-
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
What is a "musket"?
- Thread starter TXnorton
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
OK, if you gentlemen will allow me the honor of a brief and simplified summary:
Around the middle of the 16th century, the Spanish introduce a new military firearm. It is over five feet long, weighs over 20 pounds, has a bore of over .75 caliber, and has a fish-tail stock that is braced against the shoulder. It is too heavy to be fired off-hand, and is rested on a forked staff when firing. It is called a "musket" to distinguish it from the caliver, a smaller weapon about 5 feet long and .60-.75 caliber that usually has a curved stock intended to be braced against the cheek or chest. The new musket supplements the caliver but does not replace it.
By the middle of the 17th century, the two types have merged - the standard infantry weapon has shrunk to the size of the caliver and no longer needs a forked rest to use, but retains the shoulder stock of the earlier musket, and perhaps for that reason retains the name. "Musket" now means a smoothbore shoulder-weapon around five feet long, .69-.80 caliber, and weighing 10-14 pounds. It may have the old matchlock ignition system or it may use the newer flint-type systems. In the late 17th century the bayonet is introduced, and the stock design altered to the "French" style we know and love today, but otherwise the musket remains remarkably the same from 1650 until 1850. It is the standard by which other military weapons are measured.
Around 1850 the minie ball is invented, and the musket is rendered obsolescent. Now, since the beginning of the 18th century armies have been using rifles in supporting and specialist roles alongside muskets. Rifles are traditionally shorter than muskets, and by 1842, when the last smoothbore muskets are produced in the US, rifles have a barrel around 33" inches long, compared to the 1842 musket barrel length of 42". During the 1850s when new weapons are being produced, the short/long distiction is retained, and the longer rifles are christened "rifle-muskets" to distinguish them both from the older smoothbores and from the shorter rifles still being produced.
Apart from incorrect/colloquial use, "musket" today usually means a smoothbore military piece of fairly large (.69-.80) caliber, as distinguished from carbines, (shorter and/or smaller bored, often used by cavalry), fusils (smaller bored officer's or light infantry pieces, fowlers (civilian hunting smoothbores), and rifles (anything with a rifled bore). Beaqr in mind that terminology is and was rather fluid - in particular, a privately made smoothbore fitted for a bayonet can be labelled either "musket" or "fowler," depending on what was being used for.
"Rifle-musket" indicates a rifle with a 39-40" barrel from around the time of the American Civil War, as distinctinct from smoothbore muskets and shorter rifles.
Around the middle of the 16th century, the Spanish introduce a new military firearm. It is over five feet long, weighs over 20 pounds, has a bore of over .75 caliber, and has a fish-tail stock that is braced against the shoulder. It is too heavy to be fired off-hand, and is rested on a forked staff when firing. It is called a "musket" to distinguish it from the caliver, a smaller weapon about 5 feet long and .60-.75 caliber that usually has a curved stock intended to be braced against the cheek or chest. The new musket supplements the caliver but does not replace it.
By the middle of the 17th century, the two types have merged - the standard infantry weapon has shrunk to the size of the caliver and no longer needs a forked rest to use, but retains the shoulder stock of the earlier musket, and perhaps for that reason retains the name. "Musket" now means a smoothbore shoulder-weapon around five feet long, .69-.80 caliber, and weighing 10-14 pounds. It may have the old matchlock ignition system or it may use the newer flint-type systems. In the late 17th century the bayonet is introduced, and the stock design altered to the "French" style we know and love today, but otherwise the musket remains remarkably the same from 1650 until 1850. It is the standard by which other military weapons are measured.
Around 1850 the minie ball is invented, and the musket is rendered obsolescent. Now, since the beginning of the 18th century armies have been using rifles in supporting and specialist roles alongside muskets. Rifles are traditionally shorter than muskets, and by 1842, when the last smoothbore muskets are produced in the US, rifles have a barrel around 33" inches long, compared to the 1842 musket barrel length of 42". During the 1850s when new weapons are being produced, the short/long distiction is retained, and the longer rifles are christened "rifle-muskets" to distinguish them both from the older smoothbores and from the shorter rifles still being produced.
