Civil War Rifle-Musket Trajectory (and why it matters!)
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 05. 2023
- In the most exciting 39 minutes of content on CZcams, Paper Cartridges & Friends demonstrate the extreme parabolic trajectory of the Civil War rifle-musket, and explain why most Civil War soldiers never fired at targets beyond 150 yards.
Very interesting. The Norwegian kammerlader rifle comes with a interesting sight. In Norwegian, it's called "vinkel lamellsikte" it can be translated into "angular lamell sight". It has several slots above each other, you can look through. If you have your eye at the marked place on the stock, a standing human would fill the height of the slot marked with the correct distance to the man. In other words, they buildt in a distance measure into the sight. No need for guessing. Just find the correct slot, aim and shoot...
It was around this period that there were suggestions in t
British military circles to issue to adopt one of de Saxe's ideas and issue pikes to centre companies and leave shooting to marksmen who could get the best from the rifled musket.
In the event, another of de Saxe's recommendations, the breech loader, made the idea obviously redundant in 1866.
Clicked on this on a whim, and was glued to the screen for the entire video!
I see you are a person of good taste and culture.
I took some old southern yellow pine out of a 1950s era house and made some target holders. At 50 yards the 400 gr 50cal Maynard bullets that struck the pine sent 12" splinters up and down the 2x4s from the poi. It became appairent to me why there were so many amputations during the ACW. Those bullets left the muzzle from 32 grs of 3f at 910 fps.
... bruh anything ½in. Diameter going over 800fps is going to rip holes into things. U should see what a 1½oz 12ga slug or ¾oz 12ga soft lead ball does.
32 grains seems awful weak. Is that loading historical?
I shoot a .50 Hawken with 60 to 70 grains 3F and no worries.
Shoot, shoot and shoot again. Know your weapon. The best musketry lesson is repetition. It's the same for every firearm in history.
It makes you wonder, how guys like Jack Hinson during the Civil War with nothing more than a glorified Kentucky rifle, was hitting Union soldiers and officers on the decks of passing boats at 300 yards, downhill. Hinson's rifle had fairly simple rear sights, certainly nothing like what was on a musket of the time. His gun was a locally built .50 caliber rifle that weighed quite a bit, and its advantage was that it did have double set triggers. But he did a lot of killing with that gun at fairly long ranges. There were also the 66th Illinois Infantry, known as Birge's Western Sharpshooters, who were using Horace Dimick rifles, which were very similar in design to Hawken rifles. I know according to the sources at Civil War Digital Digest, the rifles were more or less off the shelf hunting rifles, they were in various calibers and the men had to mold their own lead balls or bullets. The guns lasted until 1863 but by the time they got to Atlanta, they were more or less worn out and the regiment ended up with Henry rifles. I would be curious to see how one of those rifles would do at say 300 yards with either a patched roundball or conical bullet of the time. i know one Dimick Plains rifle that came up to auction was in .50, and had a 36 inch long barrel and had double set triggers and the sights very simple front blade and rear leaf which appeared to only be adjustable for windage.
He obviously understood the trajectory of his rifle, and was skilled at estimating the distance. Soldiers could get quite good at distance estimation. The British Army even gave additional special pay to soldiers who scored high in the range estimation test. That gave a real incentive!
I know with my Navy Arms Zouave, that gun with the rear sight set at its lowest spot shoots at least a good foot high out to 100 yards with the standard Burton Minie and a powder charge of 50-55 grains of FFG. Last year I shot a whitetail doe with it, and even with aiming about 6 inches low at 60 yards and a reduced charge of 45 grains of FFG, I still hit about 4 inches higher than I wished. (I still got the deer and the shot killed her instantly), but it shows how the trajectory of these guns you have to really know where you need to hit exactly. Back in 2010 I shot a whitetail doe with a EuroArms Enfield musketoon and she was about 150 yards out, and I hit her dead on in the neck with a Burton Minie and she dropped where she stood. But I probably shot a good 50-60 rounds before the hunting season getting to know that gun very well.
