Musket accuracy

[mastrsgt]

There is currently a discussion on an other list aboutn the long range accuracy of muskets. One of the posters is using the following as justification for accuracy of British muskets out to 200 yards. What do ya'l think.

Captain William Dansey, Light Infantry Company, 33rd Regiment, 10 January 1777 letter from Newport, R.I. Dansey wrote of Continental
soldiers, particularly riflemen:

"”¦ there's no people in the World can shoot Black Ducks better than they can, but the Ducks carry no Firelocks and Bayonets; its astonishing to think how the Leaders of this Rebellion have made the poor ignorant People believe, because they are brought up to Gunning, as they call it that they must beat everything, but now they are convinced that being a good Marksmen is only a trifling requisite for a Soldier, indeed I myself saw them beat as Marksmen, at Frogneck [Throg's Neck, New York] I was engaged (having mine and another company under my Command) with a 150 or 200 Riflemen for upwards of seven hours at their favorite Distance about 200 Yards, they were
better cover'd than we were having a house a Mill and a Wall we had only Trees, they got the first fire at us before I saw them, I bid my Men cover themselves with the Trees and Rocks and turn out Volunteers among the Soldiers to go to the nearest Trees to the Riflemen and keep up the Fire with the Hessian Riflemen who came to us but did not stay above an Hour, I continued the popping fire at them and they at us we had the Satisfaction of knocking several of them down and had not a Man hurt, this kind of pop[ping] continued two or three Days between the Light Infantry and Rif[lemen] across a Water till we had
kil'd an Officer of theirs besides several Men and had not one of ours wounded, and they at last fairly gave up firing finding themselves beat in their own way, which shew'd a cool Soldier with a
good Firelock was beyond a Rifleman with all his Skill but such a Bugbear were they at first our good Friends thought we were all to be kill'd with Rifles."

I find it difficult to believe that a smoothbore musket in 75 cal. firing an issue 69 cal ball could be accurate at the ranges given in the correspondence. It would seem to me that this officer is using a lot of :bull: in his report to superiors.

What do you all think. I'm especially interested in the comments of those who shoot smootbore muskets often and the ranges they feel are realistic for a killing shot.

Don R

 

[TANSTAAFL]

There is currently a discussion on an other list aboutn the long range accuracy of muskets. One of the posters is using the following as justification for accuracy of British muskets out to 200 yards. What do ya'l think.

Captain William Dansey, Light Infantry Company, 33rd Regiment, 10 January 1777 letter from Newport, R.I. Dansey wrote of Continental
soldiers, particularly riflemen:

"”¦ there's no people in the World can shoot Black Ducks better than they can, but the Ducks carry no Firelocks and Bayonets; its astonishing to think how the Leaders of this Rebellion have made the poor ignorant People believe, because they are brought up to Gunning, as they call it that they must beat everything, but now they are convinced that being a good Marksmen is only a trifling requisite for a Soldier, indeed I myself saw them beat as Marksmen, at Frogneck [Throg's Neck, New York] I was engaged (having mine and another company under my Command) with a 150 or 200 Riflemen for upwards of seven hours at their favorite Distance about 200 Yards, they were
better cover'd than we were having a house a Mill and a Wall we had only Trees, they got the first fire at us before I saw them, I bid my Men cover themselves with the Trees and Rocks and turn out Volunteers among the Soldiers to go to the nearest Trees to the Riflemen and keep up the Fire with the Hessian Riflemen who came to us but did not stay above an Hour, I continued the popping fire at them and they at us we had the Satisfaction of knocking several of them down and had not a Man hurt, this kind of pop[ping] continued two or three Days between the Light Infantry and Rif[lemen] across a Water till we had
kil'd an Officer of theirs besides several Men and had not one of ours wounded, and they at last fairly gave up firing finding themselves beat in their own way, which shew'd a cool Soldier with a
good Firelock was beyond a Rifleman with all his Skill but such a Bugbear were they at first our good Friends thought we were all to be kill'd with Rifles."