Apart from incorrect/colloquial use, "musket" today usually means a smoothbore military piece of fairly large (.69-.80) caliber, as distinguished from carbines, (shorter and/or smaller bored, often used by cavalry), fusils (smaller bored officer's or light infantry pieces, fowlers (civilian hunting smoothbores), and rifles (anything with a rifled bore). Beaqr in mind that terminology is and was rather fluid - in particular, a privately made smoothbore fitted for a bayonet can be labelled either "musket" or "fowler," depending on what was being used for.
"Rifle-musket" indicates a rifle with a 39-40" barrel from around the time of the American Civil War, as distinctinct from smoothbore muskets and shorter rifles.
I'm with Russ in having a hard time understanding what the confusion is here.
Rifled Musket...a gun that was a smoothbore and has been rifled. There are several official US patterns. They include the Remington Maynard conversions that were made from M1816/1821 muskets as well as several different versions of the M1842 that usually included a new patent breech and adjustable "long range sights" See Pete Schmidt, "United States Military Flintlocks", Vol. 2 for all the documentation you could possibly want.
Rifle Musket... Really a rifle in that it was made rifled. However, at one time the army had Musket Drill and Rifle/Light Infantry drill. The Rifle Musket was rifled but made for the same line infantry units that had been armed with muskets.
Rifle...The M1803, 1814, 1817 and 1841 were all made for specialized troops that were rifle armed when most had smoothbore muskets. The M1855 rifle and Rifle Musket are similar but the "Rifle" is shorter. Its the same division of use but now all of the line infantry has rifles and this is a way to distinguish between the types and their use.
In 1861 the "Rifle" is effectively discontinued and replaced with the universal "Rifle Musket". The "Rifled Muskets" (which were .69 caliber)had always been a stop-gap measure and were obsolete when the war began. But, since they continued in use to the end of the war, the term remains is use to differentiate them from the smaller bore "Rifles" and "Rifle Muskets".
However, even though the terms had very specific meanings not everyone who used them historically did so correctly. How often do we hear "bullet" for "cartridge" or "revolver" for an automatic pistol, even from people that should know better. I think that Elmer Ellsworth may have been doing this himself because I seem to remember that the New York Fire Zouaves (his unit) had M1855 "Rifles" and not "Rifle Muskets" neither of which makes any difference because the specialized parts of the Zouave drill had very little to do with what arm was carried. All he'd be referring to was a small difference in the loading drill when using the Maynard primer or a percussion cap. The length of the arm (the only difference at that point) wouldn't have made any difference. If it was a mistake they still wouldn't have reprinted the manual for such a trivial matter.
Britain continued the two sizes longer than we did, hence the two-band "Rifle" and the three-band "Rifle Musket". In many armies the term "musketry" (for long arms practice) remained long after the musket had vanished from the scene. This really shouldn't surprise us. These things are generally taught by long serving non-coms who about the most conservative and tradition oriented folks on earth.
Rifled Musket...a gun that was a smoothbore and has been rifled. There are several official US patterns. They include the Remington Maynard conversions that were made from M1816/1821 muskets as well as several different versions of the M1842 that usually included a new patent breech and adjustable "long range sights" See Pete Schmidt, "United States Military Flintlocks", Vol. 2 for all the documentation you could possibly want.
Rifle Musket... Really a rifle in that it was made rifled. However, at one time the army had Musket Drill and Rifle/Light Infantry drill. The Rifle Musket was rifled but made for the same line infantry units that had been armed with muskets.
Rifle...The M1803, 1814, 1817 and 1841 were all made for specialized troops that were rifle armed when most had smoothbore muskets. The M1855 rifle and Rifle Musket are similar but the "Rifle" is shorter. Its the same division of use but now all of the line infantry has rifles and this is a way to distinguish between the types and their use.
In 1861 the "Rifle" is effectively discontinued and replaced with the universal "Rifle Musket". The "Rifled Muskets" (which were .69 caliber)had always been a stop-gap measure and were obsolete when the war began. But, since they continued in use to the end of the war, the term remains is use to differentiate them from the smaller bore "Rifles" and "Rifle Muskets".