RIP Snuffy, your leg will be missed. Maybe he'll hang out with Sickles in the hospital, they can trade crutches
Well done Brett. Another reason for exhorting the troops to aim low was that they sometimes did not reset their sights as the enemy advanced upon them so a low aim would let the enemy advance into the dangerous zone. Recovered weapons sometimes displayed sights still set for the initial range.
Of course they could have been knocked off the last setting before being recovered or the soldier become a casualty in the early stages of the engagement, but the trend suggests a lack of experience, training and command resulted in the sight settings not being adjusted during the course of an enemy advance upon the defended position.
It was known a lot of time guys fired HIGH out of conscience consideration.
@@kenrobba5831 This is a myth perpetuated by only one author. His assertions in his books are sorely lacking any period evidence.
This may have contributed to the issue of soldiers aiming high, however the problem pre-dates sighting devices. Oliver Cromwell told his musketeers to "Pray to God and aim for their Shoe-laces". It's because of the way soldiers hold the weapon, if they don't get their heads all the way down and look thru the sights or along the barrel properly they will tend to cant it up a bit.
Thank you, I've been studying the Civil War for years and this has helped answer a lot of questions about combat.
Great bit of practical history, doing it with an original rifle in such lovely condition with as near to accurate ammo as is practical, great stuff. Unlike the mass of soldiers you two lads have a lot of experience and training and with the sights set wrong the trajectory really shows its effect. It added a lot of context to the "aim low" orders. Good talk at the end too, really interesting.
I think the round that hit on the board with the 400-yard sigh setting can be explained by the dirty bore. We could see how Brett had to force the bullet down, proving that the bore was fouled. A fouled bore means a lower muzzle velocity, which means a lower trajectory, exactly as we saw. “The Enfield [meaning the p-53], when clean, has an initial velocity of 1,248 feet per second, but when foul only 1,157, shewing a loss due to fouling of 91 feet per second” (Russell, Alex. Illustrated Hand Book of Rifle Shooting. Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Co., 1869, p. 22). The M1855 has different numbers, of course, but the principle applies.
Between Joe shooting to confirm the 300 yard zero, and me loading, the rifle sat for about 20 minutes. The fouling definitely dried out and hardened in that time.
@@kellyharbeson18 Yes it is Interesting, a tighter fit should actually increase velocity not decrease it as you said. The reason is that it builds up pressure which is what accelerates the bullet.
It might be that the fouling is actually preventing the powder from burning properly, mixing the soot from previous cartridges into the powder when you pour the powder and ram the bullet. Though if that is the case then the fouling drying out and hardening should have alleviated the problem.
Yes, I own 2-M61 contracts. a Norfolk and a Bridesburg, both manufactured in 63, and both in good condition and shoot well. One thing that I discovered at the range is that if I shoot at 50 yds, I am hitting high over the target holding dead center. At 100yds, I am on the paper, not MOA by today's standards, but not bad either. So that tells me that the lowest sight setting on the rifled musket is actually sighted in at 100 yds (or there about). AND, I have to assume the same for the 300 and 500yd sight . So, the trajectory of the bullet at 50 yds is high when holding center on the lowest100yd sight, which makes sense, it just kind of dawned on me.
Excellent video thankyou !
Would be interesting to calculate subsonic drag coefficient of these bullets from long trajectory and muzzle velocity
Seeing how long it takes to reload one of those things I think we're pretty lucky the Civil War was fought when it was. Just 6 years after 1865 barbed wire was invented, and 16 years later Hiram Maxim from Maine invented his machine gun. Things would have been infinitely worse.
Excellent video!