I find it difficult to believe that a smoothbore musket in 75 cal. firing an issue 69 cal ball could be accurate at the ranges given in the correspondence. It would seem to me that this officer is using a lot of :bull: in his report to superiors.

What do you all think. I'm especially interested in the comments of those who shoot smootbore muskets often and the ranges they feel are realistic for a killing shot.

Don R

A wit in the British press advised all officers to make out wills before going to the colonies, to face the twisted barreled guns.

 

[mastrsgt]

Good point. I think this person is a British reenactor and trying to put down the capabilities of rifles during the AWI. I just can't believe that muskets can be accurate at distances over 50-75 yards. Only a lucky shot would have hit at that range. I think that there was a lot of propaganda going on during the AWI just like any other war.

Don R

 

[paulvallandigham]

These are all nice things to contemplate, but I don't see how we can make a definitive answer until we know the actual bore diameter of a gun used, and the actual diameter of the minie ball, or projectile used. Referrence to a bore calibration, and to a mold diameter are fine, but in reality the diameter of casting various with the alloy used, and from mold to mold. What is designated a .69 caliber ball or bullet, may actually be quite oversized, and much closer to that .75 cal. bore advertised.

The other reality is that as tool bits wore down, they were not replaced as often as we would today. Bore sizes got smaller and smaller as the same cutter was used over and over again. Tolerance were not held to the high standards we think about today.

Let me tell you a short story that taught me these lessons about historical arms. About 25 years ago, my brother found a half stock percussion rifle missing a hammer, and much damage to the wood of the stock for a price he wanted to pay, and set out to restore that gun to a working rifle. The barrel was originally made for a flintlock rifle, probably around 1800. The muzzle was worn in an oval pattern, and the bore constricted as you went into the barrel from the muzzle so that we had no idea what the actual bore diameter was. In fact, the muzzle had been coned, and where we thought it might be .36-.38 caliber, it in fact was probably only .34 caliber. The barrel had been cut off at the breech, rethreaded for a patent breech, and fitted to a Left Hand patent breech action, using a back action lock common to those seen in the 1870s and '80s. So, the conversion was at least 100 years old, and the barrel is now 200 years old. Because of severe corrosion, and pitting in the breech, Bobby Hoyt bored the gun out to .42 caliber, and re-rifled it. He did such a fine job, the gun in the new caliber still shoots to the same POA as it did with the small, thin, fixed sites that were on the gun when it was converted!

So, don't try to sort these kinds of historical arguments out based on what you read. Get to the museums and ask the curator to let you examine the bores of several guns so you can measure their bore diameters. Note serial numbers. Then find a collector who has some actual molds, and cast bullets from the period in his collection, and measure them with your calipers or micrometer. Most will not be the same dimension around the entire bullet. They are rarely truly round.

And when you have all those dimensions to throw into this argument, then go out to some of the North-South Skirmishs, or the WOI re-enactments, and see how much powder residue reduces the size of the bore after a few shots, and what that will do with an actual ball or bullet when shot at long range.

We do know that with properly cast bullets, sized and lubricated adequately, and fitted to a barrel of the correct bore size( the bullet should be between .001, and .002" under bore diameter) these guns are capable of fine accuracy. But that is not the question raised here. The question pertains to what kind of actual accuracy was achievable with those guns, with that ammunition available in the 18th century. Only by examining guns now in museums, and bullets now deservedly in collections can any meaningful information come to light that might let us do anything but speculate.

Paul

 

[Parzifal]

:hmm:
My bess with buck and ball..can make hits consistantly at 100+ ft...And I bet I can still do better.

 

[benvenuto]

volume of fire vs acuracy of fire is an argument which is still going on today.
the british were getting off 3 shots a minute from cover, using a rest, with plenty of practice over a few hours. Their balls were obviously deadly over 300 yards, but was it accuracy or sheer mass of lead?