However, even though the terms had very specific meanings not everyone who used them historically did so correctly. How often do we hear "bullet" for "cartridge" or "revolver" for an automatic pistol, even from people that should know better. I think that Elmer Ellsworth may have been doing this himself because I seem to remember that the New York Fire Zouaves (his unit) had M1855 "Rifles" and not "Rifle Muskets" neither of which makes any difference because the specialized parts of the Zouave drill had very little to do with what arm was carried. All he'd be referring to was a small difference in the loading drill when using the Maynard primer or a percussion cap. The length of the arm (the only difference at that point) wouldn't have made any difference. If it was a mistake they still wouldn't have reprinted the manual for such a trivial matter.
Britain continued the two sizes longer than we did, hence the two-band "Rifle" and the three-band "Rifle Musket". In many armies the term "musketry" (for long arms practice) remained long after the musket had vanished from the scene. This really shouldn't surprise us. These things are generally taught by long serving non-coms who about the most conservative and tradition oriented folks on earth.
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 421
I'm going to go with my own personl 50 years of research and handling these guns. They did allow for windage by firing an undersized ball that compensated for fouling build up. A .62" ball would be about right for military use in a .66" bore and this may be what DeWitt Bailey is referring to.
The Ferguson was made in several grades and calibers and in civilian versions. 100 were made for military use. A .62 caliber military version (which has no connection to this thread that I can detect) would not fire a .615 "carbine" ball. The Ferguson chambered an oversized ball that stopped against the forward end of the chamber. The undersized ball would roll down the barrel. And hopefully fall to the ground. Otherwise it could become a bore obstruction and burst the barrel. It would not be beyond the realm of possibility for a officer to have a fusil specially made for himself in .62 caliber and it would have been lighter and shorter than a standard issue musket but it would not be a carbine.
The Ferguson was made in several grades and calibers and in civilian versions. 100 were made for military use. A .62 caliber military version (which has no connection to this thread that I can detect) would not fire a .615 "carbine" ball. The Ferguson chambered an oversized ball that stopped against the forward end of the chamber. The undersized ball would roll down the barrel. And hopefully fall to the ground. Otherwise it could become a bore obstruction and burst the barrel. It would not be beyond the realm of possibility for a officer to have a fusil specially made for himself in .62 caliber and it would have been lighter and shorter than a standard issue musket but it would not be a carbine.
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 421
The maynard tape primer was used on muskets--SMOOTHBORES--converted from flint to percussion. It was called the Nippes conversion lock and Remington built them. Frankford arsenal performed the installation work. It was also used on some of these same SMOOTHBORE muskets when they were later rifled and became RIFLED-MUSKETS. A version was used as original fitment on the Model of 1855 RIFLE-MUSKET. It was a very poor system and was never used again. Thr 1861, and 1863 1st and 2nd Model complete the RIFLE-MUSKET line in America, and the 2nd Model 1863 serves as a bridge into the cartridge world by serving as the basis of our first breechloader, the 1st Model Allin Conversion Trapdoor Springfield in .58 U.S. rimfire. I like to think that there is a certain symmetry in that.
Anyway, the confusion over this very simple and precise terminology is utterly baffling to me. The fact that someone mis-uses a term is on them, but doesn't change its meaning. In any time period, people who know what they are talking about always strive to use correct terminology. The difference between a rifleD-musket and a rifle-musket is not just the letter "D". They are completely different classes of weapons and should be thought of as such.
Either a person gets it or they don't, I guess. A Zouave training manual isn't where I would look for definitive answers on this topic--but then you've already had definitive answers and found them unacceptable. I think this is a good place for me to step aside and just accept that while the words have a very specific meaning, only a small number of us seem to care about that any more. Some ignoramus who mis-uses a term in a book or artcle has enough power to dilute and even erase the meanings of long used and understood words. What a shame!
