried about setting fire to the sails. British Marines normally fired from the Focsle and Sterncastles.) Elevated positions do/did give the advantage of having to aim lower than normal so as not to shoot too high, but not THAT much lower at 200 yards let alone 300 yards.

The only effective way to use Volleys of Musket Fire at 200 to 300 yards range from the tops of walls of Forts would have been with some aiming points (even aiming stakes) pre-designated and practiced by the troops. In effect, "ranging" the Musket Volleys something like the Guns (cannon) were ranged at Forts, though by aiming point rather than angle of fire with artillery. Of course that was something they not only could have done, but most likely did do with stationary forts.

I realize they still talked about distance between ships being within musket shot, but I have never found evidence that Musket Armed Marines or Sailors were ordered to actually fire when there was 240 yards between ships. It would have been a hopeless waste of ammunition, even when firing from the Fighting Tops. There are also period quotes of the distance between fighting ships as being within “Pistol Shot,” but that could mean anywhere from “closed with each other” to as much as 300 yards apart in some accounts, though generally 100 yards or less. The limited amount of ammunition Marines carried required they not fire until the two ships were much closer, if not actually “closed together,” to clear the enemy’s deck.

Gus

 

[Wes/Tex]

This lad gets an impressive number of hits from out to 80 yards with one of IMA's restored original SLP guns of Nepalese origin parts. Proves you should never feel safe when the boys are lobbing Bess balls at ye! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xu4QQnUJRI

 

[pargent]

Murphy is quite a good flintlock gunsmith .

 

[Loyalist Dave]

(300 yards = 900 feet. 26.333 feet/900 feet = tan A = .0293 so angle A = 1.676 degrees elevation)

In other words, this would not require pointing the gun at some wild angle towards the sky. With the troops just slightly raising the muzzle there would be a good chance of hitting someone in a big clump of soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder at 300 yards.

Nobody suggested a wild angle, but the soldier would have to point the bore, which is already depressed by the bayonet lug acting as front sight post.

Point blank again meaning, point and shoot and hit, from a distance of zero out, until you reach that point where you must raise the muzzle to continue to strike your target.

So if you take a man sized target, and because of the size of the ball a hit anywhere on that target works, and you fire the musket level at 5' off the ground (using that as an assumed height of the firing soldier's shoulder) how far will that ball travel until it strikes the Earth (or in other words the foot of an enemy soldier) on level ground? That would be the measure of "point blank" for a volle fire weapon if we take out the "accuracy" requirement.

LD

 

[nhmoose]

http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/how-far-is-musket-shot-farther-than-you-think/ :thumbsup:

Pray and spray IMHO

My Musket for a good kill 40 yards for deer and 50-60 yards on moose. (moose have bigger x-rings)

 

[pargent]

It is documented that within musket shot referes to 200-250 and at times 300 yards in British Naval documents , and for those interested a service load in a Bess will carry out to 800+yards, it is documented that volleys from British percussion smoothbores (.775 cal. ) were lethal out to 840 yards .

 

[Britsmoothy]

One thing often overlooked with large round balls is their mass and its effect on the acceraration up the barrel. They want to turn into a cylinder shaped slug!
Adding something to harden them a little will go along way to improve things.

B.

 

[hanshi]

For me with the .62 flint "musket" about 60 yards for deer.

 

[satwel]

Something in that linked article doesn't make sense. Based on personal experience competing at many NMLRA matches, I don't see how a ball fired from a Bess, point blank,can travel 300 yards. When we shoot from the firing line at 50 yard targets in a match, our flintlocks are pretty much level. I can see the balls kick up dust when they hit the ground at about 150 yards. Those are at target velocities. A musket ball could travel 300 yards, but not fired from a level barrel as Lochee states in his definition of "point blank".

Like a previous poster, I believe "musket shot" was a nautical term describing the distance between two ships at which a marine in the fighting tops could effectively fire at an enemy's quarter deck. That is how Arnold used the term in his account of the battle of Valcour Island.

 

[Artificer]

Something in that linked article doesn't make sense. Based on personal experience competing at many NMLRA matches, I don't see how a ball fired from a Bess, point blank,can travel 300 yards. When we shoot from the firing line at 50 yard targets in a match, our flintlocks are pretty much level. I can see the balls kick up dust when they hit the ground at about 150 yards. Those are at target velocities. A musket ball could travel 300 yards, but not fired from a level barrel as Lochee states in his definition of "point blank".

I think the explanation for your example is the targets we shoot at rarely are as high as shoulder height. So we are aiming at a downward angle to shoot at 50 yards and thus the balls hit the dirt at 150 or so yards.

Like a previous poster, I believe "musket shot" was a nautical term describing the distance between two ships at which a marine in the fighting tops could effectively fire at an enemy's quarter deck. That is how Arnold used the term in his account of the battle of Valcour Island.

I agree it was a nautical term for distance, but I don't believe it was ever meant as an effective distance from which Marines could fire from the Fighting Tops. I personally believe at the extreme ranges of 240 to 300 yards, it meant a Musket armed Marine or Sailor could hit the enemy SHIP because it was a big target, but not effectively hit enemy Marines or Sailors.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Something further. The combat range between 18th century ships for the BIG GUNS was normally 300 to 400 yards at most. The British often preferred not to open fire with their big guns until they closed to 100 yards and tear the enemy ship apart.

Gus

 

[Billnpatti]

Mr. Barbieri does an excellent job of researching the subject and shows the meaning of the term as it was at that time. One thing that differentiates that time from today is that today, when we refer to the range of a musket shot, or a ball shot from a smoothbore musket, we are talking about making an accurately aimed shot at a specific target. In that day, a musket was not thought of so much as a weapon that one would aim at a given target, but as a weapon that could deliver massed fire at a less specific target. The soldier of the day was less likely to aim at a specific man, but at a massed group of men. That being the case, a musket ball would have killing power out to 300 yards. The massed fire would be more akin to shot from a shotgun striking a target. Each individual piece of shot is not aimed, but the mass of shot is pointed toward the target with the expectation that some of the shot will hit their mark.

My remarks are not intended, nor should they be inferred, to detract from what Mr. Barbieri discovered in his research. My comments are meant to distinguish between what we mean by "musket range" today and what was meant back then. The difference being massed fire from a group of muskets being fired in a general direction as opposed to our aimed fire from one musket at a specific target.

 

[pargent]

Service load was 167 grns ffg .

 

[Alden]

You sure Phil? That's greater than I've ever seen referenced -- can you cite it!? That'd do some damage to pineapples on both sides of the barrel...