I bet those guys who were hunters knew about that.
oh wow so cool to see long range shooting with old muskets
Kind Thanks for a great video. I have an 1829 N. Starr 69 cal. I restored. Original ram rod and bayonet. It was converted to cap lock by the military. It shoots well, like shooting history I say. Many Blessings and Good Shootin! DaveyJO in Pennsylvania
Now that was a very interesting video. In general I'd agree with the conclusion about ACW soldiers just not being trained well enough to properly exploit the rifle musket's capabilities. BUT...(drum roll), once you got within, say 100 yards, I think the weapons inherent accuracy did give it an advantage over the smoothbore. I mean, if ACW soldiers tended to open fire at 150 yards, that's still a big increase over the 50 yards or less Napoleonic infantry tended to save their volley for.
I’d agree with you that at 150 yards the rifle probably added a degree of accuracy above the old smoothbore.
The lack of training probably had more of an effect, especially early in the war, on the Union, since more troops came from larger towns and cities. Any rural citizens would more than likely have a lot of experience shooting and estimating distance due to the need to hunt meat on a regular basis.
Realistically speaking, without the use of Optics, modern AR-15 rifles are just doing suppression fire at 400 and 500 yards. The ammunition that is commonly used in combat will average about 3 inches at 100 yards. That means 400 yards is getting about 24 inches with Factory cartridge consistency.
I have to use match grade ammunition to get my groupings at 400 yd down to 6 inches on an AR-15.
There's no way that the Loose Powder poured down the barrel of muzzleloaders in combat conditions, would have any consistency at 400 yds. The ball would get there, but its suppression fire that will by chance make some hits.
The British used fire suppression for the first time in India in 1857, they would take a unit of a thousand riflemen with P53 Enfield muskets and have them fire at the enemy position 900 yards away. That put 50 bullets per second into the enemy position… we would need half a dozen machine guns to do that today. Definitely suppressed!
@@papercartridges6705 volley fire as came to be known , the reason for the 1200 yard sights on many old war rifles .
A 45-70 500 gr bullet is not be taken lightly even at 3000 yards , per Army tests done back in the day.
A spring field made in 1812 was converted to percussion caps in 1842
As a tradional archer(180fps) i can attest to the importance of range estimation.
With modern, high velocity rifle cartridges, marksmen have been spoiled. A hunter can take a shot at a game animal, think its 150 yards away when its actualy 225yards away. With a cartrige like 7mm rem mag, he would still be well with in the vitals of a deer.
As a trad archer, if i though a deer was 20 yards away, and really it was 26 yards, i might miss altogether.
Civil war riflemen also didnt have lazer range finders like we do today.
When shooting my 1863 Remington Zouave, I found that when shooting with the 200 yard sights, the midrange trajectory was about 3 feet.
Heck of a shot though ✅️👍👍
He's young, it'll grow back
One point in favour of the smooth bore is that if it is in the hands of relatively untrained troops, where they cannot take full advantage of the rifles greater accuracy at longer ranges, it is easier & faster to reload than the rifle with the result that a greater number of shots can be fired. If you are dependent on an element of luck to obtain a hit then this can increase the chances of success. Also, if you are foraging ahead of supply wagons etc. then the musket can be loaded with shot rather than ball - so a better chance of shooting small game for dinner. If however you have well trained shots who know both their’ weapons capabilities & understand the principles of marksmanship, then the rifle is definitely the better choice for them.
It isn't faster to reload. The only difference is priming from the cartridge vs priming with a cap. If you rush while priming from the cartridge you will waste powder so you need to slow it down, if anything this makes it a bit faster to reload with caps. The caps are also much more reliable so you will get a much higher rate of fire once factoring out misfires.
There is also a major difference in accuracy of percussion cap to flintlock. Flintlocks have a significant delay between pan flash and musket discharging not to mention a lot more smoke and flame in the shooter's face, this would cause people to flinch and pull their shots a lot more and could even scare the game (deer have insane reaction speeds). In high end hunting rifles of the 18th century wheel-locks actually continued to be used because they weren't as bad in this regard as flint-locks.