Anyway, the confusion over this very simple and precise terminology is utterly baffling to me. The fact that someone mis-uses a term is on them, but doesn't change its meaning. In any time period, people who know what they are talking about always strive to use correct terminology. The difference between a rifleD-musket and a rifle-musket is not just the letter "D". They are completely different classes of weapons and should be thought of as such.
Either a person gets it or they don't, I guess. A Zouave training manual isn't where I would look for definitive answers on this topic--but then you've already had definitive answers and found them unacceptable. I think this is a good place for me to step aside and just accept that while the words have a very specific meaning, only a small number of us seem to care about that any more. Some ignoramus who mis-uses a term in a book or artcle has enough power to dilute and even erase the meanings of long used and understood words. What a shame!
Well Russ, I'm sorry that you think I "don't get it". I am not confused. I know what you are saying. I'm not even saying I disagree with you. I was simply looking for you to produce actual evidence to back your claim of this sharp difference in meaning between the two terms. But now you are getting personal and attacking my intelligence, so I guess what I thought was a congenial discussion is now over.
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 421
I was not specifically referring to you, so don't take it personally. I apologise if you did.
When some author or general writer abuses these terms, it is through ignorance or a simple lack of research. As for the Zouaves, most proved to be effective fighters, but they were known at least as much for their flamboyant dress as for their military skill. Then 150 years later their abuse of military terminology is still with us causing misunderstanding. THe 1863 Remington U.S. Rifle is known today as the Zouave rifle yet it seems that it never saw battle with any unit let alone a unit of Zouaves.
The terms we've been discussing have long held their specific meanings and were clearly understood by those who needed to know them. There is no great mystery about them nor any grey areas. Musket, rifle, rifled-musket, rifle-musket--each name gives me very clear mental image of the type of military firearm being spoken of. The only question left would be within each catrgory, which model is being referred to? And that question would be answered as a rule by the Arsenal and year of first production--Harper's Ferry 1842 Musket for example. Simple and easy to remember.
When some author or general writer abuses these terms, it is through ignorance or a simple lack of research. As for the Zouaves, most proved to be effective fighters, but they were known at least as much for their flamboyant dress as for their military skill. Then 150 years later their abuse of military terminology is still with us causing misunderstanding. THe 1863 Remington U.S. Rifle is known today as the Zouave rifle yet it seems that it never saw battle with any unit let alone a unit of Zouaves.
The terms we've been discussing have long held their specific meanings and were clearly understood by those who needed to know them. There is no great mystery about them nor any grey areas. Musket, rifle, rifled-musket, rifle-musket--each name gives me very clear mental image of the type of military firearm being spoken of. The only question left would be within each catrgory, which model is being referred to? And that question would be answered as a rule by the Arsenal and year of first production--Harper's Ferry 1842 Musket for example. Simple and easy to remember.
Va.Manuf.06
58 Cal.
Russ T Frizzen said:
Russ, you are, as usual, quite correct. However, the incorrect terminology has been in use, even by people who should have known better, since the time of muzzleloading military firearms and there is little we can do about it. The misuse of certain terms or their mispronunciation will always be with us, a recent on-going flap over the mispronunciation of the word "nuclear" is one example.
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 421
Perhaps we should settle upon musket as being a term for a gun that goes KAAA--BOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!!!!!! and scares the hell out of Bugs Bunny! Oh wait--I think that is actually a blunderbus which is a corruption of the old term---ah, better not go there, I'm getting a headache already! :rotf:
Right... but they are only the continued use of an archaic term. In this case to describe the military version of a common civilian arm. Its perfectly logical and no one at the time thought the Russian M95 Winchester was anything except a rifle...
hanshi
Cannon
As one who would rather spend his time splitting playing cards rather than hairs, I'll just proffer a simple definition (simple works for me, probably too well). I do not possess a good, detailed knowledge of the history and vintage of the rifle/musket subject but here goes for those of us who prefer easy talking and informal designations.
Rifle: got those spiral grooves in the bore.
Musket: robust military smoothbore shoulder fired weapon with provision for a bayonet.
Fowler: a less robust civilian smoothbore without provision for a bayonet...(but you can certainly call it a musket when you're sitting around the fire & passing the jug around; I do).
Rifle(d)-Musket: Depends on who you're talking to and how much he knows about the subject. Generally, though, referencing long arms (rifled) used during the Great War.
A little tale: While down in Saint Augustine a few years back we were moseying through the old town listening to talks and watching period dressed artisans at work. In one small building an original long gun hung on the wall behind the sole proprietor. I turned to my wife and pointed at the gun. "Hey, an original old musket"! The artisan looked up from his work and said in a surprised voiced, "why, yes, that's correct! Just about everybody who sees it calls it a rifle but you seem to know the difference. Do you own any........?"
Rifle: got those spiral grooves in the bore.
Musket: robust military smoothbore shoulder fired weapon with provision for a bayonet.
Fowler: a less robust civilian smoothbore without provision for a bayonet...(but you can certainly call it a musket when you're sitting around the fire & passing the jug around; I do).
Rifle(d)-Musket: Depends on who you're talking to and how much he knows about the subject. Generally, though, referencing long arms (rifled) used during the Great War.
A little tale: While down in Saint Augustine a few years back we were moseying through the old town listening to talks and watching period dressed artisans at work. In one small building an original long gun hung on the wall behind the sole proprietor. I turned to my wife and pointed at the gun. "Hey, an original old musket"! The artisan looked up from his work and said in a surprised voiced, "why, yes, that's correct! Just about everybody who sees it calls it a rifle but you seem to know the difference. Do you own any........?"
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 421
This has been pointed out a few times in this thread, along with the fact that it is beyond the period perameters of the forum. They were not muzzleloaders and were mis-termed muskets anyway. There were also 1866, 1873 and 1892 Winchester "muskets" made. They too were not muskets and are also outside the 1865 cutoff date/breechloader criteria.
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 421
No, not quite--but it is increasingly obvious that the simple definitions applied to these firearms are beyond the ken of a great number of people. These terms have been carefully defined several times during this thread and still have not been comprehended. These are specific firearms and are different from each other. That someone would lump rifled-muskets and rifle-muskets together as being the same thing at this point in the discussion indicates just what a waste of time the whole exercise has been.
I've got to say that I've found this to be a very informative thread. I clicked on it thinking that I already knew what a musket was and that I'd just check out whatever flame war happened to be going on. Suffice it to say I've learned quite a bit about something I thought I already knew.
It sounds to me like the definition has evolved with time and what we now call a musket is probably a little different from what people in the 19th century called a musket, which was a little different than what people in the 18th century called a musket...
It sounds to me like the definition has evolved with time and what we now call a musket is probably a little different from what people in the 19th century called a musket, which was a little different than what people in the 18th century called a musket...
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 421
Stophel said:Wow, this really ain't that confusing.
If it takes a bayonet, it's a musket. That's pretty much it (at least as far as "our" time periods are concerned).
Yup. Unless of course it's a rifled-musket or a rifle-musket. :rotf: :v But for the period most of us are interested in, Rev War and earlier, this as true a statement as ever was made! Though I imagine great confusion shall arise from these last three posts and questions shall fall upon us as does hail from on high. Lord preserve us from what is to come!!! :wink:
Russ T Frizzen
70 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,007
- Reaction score
- 421
Nah, a musket in the time periods you mention was always a smoothbore military arm that could take a bayonet. It was the main battle arm of the era. If anyone in the period called a musket anything but a musket, I can't imagine what it would have been.
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,538
- Reaction score
- 87
I don't think an M-16 would be called a " Musket", because it took a bayonet!
Musket certainly conjures up images of military forces with weapons, either smoothbore, or rifled, and usually with bayonets.
I consider it a generic term, and smoothbore, or rifle, to be more specific.
A lot of things were confused in the 19th century as technology gave us better firearms, but the old terms were still sought to be applied to the new guns. People need to remember HOW SHORT a time period passed from the invention of the percussion ignition system, to the breech loaded, cartridge guns. If we accept 1805 to 1807, depending on source, as the date of invention of the percussion ignition system by Alexander Forsythe, And the invention of the PINFIRE ignition system, the first, enclosed, cartridge that was breechloading, in 1828, patented in 1835, by LaFaucheaux, You have a very lively and viable time period of great changes in firearms technology.
