Iv'e seen that quoted here before recently myself by somebody? I dont need to shoot that much, but I dont have a bess yet. :idunno:
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
How Far Is “Musket-Shot�
- Thread starter ncmtmike
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
smoothshooter
50 Cal.
Something else that should be factored in are some of the very serious impediments to accomplishing anything resembling accuracy when firing from ranks.
The first thing that comes to mind is the danger of powder burns to the left side of the face and neck from the man to the left's vent hole, especially when troops are formed up in " Close Order ". I have been burned like this a couple of times, and I have to say it hurt like hell! The most painful one was from someone shooting my .54 smooth rifle a good 6 or 8 feet away. So I can only imagine what it must be like to be hit with a blast of vent gasses from closer distances. I can see most of the men in ranks turning their faces to the right at the instant of firing to avoid this. When troops were deployed in more open formations, which the British did more often than other armies, this particular situation would have not been as serious. The more open formations were more commonly used on the European continent after the American Revolution, if I recall correctly But that still leaves the issues of little or no target practice, stress, noise, general pandemonium, and smoke obscuring everything after a while, depending on weather conditions. British troops generally were trained to fire when their muskets were " on level " and actual aiming was discouraged . With the exception of open formations, none of the above were conducive to accuracy Somewhere around here I have what seems to be a rather well - researched European book on Napoleonic infantry tactics, with many references from officers and enlisted men who were actually in combat during those times. There are multiple references of ranks of opposing soldiers firing their initial volleys from distances ranging from 150 to as close as 30 yards, with few or no casualties on on either side! Sometimes things turned more serious, such as the time when two large bodies of at least regimental size of French and British troops approached to within about 15 yards of each other without firing and stopped. After a few moments of awkward silence, a debate ensued between the opposing commanders as each offered to let the other side fire first as a matter of gentlemanly courtesy. This was debated back and forth for a couple of minutes until a decision was agreed to. I don't remember who got to fire first, but most of the men on the recieving end were annihilated in an unusually well - delivered volley.
The first thing that comes to mind is the danger of powder burns to the left side of the face and neck from the man to the left's vent hole, especially when troops are formed up in " Close Order ". I have been burned like this a couple of times, and I have to say it hurt like hell! The most painful one was from someone shooting my .54 smooth rifle a good 6 or 8 feet away. So I can only imagine what it must be like to be hit with a blast of vent gasses from closer distances. I can see most of the men in ranks turning their faces to the right at the instant of firing to avoid this. When troops were deployed in more open formations, which the British did more often than other armies, this particular situation would have not been as serious. The more open formations were more commonly used on the European continent after the American Revolution, if I recall correctly But that still leaves the issues of little or no target practice, stress, noise, general pandemonium, and smoke obscuring everything after a while, depending on weather conditions. British troops generally were trained to fire when their muskets were " on level " and actual aiming was discouraged . With the exception of open formations, none of the above were conducive to accuracy Somewhere around here I have what seems to be a rather well - researched European book on Napoleonic infantry tactics, with many references from officers and enlisted men who were actually in combat during those times. There are multiple references of ranks of opposing soldiers firing their initial volleys from distances ranging from 150 to as close as 30 yards, with few or no casualties on on either side! Sometimes things turned more serious, such as the time when two large bodies of at least regimental size of French and British troops approached to within about 15 yards of each other without firing and stopped. After a few moments of awkward silence, a debate ensued between the opposing commanders as each offered to let the other side fire first as a matter of gentlemanly courtesy. This was debated back and forth for a couple of minutes until a decision was agreed to. I don't remember who got to fire first, but most of the men on the recieving end were annihilated in an unusually well - delivered volley.
smoothshooter
50 Cal.
How would you like to have been a soldier in the ranks within earshot listening to THAT discussion between the officers??????
RAEDWALD
40 Cal.
At an ideal elevation a musket ball can carry far more than 300 yards and period descriptions are replete with references to people being hit with 'spent' balls. ie ones at the end of their flight with little energy left to cause more than a bruising. About the same as if someone threw a ball at you.
The reference to military archery is useful as the modern equivalent to military archery is artillery fire, especially mortar fire. At long ranges the idea is for the company of archers to bring down an area of plunging fire around the target. At extreme ranges the same would apply to musket fire.
Something not mentioned is the transitional instability of the musket ball to the sonic/subsonic transition as the ball slows. This is a significant factor in the accuracy of aimed musket fire. Champion musket users have advised me to always use a heavy charge. The purpose being to keep the ball supersonic out to the 100 metre target. After that the ball wanders as it changes speed. At lesser ranges the other option is a much smaller charge such that the ball remains subsonic throughout it's flight. The concept of the 'tailed' ball (adding a piece of string or ribbon to the rear of the ball) acts as a drag stabiliser to allow the ball to go through the transition without the attendant instability. Thus it greatly extends the accurate range of the musket. Within the range at which one keeps it supersonic (or the subsonic option) it will have no assistance to the accuracy of the ball.
All in all I interpret the term 'musket shot' as being that distance at which a musket ball can be expected to readily endanger a body of men or a vessel. Not the range at which one might expect to often hit a chosen man. In the example cases we are talking of the elevated position of a rampart or some high position on a ship firing down onto the opposition open deck.
300 yards seems a possible distance to me but it is a matter of judgement and the 240 yard figure is probably more accurate but I would transition from 'frightened' to 'very frightened' at about 300 yards.
BTW practical trials in the UK have shown that properly made and used paper cartridges, when combined with heavy charges, are actually accurate enough not to embarrass at 100 yard competitions even if patched or wadded full sized balls have a slight edge. The proper paper, stoutly rammed, will crumple up to form a paper sabot centreing the ball in its flight down the barrel. It will also adapt to the accumulating fouling by forming an increasingly smaller diameter wad and contribute slightly to scouring of the fouling on the way out even if the following charge is adding even more fouling. Thus a proper paper cartridge, thus loaded, shows that the .69" ball in a .75+" bore was a wise military choice as it allowed reasonably accurate fire for many rounds as it adapted to increasing fouling. The soldier was given 60 rounds and expected to be able to use them even if the last few had to be fought down the barrel.
The reference to military archery is useful as the modern equivalent to military archery is artillery fire, especially mortar fire. At long ranges the idea is for the company of archers to bring down an area of plunging fire around the target. At extreme ranges the same would apply to musket fire.
Something not mentioned is the transitional instability of the musket ball to the sonic/subsonic transition as the ball slows. This is a significant factor in the accuracy of aimed musket fire. Champion musket users have advised me to always use a heavy charge. The purpose being to keep the ball supersonic out to the 100 metre target. After that the ball wanders as it changes speed. At lesser ranges the other option is a much smaller charge such that the ball remains subsonic throughout it's flight. The concept of the 'tailed' ball (adding a piece of string or ribbon to the rear of the ball) acts as a drag stabiliser to allow the ball to go through the transition without the attendant instability. Thus it greatly extends the accurate range of the musket. Within the range at which one keeps it supersonic (or the subsonic option) it will have no assistance to the accuracy of the ball.
All in all I interpret the term 'musket shot' as being that distance at which a musket ball can be expected to readily endanger a body of men or a vessel. Not the range at which one might expect to often hit a chosen man. In the example cases we are talking of the elevated position of a rampart or some high position on a ship firing down onto the opposition open deck.
300 yards seems a possible distance to me but it is a matter of judgement and the 240 yard figure is probably more accurate but I would transition from 'frightened' to 'very frightened' at about 300 yards.
BTW practical trials in the UK have shown that properly made and used paper cartridges, when combined with heavy charges, are actually accurate enough not to embarrass at 100 yard competitions even if patched or wadded full sized balls have a slight edge. The proper paper, stoutly rammed, will crumple up to form a paper sabot centreing the ball in its flight down the barrel. It will also adapt to the accumulating fouling by forming an increasingly smaller diameter wad and contribute slightly to scouring of the fouling on the way out even if the following charge is adding even more fouling. Thus a proper paper cartridge, thus loaded, shows that the .69" ball in a .75+" bore was a wise military choice as it allowed reasonably accurate fire for many rounds as it adapted to increasing fouling. The soldier was given 60 rounds and expected to be able to use them even if the last few had to be fought down the barrel.
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 17,431
- Reaction score
- 16,433
smoothshooter said:
Such nonsense about Commanders of opposing forces gentlemanly offering the other side to fire first, happened as late as some very early battles in the WBTS with similar results.
At the first time our then new Confederate Unit did the Reenactment of 1st Manassas in the early 1980's; I reasoned that an Officer worth his salt would have understood his raw troops would not react well to receiving fire from an enemy. So when I was ordered to bring up my small unit to support another Confederate Unit on their flank, I had my troops lay down to load and fire.
I was quite pleased to learn a year of so later, when visiting the Manassas Battlefield NPS, that Colonel and later General Jackson had done the same thing at 1st Manassas. There was a depression along the line on the military crest of the hill that his forces occupied. He had his troops lay down at first in that depression to protect them and get acquainted to the chaos of battle. (A part of that depression was still extant on the Battlefield at that time well over 100 years later.) This is part of the reason that Jackson's Raw Forces stood so firmly and gave rise to the quote, "There Stands Jackson like a Stone Wall. Rally Round the Virginians!" Though Historians disagree on whether or not General Bee actually said that at the time, it is a fact Jackson's Boys did stand their ground.
Gus
RAEDWALD
40 Cal.
In the British army such burns were punishable offences. You should have been laying your face into your own gun. What soldiers were doing was deliberately getting such burns to avoid duty. A popular way to get back at one of your fellows was to overload your pan to ensure he got a good scorching. Bumptious young officers were good targets for this from the right hand file.smoothshooter said:
smoothshooter
50 Cal.
Elaborate on the "tailed ball" idea, if you would. I have often wondered if that was effective, but have never gotten around to doing the experiments. Have you tried it or do you know anyone who has?
RAEDWALD
40 Cal.
The tailed balls I used had a small hole drilled into them, a 20cm piece of linen string folded and the fold pushed into the hole then the lead was peened over to lock it in place.
What it does is to avoid the ball going wild once it slows down from supersonic speed. Thus you can launch the ball at high speed and it will act consistently beyond 100 metres where the transition happens with a heavy charge. Worked well out to 200 metres and possibly to 300 metres. While the bullet is supersonic it has no effect except to possibly slow it down a bit faster. I gave up on it as I fire 50/100 metres so it was no help.
I suspect that the British army came to the same conclusion when they tried the concept and rejected it. By the time it comes into play the holdover is so great (yards) that soldiers would not be able to use the benefits.
What it does is to avoid the ball going wild once it slows down from supersonic speed. Thus you can launch the ball at high speed and it will act consistently beyond 100 metres where the transition happens with a heavy charge. Worked well out to 200 metres and possibly to 300 metres. While the bullet is supersonic it has no effect except to possibly slow it down a bit faster. I gave up on it as I fire 50/100 metres so it was no help.
I suspect that the British army came to the same conclusion when they tried the concept and rejected it. By the time it comes into play the holdover is so great (yards) that soldiers would not be able to use the benefits.
I would think it would act like the tail on a kite.
RAEDWALD
40 Cal.
It would take a very expensive high speed filming process in a supersonic wind tunnel or (probably more practically) a CFD study to determine the method from direct observation.
I surmise that it does not exactly act like an arrow's feathers causing deviations from flight to be forced back by the wind pushing the feathers back in line. More, I think, by having movements of the ball, being buffeted by the breakdown of the shock wave, being damped as the tail has to be pulled out of it's course too, but with a trivial delay due to the inertia of the tail in the high speed air flow behind the ball. I hypothesise that, as the ball transitions down from supersonic to subsonic, the shock wave breaks up at different speeds on different parts of the ball. Possibly the extreme nose maintains it longer whilst the forward edges lose it earlier and the two conflict causing the instability. The string lies in a constant airflow so the conflicting front airflows/shock waves have to drag it about through this consistent rear airflow, thus damping the perturbations.
All I actually have is the basic observations of the tailed balls compared to plain balls. My hypothesis explains the observations better than any other I can come up with but I am open to better reasoned hypotheses or actual airflow observations/CFD.
This supersonic/subsonic transition instability is the reason why so many people will tell you that they can hit a small paper plate at 50 yards with their smooth bore but can't hit a door sized object at 100 yards. The British army reponse was to push the ball out with a heavy charge so that the transition problem was pushed back well beyond 100 yards and with a large ball so that the mass maintained the momentum.
I surmise that it does not exactly act like an arrow's feathers causing deviations from flight to be forced back by the wind pushing the feathers back in line. More, I think, by having movements of the ball, being buffeted by the breakdown of the shock wave, being damped as the tail has to be pulled out of it's course too, but with a trivial delay due to the inertia of the tail in the high speed air flow behind the ball. I hypothesise that, as the ball transitions down from supersonic to subsonic, the shock wave breaks up at different speeds on different parts of the ball. Possibly the extreme nose maintains it longer whilst the forward edges lose it earlier and the two conflict causing the instability. The string lies in a constant airflow so the conflicting front airflows/shock waves have to drag it about through this consistent rear airflow, thus damping the perturbations.
All I actually have is the basic observations of the tailed balls compared to plain balls. My hypothesis explains the observations better than any other I can come up with but I am open to better reasoned hypotheses or actual airflow observations/CFD.
This supersonic/subsonic transition instability is the reason why so many people will tell you that they can hit a small paper plate at 50 yards with their smooth bore but can't hit a door sized object at 100 yards. The British army reponse was to push the ball out with a heavy charge so that the transition problem was pushed back well beyond 100 yards and with a large ball so that the mass maintained the momentum.