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

The British officer is an excellent :bull: artist. Let me first qualify that statement. The American longrifle was an excellent weapon and certainly more deadly at long range (100 + yards) than the Brown Bess or any other smoothbore musket but the British soldier, on the average, was the best soldier on the planet during the AWI, especially their light infantry. He was cool under fire and followed orders without question. BUT... Now, do we know that he and his men were actually facing riflemen and if so were they good with their weapons AND were they combat experienced? We only have his word and the entire statement on his part is so arrogant that it seems suspect to me. How do we know that muskets at that range caused the American casualties? He mentions that he had Hessian riflemen - how many of the casualties on the American side were caused by these riflemen? They "did not stay above an Hour" but might they have caused the casualties he mentions then moved on to some other hot spot leaving the light infantry to hold the ground with an occasional pot shot? And for the biggest question, was he accurate in his range estimation? 300 yards is difficult for anyone with a modern, high-powered rifle and iron sights, much less a muzzle loading gun of any type.

The American longrifle of the period using the American powder available at the time and the usually ill cast bullets was not as stellar as the publicity makes it out to be - better than a smoothbore, true, but not as accurate given the variables mentioned as the :bull: from the American legends as we might want to think and that goes for the Brown Bess in spades as Paul mentions in his post above. (But Paul, remember that the Minie ball was 80 years in the future and is wasted in a smoothbore musket anyway, without the stabilization of the rifled bore, the Minie is actually as bad or worse than a ball from a smoothbore.) And please don't tell me what our modern made rifles will do shooting at game or a paper target that doesn't shoot back. We use perfectly cast round balls and have consistant powder AND take incredible care of our rifles. Not the necessarily case 200 years ago.

 

[J.D.]

Paul is right on about bore diameter and the relationship to ball diameter.

I don't know how close the Brits held tolerances on bullet moulds, but I do know how close tolerances were held on bore diameters of 18th century Brit muskets.

In the early 18th century, Brit muskets were made to a pattern by small cottage gunmakers. Most parts were made in the small shops and delivered to a stocker who assembled those parts into completed muskets.

Later, about 1765, or so, I don't remember the exact year, stocking was moved to the Royal Armoury in the tower of London, in hopes that quality of muskets would improve, or at least remain consistent, under the watchful eye of royal inspectors. Locks from this time on were marked "TOWER". Prior to this time, locks were engraved with the individual makers name.

At any rate, barrels were made to a pattern with the nominal bore diameter of .750, with an acceptable tolerance in bore diameter of .050.

That means accpetable bore diameters ranged from .700 to .800.

Again, I don't know how close tolerances were held in mould manufacture. I would assume that tolerances were held reasonably close to .069, however, I haven't had the opportunity to measure original military musket moulds to verify that.

If, by chance, a private was issued a musket with a bore diameter of .700, and the ball diameter of issued ammuntion was, indeed, .690, then accuracy should be relatively good.

A friend shoots .715 balls, wrapped in paper cartidges, that shoot very well to 100 yards.

The bore on my bess mics .748. We havent' miced the bore in Ray's gun, from the same manufacturer, so I can only assume that the bore diameter of his gun is within a coupla thousanths of mine.

Ray can consistently put most shots on an 18 inch gong at that 100 yards, off hand, as can I with patched ball.

Neither of us have tried shooting the bess at longer ranges, so we don't know what kind of accuracy to expect beyond 100 yards.

Conversely, if a soldier is issued a musket with a bore diameter of .800, and ammunition of less than .690 ball diameter, accuracy will suffer...baddly.

Could someone hit a man sized target at 200 yards with a military smoothbore musket? It would depend on the musket, the ammunition, and the ability of the shooter, and how lucky, or unlucky the intended target might be. So yes, it is possible to intentionally hit a man size target at that range with a musket, but unlikely, unless all of the variables are favorable.

And it's even more unlikely to hit a man at that range who is, at the very least, partially hidden by buildings, rocks, or trees.

J.D.

 

[hawkeye1755]

Could someone hit a man sized target at 200 yards with a military smoothbore musket? It would depend on the musket, the ammunition, and the ability of the shooter, and how lucky, or unlucky the intended target might be. So yes, it is possible to intentionally hit a man size target at that range with a musket, but unlikely, unless all of the variables are favorable.
And it's even more unlikely to hit a man at that range who is, at the very least, partially hidden by buildings, rocks, or trees.

J.D.

Here is a pic from the Muzzleloadermag. July/Aug 1994.
The guy who wrote this article Jim Byrd, shoot off-hand a brown bess musket at 200 yards at 100 yards target.

:hatsoff:

 

[J.D.]

Wow, that's good shooting.

This is a case of all of the variables in 18th century muskets and ammunition being eliminated.

I'm sure that this group was fired using a tightly patched ball and not military issue paper cartridges.

While this group does illustrate the accuracy of modern loads and powder, it does not illustrate the effectivness of a military musket firing a ball of up to three calibers smaller than the bore diameter, with nothing but a coupla wraps of paper and some blackpowder fouling to take up the slack.

The question, to my mind, was not the potential accuacy of modern precision shooting techniques, including weighed powder charges, balls weighed to + or - .01 of a grain, and patching measured to .001" thickness with a micrometer.

The question was, using 18th century weapons and ammunition, is it possible to hit a man sized target at 200 yards.

I stand by my original conclusion.
J.D.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Agreed tha Mr. Byrd's shooting is exceptional, but the question concerns the particular action at Throg's Neck mentioned in the quote above. We also have to remember that the average 18th Century soldier didn't fire his musket as many times in his entire service (in peacetime 2 or 3 times per year) as Mr. Byrd does in a few months and very often deliberatly dumped powder from the cartridge to reduce the fierce recoil - and that's a documented practise.

 

[ronrryan]

I remember well when that article appeared, and it subsequenty generated a number of strongly skeptical comments by very experienced Bess shooters. I have never shot a Bess, have no opinion, Good smoke, ron in FL

 

[Capt. Jas.]

I remember those articles also. I remember then m being challenged to great degree. Notic how perfect (cut) the "bullet holes" are in that picture. I have only seen that replicated with a wad cutter. :rotf:

 

[ffffg]

id hate to be a general where im being judged 200 years after my death.. anyway there are two apparent issues that i see.. once your out of range, your out of range. at that point as was brought up earlier, the volumn of balls will be more important.. i saw that before when i was reading the first post.. another point is the cover that the two sides had. the ones behind the trees were 75 percent coverd from a falling ball of that distnace when they shoot, and behind the tree when loading.... the ones behind the wall were actually opening up their target area from falling ball. that is one could fall back to be safely behind the wall to reload only to be hit in the waist or midsection of body becouse one aiming at the edge or over the wall could hit someone standing in a hollow behind the wall giveing a full frontal target.. stepping behind the tree would give no chance of being hit unless someone was shooting cross fire from a further disatance.. i believe the casualtys were from men loading/moving about behind the walls safety, thinking becouse they were out of sight they were out of harms way.. no serious error, just an unlucky day for those hit. noone can calculate odd problems that come up during battle. ... . supporting my theory is the fact that an officer was hit behind the wall area... officers arnt usally in the front line or fireing rifles, but behind in a safer area giving commands or finding out information on the battle etc.... .dave

 

[Wes/Tex]

Just to play devil's advocate, I wonder if the enemy was indeed riflemen or colonial musketmen, etc. There is no mention of closely observing them with a glass or anything that would definitely identify the soldiers as riflemen. We know that Washington advocated that rifle shirts be worn by everybody to lead to the misidentification by the British and having a fear of rifle armed troops. The mention of Hessian jaegers being present, even if for a limited time, is quite interesting. Would certainly think the jaegers would rack up more hits than musket armed troops too. The accurate identification of the colonial troops involved would help answer many of these questions.

 

There are similiar accounts by British officers of the poor quality of american marksmanship. The american rifleman in battle was not nearly as effective as many seem to think. Washington disbanded his rifle units while at Valley Forge, believing they were more trouble than they were worth.

The account is quite believable if you consider it carefully. The writer does not claim that british marksmen were fireing at 200 yards, only that the main position was that distance from the American one. He also says that British marksmen moved up to trees closest to the American position, so the range was shorter than 200 yards.

Furthermore, British regiments had companies of specially trained marksmen called skirmishers or light infantry. It was their job to advance out in front of the main line and pick off officers, pickets and skirmishers of the enemy. These units were often armed with rifles.

The account of the Hessains is also believable. They were draftees, not volunteers. While nominally armed with rifles, their issue arms were considered so unfit for use that many Hessian units were re equipped with British muskets and just because someone is equipped with a specific arm doesn't mean he is trained to use it or that it is an effecive weapon. It also does not necessarily follow that because someone is wearing a uniform he is an effecive soldier. There are lots of contemporary references to the unreliability of Hessian troops.

 

[chuckpa]

This post and the comments are certianly very thought provoking.
I would like to quote from a later era when the British were still using the Brown Bess but also had the 95th rifles during the peninsolar campaign.

In William Surtees book Surtees of the95th (Rifles) on pages 239 to 240
(The Americans tauntingly tell us, our soldiers do not know how to use the weapons that are put into their hands; and,truly if we are to judge by the awful destruction which they have occasionaly inflicted upon our brave soldiers, we should be led to expect they understand this science much better than ourselves.)
( I will venture to assert, that eight out of ten of the soldiers of our regular regiments will aim in the same manner at an object at the distance of 300 yards, as at one only 50 yards. it must hence be evident that the greater part of those shots are lost or expended in vain; indeed the calculation has been made, that only one shot out of 200 fired from muskets in the feild takes effect, while one out of twenty from rifles is the average.)
He goes on to state that better training and better muskets would help.
The British did go to rifle regiments partly because of the American experience, the germans also had an influence.

 

[mastrsgt]

Thanks for all of the interesting and informative responses. I guess the conclusion I come to is:

1. The officer writing the report was trying to make his unt and therefore himself look good.

2. The British may have inflicted casualties but they did it by movement into positions closer to the patriots than the 200 plus yards reported. The muskets they used would have been effective at closer ranges, but there is serious doubt that they would have been effective at 200 plus yards.

Don R

 

[paulvallandigham]

Don: This may only be an argument over word choice- semantics, if you will- but I would not say a Bess would be ineffective at 200 yds. Being hit with a one ounce or heavier lead ball at 200 yds would cause a potentially fatal wound, if not death outright. Because they had no anti-biotics, or even understood the cause of infections, any wound was likely to prove fatal even if it took months or years to kill you. While you were sick, you were of no use in the army.

What I would say is that is highly unlikely that the guns and ammo of the day, in the hands of a common soldier with limited training in shooting, would be able to hit a man at 200 yds. with any kind of predicatability. Because officers where trained in formation tactics, they also would have been unlikely to view with favor any training that would make marksmen out of common soldiers, thinking that officer were of a superior class of people, shared by the officers in their enemy's army. It just was not decent to have commoners shooting officers!

It was a common complaint of British officers about the American fighting tactics. They considered it uncivilized to have riflemen purposely shooting enemy officers. After all, if the officers were killed, who would control the common soldiers in the ranks ? Scared, and without leaders, common soldiers would dissolve into savages, and do all kinds of unspeakable deeds! YOu can't understand the limitations of arms, and military training to use those arms, or why the officers did not consider it important to arm their men with better weapons, or train them to shoot the guns better, unless you understand the class system of the time, and the view that the upper class officers had of their men. Americans truly changed much about warfare across the globe, by our examples. But all those changes took place either at the very end of the war, or after it ended for the British army. The field tactics had not really changed since Agincourt, and the social class system since Cromwell.

 

[hawk]

Paul , when training people to shoot in the service I was suprised at how well some of them picked it up and relitively quickly.
As for the lack of "living" officers I think the men that were pressed into service would be more apt to retire from the battle than to be more savage .