@Stantheman86, thanks for your post, the discussions and all the info. I know very little about the details of military history, and I have an honest question I'd never thought of before reading this thread.
I've heard many times that the Minie ball was responsible for much higher casualty numbers in the CW (which is true); but I've never heard or read any serious discussion or study of how paper cartridges increased casualties in the CW and all previous wars where they were used.
An intuitive guess would be that the paper cartridge may have had as great an impact on the battlefield as the Minie ball, and at a much earlier date. Any info or thoughts you could share would be appreciated.
The latest research actually shows that the Rifled-Musket in the Civil War may very well have caused LESS casualties than if the .69 Smoothbore had continued to be used by both sides.
The book " The Rifled Musket in the Civil War : Myth and Reality " covers this and it's fascinating. Soldiers didn't generally have the training to use the rifle, firing the Minie with it's looping trajectory, to full advantage and the author states that more soldiers would have been wounded and killed by the flatter shooting .69 roundball than were by the rainbow-like trajectory of the Minie because the average distance of engagement was 110 yards.
The idea of soldiers carrying self contained powder changes goes all the way back to the Matchlock Musketeers and Arquebusiers in the middle ages. They carried little clay pots containing one powder charge and a bag of iron or lead balls. It was the first attempt at "cartridges " to speed loading.
By the mid - late 1600's, the armies of every major power were fighting primarily with flintlock muskets. Paper Cartridges were the norm by this time. Soldiers made their own or they were issued cartridges. Bore variance was great and so was ball size variance, so soldiers slip fit cartridges to see which ones fit in their individual musket and each soldier was to ensure they had a cartridge box full of regulation cartridges before a battle. Of course verified by NCOs. The paper cartridge standardized the Manual of Arms loading process, ensured soldiers had a mostly ***** proof method of loading that could be repetitively trained into muscle memory and could be done under combat stress. No army wants soldiers playing around with flasks and horns , especially conscripts or inexperienced soldiers. Cartridges were easier to use and carry. The British and French drilled the men heavily on musketry and the loading manual of arms.
The British and French used paper cartridges in their muskets and later rifles per regulation for almost 200 years. And during the American Revolution, Washington strived to standardize on the paper cartridge and a standard cartridge box. He did not want soldiers charging muskets with horns , loose ball and wadding but it was still done. I believe France sent many 1000's of cartridges along with the muskets , powder and flints .
There is a wide variation in paper cartridge types but by the Civil War, they were a standard. The US and CS both produced or purchased millions of cartridges for all of the various rifles and muskets in use. The cartridges were the ammunition for a Rifle-Musket and a weapon was considered officially useless without a cartridge box and a cap box. Soldiers were issued 10-packs of cartridges containing 12 caps to put in their cartridge boxes.
The rate of fire was certainly faster with cartridges vs "loading loose" and 3 or even 4 shots per minute are possible, possibly even 5 with something like Pritchett cartridges.
I used an Enfield Musketoon with Prichett cartridges and I shot with a guy that had a 45-70 Trapdoor. And I was able to get off 5 aimed shots in a minute to his 8. Only because I had a Musketoon but still, the gap in rate of fire was not huge, unless maybe we're talking a Battalion armed with P53 Enfields vs one armed with 45-70 Trapdoors, then those 3 shots would make a difference.
