-
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
Muzzle Velocity?
- Thread starter marty_01
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Tumblernotch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,370
- Reaction score
- 11
You're more than welcome Marty! I like digging through this stuff. My wife complains that I'll never use this info, now I can go nanenana! Sorry I'm so late in replying, I haven't been on here in a few days.
That was a good answer you gave about the ballistic pendulum. It is described in the Ordnance Manual where I got most of this information. I've thought about trying to make one some day.
As for pulling misfires, we generally don't do that with the ball screw. It is used in most cases to remove a bullet that has been loaded without powder. If you have a misfire, and there is powder there, use a priming wire (pick) to clear the channel and if necessary, put in a little fine powder, reprime and fire again. Some people use compressed CO2 to push the bullet out. If, there is no other way to remove the load and there is powder under the bullet, and all you have is a ball screw, remove the priming/cap and pour water down the barrel and allow it to soak the powder. If you have a very tight ball, it may take a little while for it to get past the bullet. Better safe than sorry though. You don't have to wait very long before starting these procedures after the gun misfires. A couple of minutes will do, making sure you keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction (downrange or up).
In extreme conditions, specifically a very tightly fitting bullet, you may have to remove the breech and drive the bullet from the rear towards the muzzle. I have seen some cases where the bullet had to be drilled out. Of course, be very careful of any dry powder residue that may be present.
There's nothing wrong with being "just a historian". I enjoy reading about this stuff almost as much as shooting them. And you take the trouble of learning what you can about the subject. I've been seeing a lot of articles and books by published "historians" that are chock full of BS about weapons that prove that they have never studied or handled them. I salute you for your efforts. And by the way, you might as well get yourself a ML and start shooting. That's when the real learning begins!
:hatsoff:
That was a good answer you gave about the ballistic pendulum. It is described in the Ordnance Manual where I got most of this information. I've thought about trying to make one some day.
As for pulling misfires, we generally don't do that with the ball screw. It is used in most cases to remove a bullet that has been loaded without powder. If you have a misfire, and there is powder there, use a priming wire (pick) to clear the channel and if necessary, put in a little fine powder, reprime and fire again. Some people use compressed CO2 to push the bullet out. If, there is no other way to remove the load and there is powder under the bullet, and all you have is a ball screw, remove the priming/cap and pour water down the barrel and allow it to soak the powder. If you have a very tight ball, it may take a little while for it to get past the bullet. Better safe than sorry though. You don't have to wait very long before starting these procedures after the gun misfires. A couple of minutes will do, making sure you keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction (downrange or up).
In extreme conditions, specifically a very tightly fitting bullet, you may have to remove the breech and drive the bullet from the rear towards the muzzle. I have seen some cases where the bullet had to be drilled out. Of course, be very careful of any dry powder residue that may be present.
There's nothing wrong with being "just a historian". I enjoy reading about this stuff almost as much as shooting them. And you take the trouble of learning what you can about the subject. I've been seeing a lot of articles and books by published "historians" that are chock full of BS about weapons that prove that they have never studied or handled them. I salute you for your efforts. And by the way, you might as well get yourself a ML and start shooting. That's when the real learning begins!
:hatsoff:
Thanks again KanawhaRanger. Good and useful material for me.
I am trying to determine what sort of beaten zone or hitting space might be attributable to massed rifle fire or massed musket fire of this era ”“ thus my interests regarding muzzle velocities and how folks were trained to aim or point these weapons.
Hardee’s “Light Infantry Tactics” and Casey's “Infantry Tactics” both have rather extensive sections on how to load a rifle or musket, but nothing in terms of where to aim either when firing at an enemy formation ”“ at least nothing that I could find on aiming or pointing or leveling. Surely soldiers were instructed in some manner on how to point a weapon ”“ be it as simple as just leveling the weapon in the direction of the formation they are engaging. The point being field manuals of the period have very extensive and detailed instructions on loading but include either nothing on how to point the weapon or very little on how to point the weapon. And of course it goes without saying there is absolutely nothing on range estimation.