@@chuckyxii10 Fair enough, although I was under the impression that it was harder to ram the ball in the filled barrel & so took slightly longer than with the smooth bore musket. Also, in extremis when the enemy are very close, that a musket could be loaded & fired without the patch by tapping the butt of the musket on the ground to seat the ball, the shot wouldn’t be particularly accurate or powerful, but if the enemy are only yards away & closing with bayonets then it would still be a very useful feature which the rifle can’t manage.
@jonathanhicks140 before the minie ball this was true. And rifling wasn't used much as a result. The minimum ball had an expanding base allowing it to be made undersized just like smooth bore balls.
Very interesting video, but it must had been a nightmare to get those kind of results when the other side its firing at you to
That was a very insightful demonstration, gentlemen. As a question, I know you mentioned that they took the time to set the sights on the when building the rifles, would there have been a lacks approach during the war when they would be trying to make as many rifles as possible. Just a thought as I have my great great grandfather's windors lock contract rifle and wondering if there would have been any corner cutting.
Dale, I'm not trying to be prissy about spelling, but it's not "lacks," but "lax."
An angular measurement remains an angular measurement even in war. Once the sample rifles had been tested the the sights could be set with a simple jig at the factory and they would be very close.
One problem about shooting at distance with iron sights is the elevation of the barrel concealing the target ..... I used to spend a lot of time showing folk the right bit of sky to aim for in order to drop the bullet onto the target ....... a bit like creating a "beaten zone" with indirect machine-gun fire.
The US Army conducted the Sandy Hook trials in 1879 using stock 45-70 as well as an extended chamber version for a longer cartridge ..... reading the results of that, where the sand-splashed of shot falling short was easily seen and corrected for, it showed even avarage shots could be trained to hit the, albeit very large, targets ..... but then a body of advancing infantry is large too.
FYI Shooting Pedersoli 3 band enfield, with Lynam 575611 mold 530grain ,70 grains 2F swiss needed to set sights to 200 to hit 300 target
30:20 with or without buck and ball?
Would it be possible to work with a supplier of tracer ammunition (I know the legality is a mess) to provide a easy visual example of your thesis?
Nice shooting. Was your 1855 harpers ferry rifle built by Gerhardt Vikar?
I do have a few questions regarding American musketry in the 19th century:
1. Was there at any point a serious attempt to promote musketry training IN the American military system prior to the turn of the Century and Prior to WWI?
2. Was there any manuals regarding drill, uniform regulations, and/or musketry practice suggestions at any point post 1876 and the disaster at Little Big Horn (also where might one find those manuals as I am currently struggling with the mind numbing stupidity of google searches that yield 1930s and 1950s manuals on the subject instead of the intended search subject)?
3. Given how much the American army tended to copy from European armies, why wasn’t there a push to start a musketry or marksmanship school and training program during the 19th century?
1. Sort of. There was a manual, but keep in mind, the US Army was usually scattered to remote outposts, and it was tiny. Even if the 20,000 man peacetime army could all be trained, it’s not much good when war starts and you call up a million volunteers and draftees, in WWI.
2. Yes but again, they existed mostly in name only. The US Army first opened a school of musketry… in California… in 1909.
3. Again, they did, but it was mostly all on paper, and not practical to train an army dispersed across an entire continent, mostly fighting indigenous tribes.
I think the combo of a rear sight and the Burton turned the standard arm with a slightly trained soldier into a 200 yard firearm compared to a 100 yard smooth bore gun. Its not only the distance advantage but the number of times a side would have to reload in the effective range of the weapon as an enemy advanced. I don't recall if Hess took this into account. Also I think by 1864 the rifle musket was being used to greater advantage as most users where veterans and static defenses would probably give the rifle musket an advantage. It would be interesting if someone timed the number of reloads that can be done with someone advancing at them a a quick pace in 100 yards and 200 yards...