I am amazed that the percussion system hung on as long as it did! Only because industry was not capable of supplying large volumes of Pinfire cartridges to governments to use was that idea passed over. The flintlock reigned for more than 200 years at that point, and still is used today.
If you ignor the pinfire guns, and go to rimfires, the first was the FLobert BB cap, 22. caliber rimfire cartridge made in 1845. The .22 short was invented and manufacturered by Smith and Wesson in 1857. Your centerfire cartridges came about in 1866, with the patenting of the Berdan Primer in March, and the Boxer Primer in October. In between the .22 short cartridge, and the patenting of the centerfire primer systems, in 1866, America fought its Civil War, which stirred the invention of all kinds of new rifles, pistols, shotguns, and even the first " Machine gun", the famous Gatling Gun. Industry caught up with mass production demands because of the Civil War contract requirements, and it had no problem supplying the new, Brass Cased fixed ammunition by 1873, when the army adopted the Springfield .45-70 cartridge as its official arm, and Colt came out with its .45 Colt Pistol cartridge, while Winchester came out with its .44-40(.44 WCF) cartridge, all in the same year.
I think every one needs to take a long breath, have a beer, or cold drink, and accept the fact that the use of language did not keep up with the changing technology during the 19th century, and that is why we have this long thread arguing about almost nothing of importance in the scheme of things.
It would be nice to get everyone to agree on the definition of terms, but its obvious after all this back and forth that there is little agreement among so-called experts in that time period.
I think we should forgive ourselves from being a bit confused on this issue, too. :hmm: :shocked2: :hatsoff:
Musket certainly conjures up images of military forces with weapons, either smoothbore, or rifled, and usually with bayonets.
I consider it a generic term, and smoothbore, or rifle, to be more specific.
A lot of things were confused in the 19th century as technology gave us better firearms, but the old terms were still sought to be applied to the new guns. People need to remember HOW SHORT a time period passed from the invention of the percussion ignition system, to the breech loaded, cartridge guns. If we accept 1805 to 1807, depending on source, as the date of invention of the percussion ignition system by Alexander Forsythe, And the invention of the PINFIRE ignition system, the first, enclosed, cartridge that was breechloading, in 1828, patented in 1835, by LaFaucheaux, You have a very lively and viable time period of great changes in firearms technology.
I am amazed that the percussion system hung on as long as it did! Only because industry was not capable of supplying large volumes of Pinfire cartridges to governments to use was that idea passed over. The flintlock reigned for more than 200 years at that point, and still is used today.
If you ignor the pinfire guns, and go to rimfires, the first was the FLobert BB cap, 22. caliber rimfire cartridge made in 1845. The .22 short was invented and manufacturered by Smith and Wesson in 1857. Your centerfire cartridges came about in 1866, with the patenting of the Berdan Primer in March, and the Boxer Primer in October. In between the .22 short cartridge, and the patenting of the centerfire primer systems, in 1866, America fought its Civil War, which stirred the invention of all kinds of new rifles, pistols, shotguns, and even the first " Machine gun", the famous Gatling Gun. Industry caught up with mass production demands because of the Civil War contract requirements, and it had no problem supplying the new, Brass Cased fixed ammunition by 1873, when the army adopted the Springfield .45-70 cartridge as its official arm, and Colt came out with its .45 Colt Pistol cartridge, while Winchester came out with its .44-40(.44 WCF) cartridge, all in the same year.
I think every one needs to take a long breath, have a beer, or cold drink, and accept the fact that the use of language did not keep up with the changing technology during the 19th century, and that is why we have this long thread arguing about almost nothing of importance in the scheme of things.
It would be nice to get everyone to agree on the definition of terms, but its obvious after all this back and forth that there is little agreement among so-called experts in that time period.
I think we should forgive ourselves from being a bit confused on this issue, too. :hmm: :shocked2: :hatsoff:
