I Thought Muskets Were Smoothbore by Definition?

[dcriner]

I run across reproduction "muskets" that are rifled. For example, Dixie lists several.
Doug

 

[Grandpa Ron]

The Civil War was fought with Rifled Muskets. The Minie Ball making it load like a smoothbore.

I do not know the exact definition but "Musket" seems to imply stout construction.

Perhaps one of the historian types can give us a more accurate definition.

 

[poordevil]

I don't know for sure, but I think Musket could mean the longer versions of a patienter gun. Winchester made Muskets on their 1866, 1895 and 1894 rifles. There were very long and took a bayonet.

Rifle Muskets were made as rifles off the batt. The U.S. also converted smooth bore musket to rifle and called them, Muskets, Rifled.

P

 

[dcriner]

Google is our friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifled_musket
Doug

 

[Grandpa Ron]

So I wonder of an Indian Trade Gun or a New England fowler would be called a Musket? I suppose so.

Some NE fowlers were fit with Bayonets some guns used plug Bayonets.

Kind of a fiddle vs. violin thing. :wink:

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I don't know either but always assumed it applied to a military weapon, or one of military size and type, rifled or smooth bore. :idunno:

 

[hanshi]

I still find the subject a bit confusing. In a very general way the term "musket" conjures up (to me) the military smoothbores. I have a nice Early American fowler .62. It's light and handles quickly and easily yet is just a tad more "robust" than some I occasionally see. It has the big Virginia lock and has no provision for a bayonet; though I understand they were sometimes retrofitted during that era.

As an expediency I simply call my smoothie a "musket". Makes sense to me. but this "rifle-musket", "rifled musket", "rifle that's a musket" stuff is a riddle.

 

[hounddog]

Hanshi, folks do stuff like that just to confuse folks like you and me, Like you I believe in the KISS principle ( keep it simple sttupid). Some folks just like to be nit picky, they like the attention. To each his own, I do my thing my way, and everyone else are encouraged to do their thing their way, that away everyone is happy. hounddog(aka ark wind)

 

[Stumpkiller]

I believe common (if not official) parlance was "musket" was a military fusil or fusee. Rifles came along and someone decided to rifle the musket for military use; hence "rifled musket". Eventually the military dropped "musket" when it became redundant and just went with "rifle".

Now, a "rifled gun" is something different and refers to a cannon.

 

[Celt5494]

Musket is the common French term used for a military long gun. It can either be a smoothbore which they were in the earlier days progressing to the rifled musket versions of later years as technology increased. Not exactly sure though if the French had a word differentiating a rifled or smoothbore back then?

Hope that helps.....

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Stump killer, You must have come from the same school of thought as I.

The Musket invisioned a robust millitary type firearm. Usually smoothbored, later rifled.

Just common parlance I suppose.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Just to add to the confusion, the "rifled muskets" were often fitted with a rear sight-- but not always! :shocked2: :rotf: :cursing: :idunno: :surrender: :hatsoff:

The "Smooth bore" muskets usually had only the bayonet lug at the front of the barrel for "pointing" at the enemy. Sighted muskets were considered to be diabolic weapons, as they would increase the chance that an officer might be killed, rather than the chance hit of a ball fired at the lower( class) ranks of common soldiers. It was often said to be a violation of the rules of war! :hmm:

 

[hanshi]

He, he, he, he..... :wink:

 

[Stophel]

During our period of interest (18th-19th century) "Musket" means a full length military arm made to take a bayonet. No bayonet, not a musket. There is no "official" stipulation that a musket is smoothbored, but they were until the invention of the Minie Ball, which made the use of rifled muskets practical.

In earlier periods, the term is rather more nebulous, but still generally refers to military guns.

 

[Joel/Calgary]

Sighted muskets were considered to be diabolic weapons, as they would increase the chance that an officer might be killed, rather than the chance hit of a ball fired at the lower( class) ranks of common soldiers. It was often said to be a violation of the rules of war! :hmm:

With respect, Paul, that's bull! Please try doing some research before rebroadcasting that modern/urban myth. Have you never seen a musket other than a Bess? A fair number have the lug on the bottom of the muzzle and a sight back just a bit on the top. For that matter, have you ever shot a Bess or one similar? Ask some of our members about the accuracy achievable with the Bess's somewhat fat front sight. What about the entries in regimental orderly books covering the expenditure of ammunition for "shooting at marks" - target practice - as a separate item from drill? Granted, the extent of marksmanship training and of practice varied with country, time period, and general or colonel, but it was still part of standard operating procedure.

Regards,
Joel

 

[paulvallandigham]

Yes, Joel, I have fired a Brown Bess Replica. Its a right handed flintlock, so I had no interest in acquiring one of my own. I did explore the possibility of having a LEFT HAND Brown Bess made for me, and went so far as to work on a casting form to make a left hand BB lock.

I also know that there were some muskets that had the lugs on the bottom, but for the most part, muskets follow the design of the Brown Bess, and French Charleyville guns. As for accuracy, its a relative concept. In late 17th century Europe where battle tactics were developed for use with troops armed with muskets, Officers rode on horseback BEHIND the lines in order to reduce the risk of being killed. That continued through the War of 1812, which caused great concern when Jackson's American forces killed so many officers using rifles in the last battle of the war.

There are plenty of historical writings about the rules of war, and how it simply was NOT proper for enemies to allow their soldiers to intentionally try to shoot officers. After all, who would control the surviving men to keep them from torturing and murdering vanquished enemies, if there are no officers in charge?

The smoothbore musket was considered a point and shoot firearm, with some manuals instructing the soldier to turn their faces away from the gun when they fire it. Hardly a prescription for accurate shooting at any kind of distance beyond 50 yards.

I will grant that most of my study on this subject dates back more than 40 years when I was studying American History in College. But, there have been numerous articles, and books published since, that I have been able to read on the subject, and I am not aware of muskets made in any volume with the bayonet lugs located other than on top, and in place of a front sight. And, while modern Replica rifles are made and loaded with much closer fitting balls, so that better accuracy is obtainable, The targets used to test the shooting skills of these modern shooters are large, and the shooters use all kinds of "assists" to get much accuracy beyond 50 yards.

How about we agree to disagree on this point, and leave the invectives at home? :thumbsup:

Paul

 

[tg]

"Sighted muskets were considered to be diabolic weapons, as they would increase the chance that an officer might be killed, rather than the chance hit of a ball fired at the lower( class) ranks of common soldiers. It was often said to be a violation of the rules of war"

I have to agree with Joel..minus the respect part of course, comments like the above are ridiculis and when one gets into making statements that are of the type trhat define something in history then some references are required particularly when really off the wall radical sounding claims are made...diabolical? what? just need to get some long words in there eh? I think one will find the lack of focus on good sighting habits when present in the military was more for the ability to obtain more rapid fire, as was the pre made cartridge and loose fitting ball, the use of the rifle changed warfare to a point and was held in contempt by some who held on to the concept of chivalry in war, but the above is way off the mark.

 

[Stophel]

Most muskets, other than those of the English, seem to have normal type bead/barleycorn front sights.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

............ Officers rode on horseback BEHIND the lines in order to reduce the risk of being killed.

Sorry Paul, but I have to disagree with that statement. While some officers were indeed cowardly enough to hide behind their men in battle, those types were also conspicuous by their absence in combat, finding excuses to be "elsewhere" and had only the most grudging respect from the front line soldier. Most officers, even those of high rank, would seize the opportunity to "lead from the front" when their men showed the least sign of wavering and regimental and even brigade commanders often died from just this sort of action. Also, keep in mind that the officers seen on horses behind their troops were those of higher rank who needed to be able to see how their regiments, brigades, or other large units were behaving and to be able to see the enemy and their reaction as well. They had to be able to move from one end of the line to the other rapidly to give the proper commands quickly and efficiently and they truly were no safer behind their men than they were in front - the bullets flew thick and fast and a shot aimed at the front rank had just as good a chance of hitting a man on a horse ten feet behind the rear rank as it did of hitting the private in the front rank actually aimed at. The overall commander and his staff and couriers were the only ones that stayed back out of range, their jobs required that they see as much as possible of everything so that they could send commands quickly to whatever part of the field necessary when needed. Even they rode forward to lead by example when necessary.

 

[spudnut]

Smooth Rifle :stir: (Yeah I know what they are)