Muzzle Velocity?

[marty_01]

I am looking for information regarding muzzle velocities of various common Muskets employed during the American Civil War, Crimean War and the Napoleonic Wars. In addition, are there rules of thumb that can be employed for estimating muzzle velocity based upon say barrel length, barrel caliber, projectile caliber, and black powder load?

The Weapons of most interest to me are:

United States Model 1842 Percussion Musket
United States Musket Model 1816
French "Charleville" musket
British Brown Bess
British Baker Rifled Musket

Any help with either reference book suggestions I should be buying, or direct knowledge of muzzle velocities for any of the weapons would be of interest.

Thanks in advance for any help.

marty

 

[Tumblernotch]

Marty, I can give you some of the velocities stated in the US Army Ordnance Manual of 1861. These are of arms in use at the beginning of the Civil War.

Rifle-Musket Model 1855: 60 grains of powder, .58 cal. 510 grain Elongated Ball (Minie)- 963 fps.

Rifle (Harpers Ferry Model 1855): 60 grs. of powder, .58 cal. 510 gr. Elongated Ball- 914 fps.

Pistol-Carbine Model 1855: 40 grs. of powder, .58 cal. 468 gr. Elongated Ball- 603 fps.

Altered Musket (Model 1816 converted to percussion and rifled): 70 grs. of powder, .69 cal. 740 gr. Elongated Ball- 879 fps.

Percussion Musket Model 1842 (Smoothbore): 110 grs. of powder, .69 cal. 412 gr. Round Ball- 1500 fps.

The Models 1816 and 1835 smoothbore muskets being flintlocks would have had slightly lower muzzle velocities than the percussion 1842 due to some gas escape through their touchholes. Part of the 110 gr. charge used in these was used as priming, so not all of the powder was behind the ball. When the percussion musket was adopted, rather than breaking up the cartridges in store and removing some of the powder, those 110 gr. rounds were issued for use with the Model 1842. The 70 gr. charge Minie cartridges were issued for use in the altered (percussioned and rifled) Model 1816 and Model 1835 muskets.

The Charleville .69 cal. musket used the same 110 gr. charge as the '16 and the '35 and it would be safe to say the the velocities were pretty much the same. In fact those muskets were patterned after the French musket. One little known fact is that the US muskets made before the M1816 were actually known by the Ordnance Dept. as Charleville Pattern Muskets. Of course when reading the figures above, you must keep in mind the variances in the quality of the powders used in testing and actual use, as well as environmental factors, although by the 1860's, care was taken in testing under different weather conditions. Also, bullet weights used in testing often vary with those used in the field. One other factor is the difference in the quality of the powders used between the Revolutionary War period and the Civil War, as well as differences between American and European powders.

I'm sorry to say that I can't be of any help at this time in giving you the velocities for the Brown Bess and some of the other British muskets and rifles, except that the P53 Enfields (used in our Civil War) are comparable to our M1855 and M1861 Springfield pattern rifle-muskets, though I believe the velocity from the Enfield is a bit higher when using English made cartridges as they used a slightly heavier pwder charge. The English Pritchett bullet was a bit heavier though and that may have brought the velocity down closer to that of the Springfield.

Hope this helps! :thumbsup:

 

[MSW]

by way of 'dumb questions,' does anyone know how they actually measured these velocities? the only methodology i can think of would be to find a long, level field, put the level the barrel and elevate it 32 feet above the ground, fire the piece and measure the distance from the muzzle to the point of impact on the ground. (at 32 feet per second per second, the constant acceleration of gravity, the projectile would be in flight one second... did the even know or care about the constant acceleration of gravity back then?

 

[MikeChapin]

Newton came up with the gravitaional constant back in the 1600s so I figure they knew about it. :winking:

The easiest way I can figure they did it was to shoot at a plate hooked to a measuring device. They could get kinetic energy from that. They would know the mass of the projectal and then back calculate muzzle velocity. Just a guess but that's how I would do it without precise velocity measuring equipment.

 

[marty_01]

Excellent post KanawhaRanger. Thanks very much for taking the time to go through this material.

Understood regarding your comments about the potential variations in muzzle velocities with respect to powder and ball variables. I was interested in figuring out some sort of average.

I have an unrelated question. I was reading -- I think on this forum -- about clearing misfires in muzzle loaders. Apparently some sort of tool with a threaded head is inserted into barrel. You screw into the lead ball and than pull the ball out. How long does this procedure take? Also, how long do you let the weapon set before attempting this extraction -- I mean is there some concern of ignition of the charge during the ball extraction?

As you can tell from my posts, I'm not a shooter -- my practical experiance with these weapons is zero. Hopefully you will bear with me and some of my more silly questions. I'm just a historian that is keenly interested in this subject matter.

Thanks again
Marty

 

[marty_01]

They used to use what was called a ballistic pendulum to back out muzzle velocity, or down range velocity. You would know the amount of inertia associated with the pendulum as well as the weight of the ball. The bullets kinetic energy required to move the pendulum around its axis can be determined. Based on the pendulums reaction to the balls impact, a velocity could be back-calculated.

I sort of envision some sort of inverse play on a Charpy testing device. These are pendulums that were used for determining toughness of steel. But I have only read about the ballistic pendulum and have never actually seen a picture or drawing of the device.

I think a lot of other empirical methods were employed -- such as setting weapons in rigid firing frames and determine how far down range a bullet goes before impacting the ground. You can than back out a muzzle velocity from this. Of course with a musket the beaten zone will be relatively large, so the best I think one could do would be to take an average of a wide range shots.

 

[robinghewitt]

They used wire breakers, here's how you test a cannon :thumbsup:

 

[marty_01]

Excellent. Thanks. So a current runs through the wire that feeds a chronograph -- wire breaks -- clock stops -- time and distance are knowns -- solve for velocity. Is that how it works?

Any idea when the wire breaking method came into use?

 

[robinghewitt]

I think the first wire screen releases the pendulum or drops the weight, the second marks the paper.

For more information, try Greener's book, The Gun, he's hot on chronoscopes :thumbsup:

I presume the basket and bottles outside his cabin is the battery.

best regards

Squire Robin

 

[marty_01]

Or they are bottles of rum for the fellows lunch. Measuring velocity is thirsty work.

Thanks for detailing how the thing works.

Best Regards
marty

 

[Slamfire]

They used to use what was called a ballistic pendulum to back out muzzle velocity, or down range velocity. You would know the amount of inertia associated with the pendulum as well as the weight of the ball. The bullets kinetic energy required to move the pendulum around its axis can be determined. Based on the pendulums reaction to the balls impact, a velocity could be back-calculated.

I sort of envision some sort of inverse play on a Charpy testing device. These are pendulums that were used for determining toughness of steel. But I have only read about the ballistic pendulum and have never actually seen a picture or drawing of the device.

Instructions for a ballistic pendulum are found in P. O. Ackley's Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders. :winking:
A cousin's husband and I built one in the 50s, it was fun, and pretty accurate too, IF we did the math right. That's not a problem now with calculators or computers. :v

 

[benvenuto]

Hi,
the ball puller is almost never used with a live charge down the barrel. 90% of the time the ball has been incorrectly loaded BEFORE the charge.

Various measures such as cleaning the nipple, or indded removing it and loading a pinch more fresh powder from the breech are used in case of misfire or forgetting to load a charge.

If the powder is absolutely sodden for some reason, and refuses to ignite under any circumstances then water is poured down the barrel before the extractor is used.

Someone will no doubt chime in with the correct period military practice, but in the heat of battle it was not unusual for an initial missfire to go unoticed and for the soldier to keep loading and "firing" until the barrel was filled to the muzzle and useless, or until something dramatic happened (double, triple or quadruple discharge)

 

[marty_01]

Thanks Benventu. Can I run with the subject of misloading a bit more? Below is one of those quotes that always stick in the back of my mind. I’m sure a number of folks here have seen this thing in some form or another. I am not familiar with the original source of this information, so I don’t know the context. Griffith is indicating a fairly large proportion of muskets and rifled muskets were misloaded and subsequently cast away by their owners. Would it be rather obvious to the soldiers collecting the weapons after the fact that the weapon malfunctioned and was cast off? What I mean to say, is it possible that a large proportion of the weapons in this tally were simply dropped by casualties? Moreover a fellow is loading his musket or rifle and is wounded or killed. He drops a loaded weapon. It is collected latter. Griffith’s take is fascinating. Were these weapons that unreliable?

Paddy Griffith's "Battle Tactics of the Civil War" (pg 86).

“An often quoted set of statistics from Gettysburg has it that the Union forces salvaged 27,574 'muskets' after the battle, of which 24,000 were loaded, including 12,000 loaded twice, 6,000 loaded between three and ten times, one with twenty-three charges and one with twenty-two balls and sixty-six buckshot. Some had six balls and only one charge of powder; others had six unopened cartridges. Others again had the ball behind the powder instead of the other way round.

It is open to doubt whether twenty-three full cartridges could in fact be physically squeezed into the barrel of a Civil War rifle, and still more dubious that the proportion of misloaded weapons in the sample (some 45 per cent) actually reflects the proportion in the whole of the two armies during combat. It is most likely that many of the guns salvaged by the Union forces after Gettysburg were discarded by their users precisely because they had become unusable, hence the figure of 12,000 should be seen as a proportion of the total muskets in the battle rather than of the total salvaged. That suggests that perhaps 9 per cent of all muskets were misloaded - a less dramatic figure, but nevertheless still very significant. If we add the unknown total of misloaded muskets which were either salvaged by the Confederates or retained by their original owners, we are forced back to the conclusion that a very high proportion of infantry weapons must indeed have become inoperative in combat due to faulty handling.”

 

[marty_01]

Thanks about the tip on P. O. Ackley's "Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders". Is the book focused mostly on blackpowder ballistics?

 

[PreglerD]

Hello, made a muzzlevel. test with my original cal. 50 smoothbore. Used 50 grs Swiss 2, .490 PRB, 173 grs,spittled patch 0,5 mm. Velocity was about 390 m/s is similar to 1170 fps.With this load I shoot at 25 m groups of about 2'', at 50 m about 3''.I also use shot as follows: 308 grs 2,5 mm shot, 50 grs Swiss 2, between shot an d powder a 10mm lubed wad. On top of the whole charge a 3mm wad dry. At 20 m this charge works best for ducks and crows.

Greetings from GE, Bavaria

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I should expect a MV more like 1500+ fps for that load. The technology available to us today has brought great illumination to the science of ballistics. Easy to see why shooters of past centuries thought of black powder as not far removed from black magic. :grin:

 

[marty_01]

Another question which I'd like to bounce off of the forum ”“ I suppose it is specific to how soldiers may have been drilled during the days of yore. I don’t know if I’m going beyond the intent of this forum with the following questions. I suppose this is delving into tactics, and how formations were drilled\trained and such during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Many of the early fusils\muskets used by the French & British & American Armies did not include rear sights. I guess the Brown Bess didn’t include a front or rear sight. In addition I have read that the front sight would have been obscured by a bayonet ”“ I guess the front sight also served as a means of locking the bayonet to the front of the weapon. How were soldiers of this era trained to aim and fire their muskets? I mean, did they just instruct the fellows to aim at a specific point on their target -- like the top of the heads of the soldiers in the opposing line(?), or just level the musket and shoot at the opposing line so the aim point in this case is about at the level of opposing soldiers breast(?). Was there any real consideration to altering the aim point based upon the range to the target. I mean to say if the range to the opposing line were say 200m ”“ which I assume would be some sort of extreme range for a musket ”“ the aiming point would have to be well over the heads of the opposing line of soldiers. Conversely if the range is only 100m, one could simply level muskets ”“ aim point being either the breasts or heads or hats of the opposing line -- and firing formation would be assured that a large percentage of musket balls would pass into\through the opposing line.

I understand that the intent was not to deliver accurate fire, but to rely upon massed fire on massed formations. Put enough balls in the vicinity of the targeted line or column and you’re bound to get some percentage of hits. But surely there must have been some sort of standard operating procedure regarding where a soldier would be trained to point his weapon when engaging an enemy formation.

Any insights or suggested reading\references would be on interest to me.

Thanks in advance
Marty

 

[marty_01]

Thanks Kirrmeister.

 

[robinghewitt]

The front sight on the Bess isn't a front sight, it's a bayonet lug.

I think most were allowed to bend their heads down to sight along the barrel, rather than standing erect, but not all.

It was a different world :shocked2:

 

[54ball]

The tactics were based on quick volleys of fire, a solid sheet of lead with no holes. Much like a sythle blade cutting grass. Soldiers were taught to level their piece and fire. If a soldier aimed his piece who is to say the man on his right or left may also be aiming at the same target? This created holes in the wall of lead. Aiming was discouraged and considered ungentlemanly.
Also soldiers were taught no to break ranks while assaulting, even in the face of artillery. In Picket's charge the rebels did not break ranks even in the face of federal cannon. Imagine marching straight up the barrel of a cannon 30 yards away, you see it swabbed, charged with powder, charged with canister, primed, the loaders move to side and cup their ears ajacent to the piece and the gunner pull the laynard and yet you do not break ranks. Thats disipline.