Just an aside, in my readings, often there was a number of shooters in the line (this is defenders behind covered positions,), but there was also a large number of soldiers who strictly did reloads and kept passing loaded rifles to the shooters. As to how many reloads could be done to defend against advancing infantry, take Gettysburg as an example; advancing CSA infantry had a half a mile to advance against the Federal troops, under artillery fire and stopping to take down fences. Plenty of time for Union troops to reload many times.
@@nomadpi1 at Gettysburg the Union troops didn't actually open fire with their rifles till the confederates advanced to a little over a hundred yds though.
Nice shooting gents
can anyone tell me for how much, model 1855 rifles go ?
Can we get an update on Pvt. Snuffy ? I hope he’s well ! Lol
He’s got a few more bandages now but still holding up.
Brett, do you have (or reference to) any good diagrams of what the sight picture should look like on the Springfields and Enfields?
For both rifles, the British and American manuals called for taking a “half sight” picture. This is unusual for us today, used to the Mauser style where we line the top of the front sight up with the top of the back sight.
Most Americans in the civil war had there own guns & hunted regularly where as European armies never held a gun befor joining the army .
their
I don’t think most Americans were hunting at 300+ yards. After the war, General Benet, the US chief of ordnance, did research and concluded up to 25% of Union soldiers never even got to fire their weapon until they were in combat.
During the revolutionary war era this was somewhat true, not so much the hunting but most men (well the Protestant white ones with property anyway) were required to own muskets and participate in drills. This was due to the fact that at the time much of the colonies were the frontier and vulnerable to Indian attack. Even then most people didn't do much hunting in the farmlands since game was scarce by that point.
However by the ACW there was little in the way of militia service and requirement to own weapons. Most of the US was secure from attack, and especially the more urban Yankees didn't have much of a gun culture by this time. It was a bit different in the South where the militia was still active due to the risk of slave revolts, not so much hunting though.
Untrue. Rifle clubs were widespread in Europe during this period amongst the middle class, and amongst the rural poor poaching and hunting was still quite common. Gun violence was surprisingly common in 19th century Europe.
02:42: I assume that the allegation of "Untrained" and "undisciplined" was largely in regard to musketry. I have read many accounts of soldiers being trained in battlefield drill, and other, not to speak of the discipline displayed later in the war by battle-field trained veterans. Perhaps this report came from observations early in the war? 04:52: That boy can shoot. 😐
Maybe a dumb question, but the rear sights look like the Enfield type. Were they used on Springfields as well. I know that Springfields used the leaf sights.
The Model 1855 rifle had sights similar to the Enfield (actually the 1855 sights were far superior, in my opinion). Making these sights was expensive and took a lot of skilled labor. To meet enormous demand for rifles, the sights were simplified on the 1861 Springfield to the leaf sights.
I have watched your other video about the reproduction rifled muskets.
I learned ALOT from that video. I learned about progressive rifling. I'd heard of it but didn't grasp it till your video- thank you! I also learned how the modern manufacturers straight rifle the reproductions.
I have a brand new Pedersoli 1861 Springfield that has never been shot. If I understand your video correctly, the grooves in the barrel are way too shallow, and the straight rifling essentially makes this a patched round ball shooter at best.
I could have a new barrel put on, or have it refined, but before I go there, did I understand you correctly?
To make them ram better try cleaning the barrel or try and make a Williams cleaner round otherwise you're going to have loading problems.
And a Williams cleaner round is a solid base bullet with a little pin on the bottom where you put zinc washer's and then search the internet for the proper mini ball for the 1860s
You may have covered it in the video and I missed it, but what are the gradations on the sight of the 1855 rifle you used? Sounds like it might be 100, 200, 300 and 400 yards, but this is just a guess. Also, was it common to measure and mark the ranges beforehand in defensive battles behind breastworks like Fredericksburg and Franklin?
The Model 1855 rifle sights are graduated every 100 yard increment on up to 1000 (I believe). I’ve never personally encountered any historic record of using range markers in CW but that doesn’t mean it never happened.
It's also hard to see targets that far away. At 200 & 300 yards. I go to the state game lands there all the time.
Oh that's just a flesh wound . No bone hit. Pvt. Snuffy will walk again.
I like October country .58 mini balls I have pinged 4 foot steel targets out to 175 yards with my pedersoli Zouave and a Zouave sniper front sight and using Dixie zip patch grease in the throng with 60 grains of RS pyrodex.
During ACW fire fights just how much powder actually got poured down the barrel when loading when the private soldier is shaking like a leaf. And given the energy provided by the percusdion cap is it possible to fire the cartridge if the entire paper cartridge is rammed down the barrel.
I’m sure they spilled lots of powder. The percussion cap alone won’t blow a bullet out of the barrel.
@@papercartridges6705
What I meant is the percussion cap energetic enough to burn through the paper and ignite the powder charge in the cartridge. I do have a moderate amount of firearms experience but no black powder.
Maynard rifles! The original belt fed!
I have a muskit from the civil war
Could you do a range test of distances such as 160, 180, 220 etc? Would be interesting to see where the round would print given the set distances in the sight
Not without finding private property. Ranges I shoot at limit me to 50, 100, 200 and 300.
But what if an entire company of Private Snuffies get the order to shoot at an enemy formation with the correct range estimate? Even if the range is -ish, out of 100+ enough should hit?
Shouldn't they?
Joe shot a 300 yard group better than I've seen modern us soldiers shoot their M4A1
Shooting subsonic bullets presents the same issues which is why they are rarely used past 150 yards despite their theoretical effectiveness beyond that. "Belt buckle hold" like an AK😂
I have a gun very similar to the gun in this video, but mine has no rear sight and it has the little door on its lock. I don't believe its rifled and I think it was made in Philadelphia. anybody know what it may be? my gun doesn't look as nice as the one here and I'm missing the loading rod. there's nothing shiny on it anymore. although its mechanically functional at least.
Sync issues? Sound seems to be 50 seconds behind the video.
Very interesting all the same. 👍
I have no idea. It’s all nice and synched when I watch it. I may have to take it down and figure it out. CZcams can be so frustrating.
@@papercartridges6705 must have been my device, maybe something to do with being a very early view while it was still processing into HD maybe🤷♂️ All seems fine this morning.
What was the funding of the US military before the civil war?
Next to nothing. It was less than the small German state of Mecklenburg.
Didn't hit Snuffy with the tracer one but Snuffy's pal standing next to him or behind Snuffy's pal in the formation would be chewing lead with that shot right in the head.
Hope you got Pvt. Snuffy to sign a waiver!
Millions of shots were fired at Gettysburg. The number of killed and wounded considering that was pretty low. So what was the reason? Poor training? Bad sights? Rattled soldiers? Poor shots. Officers would say aim at their legs. Because the tendency was to shoot high. My GGGrandfather fought at the RR cut on day one and Culps Hill on day three. The trees in photos of Culps Hill were riddled with bullets high off the ground. The CSA was shooting up at Union positions ,so maybe that is why.
When the soldiers got there bullets they came in packs of 10 with at least 2 Williams cleaner rounds in the packet
People living in rural area's where hunting was normal did not know about ballistics? I find it hard to believe.
I knew about ballistics when I was 10 and it wasn't exactly a course in school.
You don’t need to “know ballistics” to shoot a deer with a Kentucky rifle at 50 yards. But you absolutely do need an understanding of the bullet trajectory, and skill at distance estimation, to hit a soldier at 500 yards.
Of course, you could do that when you were 10. The rest of us mere mortals would require some degree of instruction first.
Most hunting at the time was using smoothbores at close range, often with shot or buck and ball.
Owning a rifled firearm in 1860 would be like owning a PRS or F-Class gun now. Not rare, but the average person wouldn’t have spent the money even if they could afford it.
The US didn’t really grow its tradition of marksmanship until after the Civil War.
Almost gagged out the sound of the buttplate on the contrete, and the abuse of the ramrod.
So it wasnt the rifle!………..it was poor range estimation!
Guys! Buy a gun microphone for the external scenes! Pls!
Ehhhh..... Private Snuffy might have been Okay. The hit was up and to the outside of his knee. Probably just hit the bag in his trousers. War time rations and all that marching wouldn't have left much inside those pant legs. Mechanized Transportation was still some time in the future....
A graze shot, maybe.... Suck it up, Private Snuffy.... it's only a minor flesh wound !!
I know! Just a tiny scratch. But you should have heard him whine and complain.
I am amazed that a bullet or even a ball would ricochet off any type of ground other than concrete I would imagine that grass, corn or weed stalks would render the possibility even more remote. Are there any statistics for this type of shot?@@papercartridges6705
*PromoSM* 💘
??? Wasn't the officer present, or at least the senior NCO, both of whom should have been:
a) Trained.
b) Experienced.
And c) Less busy with the palaver of shooting(!)
- calling out (approximate) range to (massed!) rank of opponent?! 😕
Oh. And, in a video talking about the importance of accurate [measurement] estimation the 'host'/presenter repeatedly called spread/distances wrong by factors of 30 to 100%; e.g. held his hands 3ft apart & called it 2ft. 😀
In general, no. Except for a few hundred West Pointers, the officers were as new to war as the most junior private. Ditto for the NCO. Nobody taught them distance estimation. So they didn’t teach any of their subordinates distance estimation. I have never encountered a single instance in the Civil War of an officer or NCO telling their soldiers to set their sights for any range beyond 200 yards.
@@papercartridges6705
I doubt most noncoms in the antebellum US Army had much experience shooting rifles while on active service. Given the historic penny pinching of the US Congress at the time money budgeted for practice was likely very low. However if the money was for major construction projects in their districts. Various forts and batteries come to mind. Pulaski, Sumter (1) etc. That hasn't changed much has it. Another factor. The Army was split up into various branches. Infantry, artillery, cavalry (2) engineers etc. Another factor in US military spending in the antebellum period was the US Navy. Competition for limited funding.
1) l always get that Calvary mixed up. 🙄
2) How much of the money spent on forts such as Pulaski and Sumter in the South actually wound up in the hands of owners of slaves that likely did a lot of the labour.
The whole of the paper cartridge needs to go down the bore before the ball to act as a wad, why is he throwing it away?
You’re thinking of smoothbore muskets, where the paper acts as a wad and prevents the bullet from rolling back out of the barrel. Rifle muskets use an expanding ball (the Minié) and did not use any paper wadding.
At 300 you bench shot, then with the sights reset, you shoot off hand! Not an accurate comparison!
Soldiers usually shot offhand during the war. We wanted to keep the test as close to historic conditions as possible.
I agree regarding the off hand, but bench shooting at 300 and complimenting the shots, then shooting off hand with sights changed does not accurately determine how well the musket shot. Had you benched it, you may have hit the knees repeatedly. On your funky shot, the loading sequence shows 6-8 inches of ram rod exposed as you ceased tapping the minie. I have don’t believe the minie was seated on the powder.
We mostly shoot for fun. I would in all sincerity (not sarcastically) love to see you do a video where it’s all done from the bench, that would be useful data to compare.
Try with patch,,,paper is pravdid!!!😮
Wooosh! went the objective of the video over your head, just as the 400 yard sighted bullets did over Private Snuffy's.
To my experience that extends to the dreaded “BLACK RIFLES” of present ! LOL !!!
Yankees couldn't hit a elephant at 20 yards get some southern boy's to show you how it's done.
The British had the musket 50 years before the US ...
Meanwhile you lot were still throwing rocks at each other 😅
🗡️🇬🇧🗡️