The nearest thing I could come up with was in a field manual written by Lieut. Col. D. W. C. BAXTER in 1861 called “ The Volunteer's Manual”. Again the manual has an extensive section on loading drills. It instructions regarding firing\pointing\aiming is limited to:
==============================================
(alert Command) AIM. (One motion.)
Drop smartly the muzzle, the left hand remaining at the tail band, support the butt against the right shoulder, the left elbow a little down, the right well elevated, shut the left eye, direct the right along the barrel, drop the head upon the butt to catch the object, and place the forefinger on the trigger.
The rear rank man will. at the same time, carry the right foot about eight inches toward the left heel of the man on his right.
(alert command) FIRE. (One motion.)
Apply the forefinger with force to the trigger without further lowering or turning the head, and remain in that position.
==========================================
Like I say, I am trying to determine what sort of beaten zone or hitting space might be attributable to massed rifle fire or massed musket fire of this era. To that end I need a starting point, a starting angle\elevation, and an ending point for a balls trajectory. The associated figure included the Baxter’s Field Manual for “AIM” looks like the rifle or musket is simply dropped to the shoulder such that the barrel is parallel with the ground. I take this to imply that initial elevation is intended to be zero ”“ regardless of the actual range to target. The hitting space is than muzzle to first graze.
Best Regards
Marty
I am trying to determine what sort of beaten zone or hitting space might be attributable to massed rifle fire or massed musket fire of this era ”“ thus my interests regarding muzzle velocities and how folks were trained to aim or point these weapons.
Hardee’s “Light Infantry Tactics” and Casey's “Infantry Tactics” both have rather extensive sections on how to load a rifle or musket, but nothing in terms of where to aim either when firing at an enemy formation ”“ at least nothing that I could find on aiming or pointing or leveling. Surely soldiers were instructed in some manner on how to point a weapon ”“ be it as simple as just leveling the weapon in the direction of the formation they are engaging. The point being field manuals of the period have very extensive and detailed instructions on loading but include either nothing on how to point the weapon or very little on how to point the weapon. And of course it goes without saying there is absolutely nothing on range estimation.
The nearest thing I could come up with was in a field manual written by Lieut. Col. D. W. C. BAXTER in 1861 called “ The Volunteer's Manual”. Again the manual has an extensive section on loading drills. It instructions regarding firing\pointing\aiming is limited to:
==============================================
(alert Command) AIM. (One motion.)
Drop smartly the muzzle, the left hand remaining at the tail band, support the butt against the right shoulder, the left elbow a little down, the right well elevated, shut the left eye, direct the right along the barrel, drop the head upon the butt to catch the object, and place the forefinger on the trigger.
The rear rank man will. at the same time, carry the right foot about eight inches toward the left heel of the man on his right.
(alert command) FIRE. (One motion.)
Apply the forefinger with force to the trigger without further lowering or turning the head, and remain in that position.
==========================================
Like I say, I am trying to determine what sort of beaten zone or hitting space might be attributable to massed rifle fire or massed musket fire of this era. To that end I need a starting point, a starting angle\elevation, and an ending point for a balls trajectory. The associated figure included the Baxter’s Field Manual for “AIM” looks like the rifle or musket is simply dropped to the shoulder such that the barrel is parallel with the ground. I take this to imply that initial elevation is intended to be zero ”“ regardless of the actual range to target. The hitting space is than muzzle to first graze.
Best Regards
Marty
Tumblernotch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,370
- Reaction score
- 11
Your description of aiming the musket is pretty much the same as what I learned from Hardee's Manual when I was reenacting. When the rifle-musket became the chief weapon, as a matter of course the tactics changed from the smoothbore days in that since the effective range increased, sighting became a little more scientific.
From what I have read in accounts of battles, the soldiers were told to aim low, about the waist of the enemy. I found in shooting rifle-muskets that the reason for this was that all of the ones I shot tended to shoot a little high, reproduction and original. And when troops were shooting uphill or downhill, that really made for overshots. Smoothbores weren't generally used at ranges over 100 yds., though there were times that they were. Although inaccurate at longer ranges, I sure wouldn't want to be in front of a battleline even 2-300 yds away and have them volley at me!
The rifle-muskets of course had graduated sights and the soldiers learned to estimate ranges just as they do now. The Springfield (1855-1863) was sighted to 500 yds and was accurate at and beyond that range though most accounts that I've read usually mention about 300 yds as the range where they opened fire. Enfields that I've seen have been sighted to 800 yds and they can hit pretty accurately at that range. Tests at the US Ordnance Dept. just prior to the Civil War give the nod to the Enfield over the Springfield for accuracy though they were probably pretty close to even. In the field under battle conditions, it was a dead heat at under 500 yds.
The initial elevation of the musket in the illustration that you mention would be pretty much horizontal at least to 100-150 yds. but when shooting farther there would be a change of a few minutes elevation for every 50 yds. or so above that until at maximum range (over 500 yds.) there would be a few degrees. Most infantry fire in the Civil War would have been in the 75-300 yd. range with a few occurances at very long range. We do know that there was point blank fire (from 100 yds. down to muzzle-to-muzzle) in quite a few engagements. Shooting over 300 yds. was as a general rule done by sharpshooters armed with either rifle-muskets or sharpshooting rifles such as the Whitworths, custom target rifles or heavy barrelled bench type rifles.
From what I have read in accounts of battles, the soldiers were told to aim low, about the waist of the enemy. I found in shooting rifle-muskets that the reason for this was that all of the ones I shot tended to shoot a little high, reproduction and original. And when troops were shooting uphill or downhill, that really made for overshots. Smoothbores weren't generally used at ranges over 100 yds., though there were times that they were. Although inaccurate at longer ranges, I sure wouldn't want to be in front of a battleline even 2-300 yds away and have them volley at me!
The rifle-muskets of course had graduated sights and the soldiers learned to estimate ranges just as they do now. The Springfield (1855-1863) was sighted to 500 yds and was accurate at and beyond that range though most accounts that I've read usually mention about 300 yds as the range where they opened fire. Enfields that I've seen have been sighted to 800 yds and they can hit pretty accurately at that range. Tests at the US Ordnance Dept. just prior to the Civil War give the nod to the Enfield over the Springfield for accuracy though they were probably pretty close to even. In the field under battle conditions, it was a dead heat at under 500 yds.
The initial elevation of the musket in the illustration that you mention would be pretty much horizontal at least to 100-150 yds. but when shooting farther there would be a change of a few minutes elevation for every 50 yds. or so above that until at maximum range (over 500 yds.) there would be a few degrees. Most infantry fire in the Civil War would have been in the 75-300 yd. range with a few occurances at very long range. We do know that there was point blank fire (from 100 yds. down to muzzle-to-muzzle) in quite a few engagements. Shooting over 300 yds. was as a general rule done by sharpshooters armed with either rifle-muskets or sharpshooting rifles such as the Whitworths, custom target rifles or heavy barrelled bench type rifles.
The only reference I've seen concerning directed musket fire is from the French Npoleonic era. The French fusiliers were taught to aim at the knees @ 50 yards; aim at the waist @ 100 yards and aim at the head @ 140 yards. Obviously, this doesn't mean they expected to hit an individual enemy soldier with those aiming spots but that the total volume of fire would be at a level to assure fatal or disabling hits. The guns in question were .69 caliber M.1777 muskets, or their minor improved versions. They also used 12.5 drams of what had to be a much less potent powder than we have today, since this would be approaching 300 grains of powder!
The only other reference to instrustions is that given the soldiers at Bunker Hill. Stark actually told them, "Fire at the tops of their gaiters or the waistcoat" and not the traditionally quoted, "Don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes".
There's also Jerry Clower's story about the guy up the tree with a linx who's called out, "Shoot up here amongst us, one of us has to have some relief!" :rotf:
The only other reference to instrustions is that given the soldiers at Bunker Hill. Stark actually told them, "Fire at the tops of their gaiters or the waistcoat" and not the traditionally quoted, "Don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes".
There's also Jerry Clower's story about the guy up the tree with a linx who's called out, "Shoot up here amongst us, one of us has to have some relief!" :rotf:
ResearchPress
45 Cal.
I have seen many modern references to rifle-muskets such as the Enfields shooting high. I wonder however if this is perhaps due to a misunderstanding of how they were intended to be aimed. Modern shooters generally seem to use a "full sight", ie. place the tip of the foresight in line with the shoulders of the rearsight. Contemporary British musketry instruction refers to the "fine sight" as being the normal method of aiming, ie. place the tip of the foresight at the bottom of the 'V' of the rearsight.KanawhaRanger said:
A significant part of the courses at the Hythe School of Musketry in England included range estimation.KanawhaRanger said:
Here in the UK we have matches with Enfields out to 800 yards. The target at that distance is on a 10' wide by 6' high frame. Best I've managed is about 70% of shots on target with other shots close (butt markers pulled targets but didn't find strikes); others have done better than me. While scores are not great compared to small-bore muzzle loading match rifles, if the target is considered as an artillery crew then they'd have been having a pretty uncomfortable time!
David
Thanks again KanawhaRanger. Always a pleasure to read your posts. Very erudite on this subject.
This is sort of what I am driving at, or driving toward. This particular example ”“ as is indicated on the figure is for the Charleville-1777 Infantry Fusil. This is of course all optimized at this stage. I’m obviously not including inherent shot dispersion or the like. This is simply the effect of leveling and firing. No consideration of range. How big is my hitting space. If I level and fire I have a good chance of placing a fair number of balls into an opposing formation at anywhere between 0-meters and about 145 to 160-meter. On the other hand if I instruct my soldiers to always aim at the top of the head ”“ regardless of range I will increase the hitting space from 0-meters to about 180meters or 190meters. However, if the weapon has a tendency to shoot high than maybe I don’t want to train my fellows to do this.
I’m using JBallistics and cross checking it with McTraj. The US Army Ballistics lab developed a drag function for spheres back in the 1950’s or 1960’s. I think they were doing work with spherical shrapnel for triple-A or shrapnel for use in tank and artillery fired canister rounds. Whatever the reason, a fair bit of work is out there on drag coefficients for balls ”“ subsonic up to about Mach-4. Ballisticly speaking, it’s a pretty inefficient bullet form, as I suspect you are already aware.
I came across detailed information on a French Web site for the Charleville, in which the following was indicated:
balle ronde en plomb de 16,54 mm (poids: 27,19 g), poudre encartouchée (charge: 12,24 g)
Vitesse initiale (Vo): 420m/s
Robert McCoy ”“ ABL ”“ put together a fair amount of information on form factors for spheres before his death. A 0.651-caliber ball will have a form factor of about 0.99 to 1.0. So my assumed BC was about 0.113-lbs/in^2.
I also assumed the average soldier height would be about 70-inches, and that shoulder height ”“ or starting muzzle height would be about 50-inches above the ground.
This is all obviously idealized. But my intent is to start from the theoretical and determine how the model requires tweaking in order fine tune the actual hitting space ”“ and the beaten zone ”“ i.e. variation in muzzle velocity ”“ variation ball weight ”“ variations initial launch angle ”“ etc etc. Identify the most important sources of systematic error and human error and their relative effects on the model. And for those wondering why the hell I would bother ”“ well it’s like climbing a mountain. You do it cause’ it’s there.
This is sort of what I am driving at, or driving toward. This particular example ”“ as is indicated on the figure is for the Charleville-1777 Infantry Fusil. This is of course all optimized at this stage. I’m obviously not including inherent shot dispersion or the like. This is simply the effect of leveling and firing. No consideration of range. How big is my hitting space. If I level and fire I have a good chance of placing a fair number of balls into an opposing formation at anywhere between 0-meters and about 145 to 160-meter. On the other hand if I instruct my soldiers to always aim at the top of the head ”“ regardless of range I will increase the hitting space from 0-meters to about 180meters or 190meters. However, if the weapon has a tendency to shoot high than maybe I don’t want to train my fellows to do this.
I’m using JBallistics and cross checking it with McTraj. The US Army Ballistics lab developed a drag function for spheres back in the 1950’s or 1960’s. I think they were doing work with spherical shrapnel for triple-A or shrapnel for use in tank and artillery fired canister rounds. Whatever the reason, a fair bit of work is out there on drag coefficients for balls ”“ subsonic up to about Mach-4. Ballisticly speaking, it’s a pretty inefficient bullet form, as I suspect you are already aware.
I came across detailed information on a French Web site for the Charleville, in which the following was indicated:
balle ronde en plomb de 16,54 mm (poids: 27,19 g), poudre encartouchée (charge: 12,24 g)
Vitesse initiale (Vo): 420m/s
Robert McCoy ”“ ABL ”“ put together a fair amount of information on form factors for spheres before his death. A 0.651-caliber ball will have a form factor of about 0.99 to 1.0. So my assumed BC was about 0.113-lbs/in^2.
I also assumed the average soldier height would be about 70-inches, and that shoulder height ”“ or starting muzzle height would be about 50-inches above the ground.
This is all obviously idealized. But my intent is to start from the theoretical and determine how the model requires tweaking in order fine tune the actual hitting space ”“ and the beaten zone ”“ i.e. variation in muzzle velocity ”“ variation ball weight ”“ variations initial launch angle ”“ etc etc. Identify the most important sources of systematic error and human error and their relative effects on the model. And for those wondering why the hell I would bother ”“ well it’s like climbing a mountain. You do it cause’ it’s there.
Thank Wes. I had poked around in:
"Règlement Concernant Exercise Et Les Manoeuvres De Infanterie", Published in 1791.
Sort of the French analogy to modern day FM 7-5. But was unable to find anything more in depth on aiming or pointing than what is laid out in Hardee and Baxter. Lots on loaing drill, little on aiming. Nothing on range esitmation.
I don't suppose anyone knows where a person could obtain a copy of:
"Regulations for the Field Exercise, Manoeuvers, and Conduct of Infantry of the United States" Published in 1812.
-- like a cheap photocopy or facsimile?
Best Regards
Marty
"Règlement Concernant Exercise Et Les Manoeuvres De Infanterie", Published in 1791.
Sort of the French analogy to modern day FM 7-5. But was unable to find anything more in depth on aiming or pointing than what is laid out in Hardee and Baxter. Lots on loaing drill, little on aiming. Nothing on range esitmation.
I don't suppose anyone knows where a person could obtain a copy of:
"Regulations for the Field Exercise, Manoeuvers, and Conduct of Infantry of the United States" Published in 1812.
-- like a cheap photocopy or facsimile?
Best Regards
Marty
Henry Wilkinson details a form of "ancient" stadia sight in his work "Observations on Muskets, Rifles and Projectiles", 1852. He was doing a lot of work on rifled muskets. Anyway the stadia sight he developed sort of reminds me of a more modern day choke-sight that one might see used in a recoilless rifle gunsight or a Soviet\Russian gunners sight on a tank. Wilkinson sort of details as far back as 1852 what we might refer to today as the WORM formula -- width of target (or height of target) over mils x 1000 = range. Pretty sharp dude.
ResearchPress
45 Cal.
Similar stadia to those illustrated by Wilkinson are shown in Hans Busk's 1860 "Hand-Book for Hythe". The form with sliding bar shown as Wilkinson's 'Fig.8' is is also shown by Busk and manufactued by Holtzapffel & Co. in London. One of these is shown below.
In the US Wingate's "Manual of Rifle Practice" (I have the 1878 6th Edition) is another source illustrating stadia and coveringestimating distance.
David
In the US Wingate's "Manual of Rifle Practice" (I have the 1878 6th Edition) is another source illustrating stadia and coveringestimating distance.
David
robinghewitt
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,605
- Reaction score
- 22
David Minshall said:
Now there's a famous name, if you are in to lathes :bow:
“Picard, in La Campagne de 1800 en Allemagne”, gives the mean error of the French fusil of that time, fired from a fixed rest at 150 metres, as 75cm in height and 60cm laterally.”
I am unfamiliar with describing inherent shot dispersion in terms of “mean error”. Would this be the same as +/-1 Probable Error? The size of the 50% Zone is than 75cm high x 60cm wide. In other words if I fire 100 rounds at a range of 150m, I should expect 50 balls to strike within an ellipse that measures 75cm x 60cm?
Or; is "mean error" in reference to the 100% Zone? All 100 balls strike in an ellipse measuring 75cm high x 60cm wide?
I am unfamiliar with describing inherent shot dispersion in terms of “mean error”. Would this be the same as +/-1 Probable Error? The size of the 50% Zone is than 75cm high x 60cm wide. In other words if I fire 100 rounds at a range of 150m, I should expect 50 balls to strike within an ellipse that measures 75cm x 60cm?
Or; is "mean error" in reference to the 100% Zone? All 100 balls strike in an ellipse measuring 75cm high x 60cm wide?
there's an article on pg 14 of interest...
[url] http://southerncampaign.org/newsletter/v3n5.pdf[/url]
the author indicates muskets were "zeroed" in at 100-yards, and that the front site would be filed down as required to match aiming point to MPI. if the MPI of a smoothbore has a tendency to be high, wouldn't filing down the front site result in an even higher MPI?
[url] http://southerncampaign.org/newsletter/v3n5.pdf[/url]
the author indicates muskets were "zeroed" in at 100-yards, and that the front site would be filed down as required to match aiming point to MPI. if the MPI of a smoothbore has a tendency to be high, wouldn't filing down the front site result in an even higher MPI?
Last edited by a moderator:
Tumblernotch
69 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,370
- Reaction score
- 11
Since I'm on dial-up and this thing is excruciatingly slow, I'll reply to both David and Marty at the same time!
First David; I know what you're saying and I pretty much have to agree. I haven't shot an Enfield in a long time, but I shoot my Richmond (Springfield pattern) using a fine sight. In fact, there is a very small notch inside a notch on those sights which helps with the sighting. My Whitworth also shoots very high, even with a fine sight, but I can compensate some by elevating the pin in the globe sight. I also had to remove the windage adjustable rear blade (notch) and file a notch in the frame just above the screw hole. I could almost use the screw hole for an aperature, but it was too far forward on the barrel.
And Marty, I'm afraid that you know a lot more about calculating this stuff better than I do. I don't get to shoot at ranges long enough to experiment with even a smoothbore. I guess that back when they started using these things, it was hit and miss for a while until they got the scientists and mathematicians involved. I reckon what it boils down to is knowing what you weapon is capable of and what effect you want. Of course tactics and weapons have changed since the muzzleloading days. Back then, it was pretty much shoot at the fellers what were shooting at you and when using a smoothbore, they knew that precise aimed fire was a pipedream beyond 100 or so yards. Thence, you massed your fire and tried to smother the enemy with lead to break his formation before he reached bayonet range. If you aim too high, you still can hit supporting troops, officers, etc., but it's those boys in front that you need to hit. The rifled musket changed all of that by increasing the range which in turn increased the number of shots fired before the opposing lines closed to bayonet range.
If you fire a volley with smoothbores at a line just starting to advance from 100 yds out, you may be able to get off one more volley before they're in your face, because more than likely they will double-quick or even run the last 50 yds. With rifled muskets, you can deliver aimed fire at a range of at least 300 yds., in some cases more depending on the terrain and training of your men. They'll be marching at a measured step for at least 200 yds. You could get off as many as 4 or 5 volleys before they get close enough to rush you. Of course during their approach, they may stop and fire a few rounds of their own. If you overshoot, you will probably hit their second line if there is one with some of your overs. Here I'm talking about firing on command and the officers give enough space between commands to allow for each soldier to correctly aim his piece. If firing at will, I believe that accuracy will suffer some because each soldier is loading and firing as fast as he can, not always taking time to aim properly. The average soldier was expected to load and fire at least 3 times a minute, taking time to aim. Some were faster. With a smoothbore, using undersized balls as some did, the rate was quite a bit higher though accuracy and velocity (affecting range) would have been inferior to volley fire.
You don't read much about indirect fire or ground suppression fire with smoothbores, but I'm sure whether by accident or intent, it happened, as well with rifles. Interdictory fire was used by artillery in the Civil War several times as well as indirect fire. In fact, the first artillery forward observer was a Confederate soldier who directed fire in a small battle here in my home state. But I'm getting off the subject. As I'm typing this it struck me that what you could call interdictory fire and the use of the "beaten zone" was employed in the Civil War in static positions. Quite a few incidents were reported at Cold Harbor and Petersburg in particular about troops in certain sectors getting the range and loosing both volleys and individual shots at areas of little cover where troop movements were often expected. One favorite target area was around springs where they knew that soldiers would congregate or send water details.
I'm sorry if this epistle seems a bit disjointed and doesn't make any sense. It's late and I've been up a long time. But I hope I've made at least a little bit of sense. :yakyak:
First David; I know what you're saying and I pretty much have to agree. I haven't shot an Enfield in a long time, but I shoot my Richmond (Springfield pattern) using a fine sight. In fact, there is a very small notch inside a notch on those sights which helps with the sighting. My Whitworth also shoots very high, even with a fine sight, but I can compensate some by elevating the pin in the globe sight. I also had to remove the windage adjustable rear blade (notch) and file a notch in the frame just above the screw hole. I could almost use the screw hole for an aperature, but it was too far forward on the barrel.
And Marty, I'm afraid that you know a lot more about calculating this stuff better than I do. I don't get to shoot at ranges long enough to experiment with even a smoothbore. I guess that back when they started using these things, it was hit and miss for a while until they got the scientists and mathematicians involved. I reckon what it boils down to is knowing what you weapon is capable of and what effect you want. Of course tactics and weapons have changed since the muzzleloading days. Back then, it was pretty much shoot at the fellers what were shooting at you and when using a smoothbore, they knew that precise aimed fire was a pipedream beyond 100 or so yards. Thence, you massed your fire and tried to smother the enemy with lead to break his formation before he reached bayonet range. If you aim too high, you still can hit supporting troops, officers, etc., but it's those boys in front that you need to hit. The rifled musket changed all of that by increasing the range which in turn increased the number of shots fired before the opposing lines closed to bayonet range.
If you fire a volley with smoothbores at a line just starting to advance from 100 yds out, you may be able to get off one more volley before they're in your face, because more than likely they will double-quick or even run the last 50 yds. With rifled muskets, you can deliver aimed fire at a range of at least 300 yds., in some cases more depending on the terrain and training of your men. They'll be marching at a measured step for at least 200 yds. You could get off as many as 4 or 5 volleys before they get close enough to rush you. Of course during their approach, they may stop and fire a few rounds of their own. If you overshoot, you will probably hit their second line if there is one with some of your overs. Here I'm talking about firing on command and the officers give enough space between commands to allow for each soldier to correctly aim his piece. If firing at will, I believe that accuracy will suffer some because each soldier is loading and firing as fast as he can, not always taking time to aim properly. The average soldier was expected to load and fire at least 3 times a minute, taking time to aim. Some were faster. With a smoothbore, using undersized balls as some did, the rate was quite a bit higher though accuracy and velocity (affecting range) would have been inferior to volley fire.
You don't read much about indirect fire or ground suppression fire with smoothbores, but I'm sure whether by accident or intent, it happened, as well with rifles. Interdictory fire was used by artillery in the Civil War several times as well as indirect fire. In fact, the first artillery forward observer was a Confederate soldier who directed fire in a small battle here in my home state. But I'm getting off the subject. As I'm typing this it struck me that what you could call interdictory fire and the use of the "beaten zone" was employed in the Civil War in static positions. Quite a few incidents were reported at Cold Harbor and Petersburg in particular about troops in certain sectors getting the range and loosing both volleys and individual shots at areas of little cover where troop movements were often expected. One favorite target area was around springs where they knew that soldiers would congregate or send water details.
I'm sorry if this epistle seems a bit disjointed and doesn't make any sense. It's late and I've been up a long time. But I hope I've made at least a little bit of sense. :yakyak:
