We once live fired 32 muskets in two ranks, 16 kneeling, 16 stood. there was a mixture of approx 24 matchlock 8 flint. ranges varied from 125 yda down to 50 yds. The flintlocks had a higher % of misfire but slightly better hit rate. We fired at a target approx the same dimensions as those firing i.e. 16 men across and depictred a back rank, each target figure held the depiction of a musket. What we did notice was most of the hits on the target were towards the middle of the target i.e.middle ten figures. It became obvious we all aimed towards the centre of the target in order not by shooting pass the target. One interesting thing we did not realise would happen was 1 in 8 shots that landed on the target hit a depicted musket.
12:18 I do feel the guy completely. I had almost a 25 year experience of shooting modern military firearms, including heavy machineguns, when I first shot an XVIII century musket. Literally everything was different: the way you load the gun, they way you hold it, they way you aim, the way you pull the trigger -- like EVERYTHING. The hardest part was a complete absence of a rear sight. To tell you guys the truth, it didn't help at all. Like driving a car without the steering weel...
Loading, ball diameter, and powder quality makes a difference. Loaded properly, a smooth bore is surprisingly accurate to 100 yards.Right ball for the barrels bore, not just close enough to fit every barrel on the field. Good fit in YOUR barrel.
They didn't practice with a helping sandbag either as most 'volley' scenarios were in a line therefore they were standing up without any other aid which will also add to accuracy/inaccuracy of the rounds.
I cannot believe that he did the firing test from a sitting position, when the standard for a soldier of that time was a standing position. Also they didn't say what he loaded: is the musket loaded according to a historic field manual? Paper cartridge and roundball? or patch and roundball?
"the standard for a soldier of that time was a standing position." Not really, shooting from a more crouched positin was a thing too in those times without mentioning that there was also armies with squad specialize in sooting in prone position too.
In order to adequately approach this subject, one would have to test actual muskets of the era in question , or at least reproductions of those muskets manufactured in the same methods as the original muskets. Modern reproductions , while bearing a strong resemblance to the muskets they seek to replicate, use modern steels and modern barrel making technology. Original barrels were hand made by blacksmiths with a hammer, mandrel, and forge, then welded shut. The exact powder recipe would also be necessary. Our modern powders are made to a much higher consistency and quality standards. I have a modern reproduction of a Brown Bess musket that consistently clover leafs its shots at 25 yards.I have been shooting this musket religiously, target shooting, casual plinking , and hunting since 1994. The musket has no sights. It has a bayonet lug out front I use as an aim point. I borrowed some ideas from shotgunning and archery to increase my accuracy. With shotgunning, there is no rear sight, the shooters EYE becomes the rear sight, as it were. From archery, I took the idea of an "anchour point". I made a mark on the stock of the musket where the corner of my mouth touched the stock. There, I drilled a fine pilot hole then glued in a solid brass tack.Now, when I bring the musket up to my shoulder, I make sure the brass tack touches the corner of my mouth, so my eye is more or less in the same place each shot, and use the bayonet lug as a front "sight". I fire a patched round ball of .735 diameter, not the .69 calibre originally used.With this method I have been able to keep my shots inside the diameter of a paper plate at 75 yards.
11:32 If you want to write correctly with the long-s " ſ ", the word class is written "claſs". Basically, short-s "s" is used ALWAYS at the end of a word.
Would really like to have seen what the marine marksman load was. Did he use a paper cartridge, or did he use a tightly patched ball? I was disappointed that he didn't elevate his musket for the long shots. He said he was shooting at center mass and with a really fast-traveling 5.56 or 7.65 modern round it wouldn't necessarily drop a lot. But when you are firing a .69 caliber round ball at 200 or even 100 yards, the drop is measured in feet, not in inches. He should have placed his POI (Point Of Aim) at the head instead of center mass. British soldiers of the 1700's knew to do so. My guess would be that he used a paper cartridge with the historically correct .69 round ball as his accuracy was all over the place. With a tightly patched ball to fit a .75 caliber barrel, his accuracy at 50 and 75 yards would have been far superior to the battlefield loads. Enjoyed the reenactors firing, and running, and firing and running as they went from 200 to 100 to 75 and finally to 50 yards. It would actually be very unusual to have them run like that if they were line troops. Line troops advanced as a line and it usually wasn't that fast unless they had fixed bayonets and were doing a bayonet charge. I think this part of the video though did show why they fired as a line. Even if your accuracy is poor, you are putting enough lead in the air that you can score hits on troops that a single musket would probably never hit. This was FUN!
@Davis Tierney Pretty much everybody tried to run away from a bayonet charge if they couldn't reload and fire before they got there. When they were able to load and fire because the bayonet charge came to soon, it decimated the bayonet charge. Riflemen virtually never stood in a line and they disappeared quickly before the opposing Brits got within effective range of 50-yards or so shooting those .69 cal lead balls from their .75 cal Land Pattern muskets (Brown Bess). Early in the war the militia troops developed a reputation for running away from attacking British troops. British troops on the other hand were known for continuing their advance while their comrades were being killed next to them. When you hear about British discipline, this is what they are talking about and why the British troops were regarded as the "best in the world". If you can advance on your enemy through fire and still have and effective fighting force when you get there, the enemy will clear the field and you will technically have one because you hold the field. Continental soldiers did not have that measure of discipline until after the Winter of 1777-1778 when Baron Von Steuben formulated and taught a drill at arms that was quicker and more effective than the British Drill Manual of 1764. Afterwards, Continental Line troops then developed a reputation for being a tough opponents that did not flee the field under fire. In the battle of Cowpens in 1781 prior to the battle of Guilford Courthouse, Nathaniel Green had split his army sending Daniel Morgan with half of the Continental force under General Daniel Morgan southwest of the Catawba River to cut supply lines and hamper British operations in the backcountry. Cornwallis then split his army sending the hated Lt. Banister Tarleton with about 1,150 troops after him. Daniel Morgan set up in three lines of battle. The first line was the sharpshooters that Daniel Morgan's Rifle company was well known for. The picked of about 15 of Tarleton's advancing Dragons shooting especially at the officers in the Scarlet Red uniforms (as opposed to the darker red troops uniforms). With the Dragoons in retreat, the sharpshooters returned to the second line, which was about 150-yards behind them. Here's the kicker. The second line was made up primarily of militia and everyone knew how militia always ran when attacked by Brits. Daniel Morgan had instructed them to fire two volleys and then retreat to the third line. Then came the brunt of the British attack and most of the US militia fired two shots and ran. Many of the riflemen that had also been in the first line withdrew to the trees on either side of main battle line and continued to snipe at the Brits. Of course the Brits were emboldened by the militia that was running away and charged. As they chased after them, they ran right into the 3rd line of battle-hardened Continental line solders and right into a double envelopment. Being fired upon from all sides the British troops started surrendering in large groups while Tarleton and a few of his cavalry officers fled the battlefield on horseback. Virtually all the Brits but the few fleeing officers on horseback were killed or captured because Daniel Morgan played upon the reputation of the militia running from battle. Daniel Morgan took his men and his captives north into Virginia to drop them off and rejoin General Nathaniel Greene. General Morgan ended up staying in Virginia while recovering from his chronic illness, while his men went to join General Greene at the Dan River. Also bear in mind that "taking the field" doesn't necessarily mean you won the battle, although that is precisely how the Brits regarded it. At the battle of Guilford Courthouse in 1781, after the Battle of Cowpens, the Continentals were a force about 4,000 men strong with an equal combination of militia and hardened and experienced line troops. Using a similar strategy as General Morgan had at Cowpens, the Continental army was able to inflict massive casualties to the Cornwallis' British army. Near the end of the day, the Continentals had to leave the field, but their army was still virtually intact. By comparison, the British had burned their supply train to try to catch General Greene there so they had no supplies, and they suffered massive casualties including most of their officers. As a result, General Cornwallis no longer had an effective army and he marched for the Virginia coast to reinforce and re-supply. He never took the battlefield in North Carolina or Virginia again until he the siege at Yorktown. His last post was Yorktown, where he was badly defeated by the US and French. He surrendered his remaining 8,000 men, which were all that were left from the British Southern Army. From then until the peace treaty in 1783 the British primarily stayed put in the big cities as they were no longer a viable force in the South.
true, considering my patterns standing at 25 yards with my howdah 62 cal smoothbore using round ball, im fairly certain i could out shoot this man at those ranges as well
It'd be interesting to repeat these tests with longbows, crossbows, spears, etc. Then try with U.S. Civil War muskets, WWI and WWII rifles, and modern sniper's weapons.
We once did something similar to this, we had 20 musketeers and 20 x 100 lb longbow archers. We went through the training the aimed at the butts. By the time the archers were fully trained and up to strenght tu pull a 100 lb bow we recloned that the musketeers would have fired a million shots and got bored and gone home.
@@desthomas8747 wow, you actually did that. I learnt that sitting on my arse in a lecture and got told by my professor that Archery was a skill taught by a Welsh dad to his son from hunting in the woods, it effectively took a lifetime of skill. The whole idea of musket drill was that you could get any spazmo, even an American, dress them up in a uniform, so they don't get lost, put a firestick in his hand, beat a drum and make him do the steps like a stupid lead-sponge slightly quicker than the other lead sponges opposite you. So that's the whole idea of a musket, you don't have to spend your entire childhood in some dank Welsh forest shooting deer to learn how to draw a bow of yew properly.
I'll add a comment from the peanut gallery. The marine in the video was clearly inexperienced shooting a flintlock. His flinch was visible and completely normal (no disrespect, I'm sure he's a great marksman). That goes away with training. Tons of evidence - personal experience included - that demonstrates significantly better accuracy even in a military smoothbore with an undersized ball. The second test was much better. Really good, in fact, because it shows what happens when you introduce multiple variables. Matthew Spring's book is a great resource for showing why casualties rates weren't so much worse - i.e. move away from linear, close order formations, etc. The second test was really cool.
Two things people don't seem to grasp while watching this video: 1) Why fire from a bench? 2) How does a Marine rifleman make a difference? They were looking at the accuracy inherent to the Land-pattern musket, not the formations themselves. In order to have repeatable, quantifiable results, you have to have a constant test as free from human error as possible. When you fire from a bench you get a steadier hold every time and you get a better idea of the accuracy of the musket's barrel with specific loads. Secondly, the fundamentals of shooting are universal and something the Marine Corps drills into you constantly, especially in the infantry where a rifleman operates. Further, all the people complaining about the formations should read "With Zeal and with Bayonet Only" the author of which was interviewed in this video. The British in North America weren't standing in tight, close order like you'd see in "The Patriot." There's a lot of new research out there, including this video, and you'd do well to be open to it instead of clinging to these tired myths that all of you "experts" seem to like. Do more than the bare minimum of research and assume that these things that are common knowledge are really valid.
"When you fire from a bench you get a steadier hold every time and you get a better idea of the accuracy of the musket's barrel with specific loads. " Only when it's held correctly.
"Only when it's held correctly" Well yes, but that is the case with any firearm in any position. The point here is that shooting from a rest provides a steadier position that is far more free from human error and influence on the firearm. If you want a true test of the weapons mechanical accuracy, you're even better off putting it in a led sled with a mechanical device to pull the trigger and have it fire at a large target and measure the grouping.
I agree on your second point... I grew up near a Marine Corp base, and when I'd go to the local gun range, it was always swamped with marines, and in my experience, to outshoot a marine is not really that difficult.
You used an "expert" who fired sitting down with a gunrest...... thus making the tests pointless. Also a musket shooter knows to allow for fall of shot and windage, adjusting both for distance. By his own words he aimed at centre mass..... which isnt what a musket shooter would do. Finally, as he was resting the gun on a gunrest he wasnt holding the forestock so the gun kicked about, thus making it less accurate. He may be a USMC marksman, but he has sod all idea how to use a musket. One more point....I dont see the point of deciding to fire at a single man target. Troops fired in formations. By that mark any of the hits on the other boards downrange score as a hit.
+sanmanhh67 1) Were Redcoats trained to aim properly 2) Aside from the bayonet did a regular carry a knife 3) What weapons do flag holders and cannon crew carry
1) Yes. British troops were highly trained, highly drilled, and usually had a lot of experience under their belts as it was a professional standing army. 2) All troops of that age carried a pocket knife (bear in mind those were not titchy pen knives...think small bowie rather than Swiss Army Knife). It was part of a soldiers non issue kit. They did not wear them as part of the uniform, but it would have been kept handy in a pocket or their pack. Soldiers carried a range of small tools and blades used to maintain their kit and as utensils. Working class men that fed the army recruitment drives all would carry knives from early ages as utensils and tools. Was there a standard issue knife tho.... no. 3) Cannon crew were armed with muskets and bayonets the same as normal troops, which were stacked in "tripods" behind the cannon ammo pile. Officers were armed with pistol and sword. Also bear in mind that a cannon crew would have tools such as hammers, shovels and axes to hand. Read actual accounts written by contemporary sources and you will see that skirmishes around cannon lines were bloody affairs not a case of cavalry having the run of things easily. Flag bearers were mostly unarmed in that they often did not carry a musket and bayonet. If lucky they had a basic "1796 type" infantry sword and a pistol. NCOs usually carried a short musket and a spontoon (that pike like thing) which was used to direct troops and "dress the line". Some regiments issued the NCO with a 1796 or 1803 type infantry sword as well. Same goes for the poor sodding drummer and fife lads. Bear in mind that the above was the norm, but even though the Board of Ordinance set standard and levels of kit, that some regiments were privately raised or privately equipped and so variations in standard issue kit were commonplace. Ive seen regimental variants in the so called standard issue 1803 infantry officers swords that a specific regiment issued to all officers and NCOs as well as some units of troops. One regiment that operated in the West Indies were known to use much shorter versions of the 1803 sword as they spent a lot of time aboard ship where short blades were normal. Full standardization of kit and issue only really took effect fully and strictly post Waterloo in the Victorian era. Prior to that the Board of Ordinance regulations were seen more as guidelines. The Duke of Wellington, when he became involved in politics post Waterloo, was one of the main drivers for full standardization of issue and kit, having suffered issues during the Napoleonic wars as a result if issue variations. Examples of issue variations sit on my wall....I have examples of shortened "NCO" and even shorter "cavalry carbine" Brown Bess variants, and several variants of the 1796 and 1803 type infantry and cavalry blades.
+sandmanhh67 Thanks very much man I have been asking this question but nobody seems to be this informed about the question. Since the flag carrier and drummer didnt carry a musket or bayonet did they carry that small bowie knife u mentioned
Standard bearers were issued with an infantry sword, and if they had money to buy one or an officer took pity on them they would have had one or two pistols of the 1796 light or heavy cavalry type as well. Defend the flag while still holding it aloft sort of stuff, so weapons you can use one handed. The swords varied from the 1796 spadroon type, through the slimmed down infantry versions of the 1796 light cavalry sword, to eventually in 1803 the standard issue sabre like infantry fighting sword (commonly called a flank officers sword...its a deceptive name as other ranks were issued with them - sergeants, standard bearers, etc). Musicians were usually young lads, so sod all use in a scrap anyway. The Brit army of the Napoleonic era thought it bad form to deliberately kill a drummer as they were usually young lads and unarmed. The type of knife carried by workmen and laborers, so the type of knife commonly carried by troops, would be like an Opinel (its a type of very basic modern French wood handled folding knife) or a modern wooden or horn handled traditional hunting knife/small bowie type blade. That or a dagger that looked like an old plug bayonet. Very basic and utilitarian, unless they had robbed it from somewhere on campaign. Dont forget for a soldier that their knife, a wooden bowl and a spoon would have been their 'mess kit'. Just a basic workmans all purpose knife they brought with them when they joined up, or picked up along the way, or in some French examples I have seen a blade made from the broken end of a sword. Like I said, the standard issue was basically just the uniform, boots, pack, ammo, blanket and musket/bayonet (and parts such as flints, cleaning tools, etc). Its not till much later (early Victorian) that full standardized kit issue comes into effect, thanks in a big part to the efforts of old Bignose Welly. Brits were pretty hard done by considering French troops of the same era carried the brass handled 'sabre briquet' short swords as a side arm as well as the bayonet. Its an oddity of Brit armies that fighting knives havent been a big thing or standard issue (barring of course our solid boys in the Ghurkas whose Kukris have ended many a scrap). Other than the WW2 Fairburn Sykes 'commando' knife I dont recall coming across mention of a standard issue knife, especially in the 18th and 19th century Brit army. The only real fighting knives of the era were the 'sword bayonets' made to fit early rifles like the Baker and Brunswick, short rifle muskets of the Enfield types, or sapper and artillery carbines (Snider, Martini Henry). Some odd sword bayonets were issued in India by the EIC to troops carrying the Pattern F musket of the 1840s. Ive been after one of them for a while now. Some Nepalese units of the same era also used odd looking Kukri bayonets.
I read an excellent letter from an officer after the civil war where (I think) a Michigan had mustered out after 3 years of combat and were take to a rifle range to display their marksmanship and not a single one would hit a target further than 2 yards.
Who needs accuracy when you have a hundred men in a line all firing in the same direction? The true strength of musket infantry was in large formations of well-drilled men who could maintain their formation and some semblance of order in discharging massed volleys. If you have dozens of shots being fired in the same direction at men also massed in similar formations it becomes easy to understand the massive casualty rates of these kinds of battles, especially when you factor in artillery and the advent of light cavalry tactics.
exactly mate.....and I think getting hit by a low velocity soft lead ball three quarters of an inch across helped ensure the battlefield quacks were kept busy ;-)
No. The conclusion was wrong. They showed that the musket WAS an accurate weapon with their test, then just nonchalantly concluded what a backward old gimmick it was. Even though their test showed the opposite. Every gap between the front rankers was taken up by the men in the second rank, and third rank. So if 30% of the front line was shot, 100% of the 2nd and 3rd line was shot. So the musket was an accurate weapon. Other than that, this is a great vid.
If you want to see what a particular type of musket is capable of in trained hands head over to Murphysmuskets or cdsadler channels. Murphy does some interesting long distance single target tests, and cdsadler tests Brown Bess musket and Baker rifle to the original Ordnance Board test standards.
I find it odd, to first talk about how the soldiers were usually carer oldiers and well trained, and were trained to fire at marks, and then seemingly show a person who has never fired a musket before, and record his first shots. Muskets are a diffrent animal of sort, compared to modern arms, so I would think the gentleman shooting should have been given a few days worth of firing at marks, to get the to know the musket as such.
I agree 100%. Herman Carl just cannot see our point through his biased research. Yes, all research is biased because one is looking for data to prop up their argument.
...note the absence of sights on the muskets....also note that the questions of effectiveness, accuracy, etc are seen through the eyes of those of us who only have modern repeating, rifled arms as a benchmark or reference...the sergeants were the ones who maintained the lines of British infantry as they either stood or as they marched in ranks towards the enemy's fire (small arms & crew served weapons) always closing the ranks as men were killed outright or dismembered....constant training, brutal discipline (as well as not letting your mates down) & stright out courage kept the sun from setting on most of the Empire...
Many eighteenth-century muskets were outfitted with sights. You can see examples of rear sights here: allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/the-aim-of-british-soldiers/ Other countries, such as Prussia, had fore-sights installed on the end of their muskets.
@@projectilequestion I was going to say the same thing, Even though he didn't hit his intended target they would have done damage to the men around it and that is the point.
If you ever get a chance, read the book Thundersticks, and it details how Native Americans obtained and use the weapons of the time, especially during before the French and Indian War and prior, during the conflicts from 1601 onward and how they perfected the close range ambush with smoothbore trade guns and even those in charge of the both British and French outposts at the time marveled at how deadly efficient their tactics were using those guns.
To learn something about shooting muskets go to SHOOTING THE 1776 CHARLIEVILLE MUSKET by Mike Beliveau. I've been a shooter for over 73 years and this is my go-to guy for black powder shooting.
Well, modern sniper cannot be as effective as soldiers of the time... He had no time to train his muscles and instincts to completely different type of weapon.
Phenomenal good work, guys! Wish you'd done more shooting out to 300 yards (the "point blank" range of a firelock according to period treatises), but still awesome and useful.
+Niels-Viggo Hobbs With regard to treatises of the period stating that point blank of a musket is 300 yards, I repeat what I said in my initial comment. Point blank range is often misunderstood. For a discussion see my (Herman Karl) comments on the article "How Far Can A Musket Shoot?” at: allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/how-far-is-musket-shot-farther-than-you-think/ I provide one short excerpt from a lengthy comment/reply session in my discussion arguing that 300 yards was not point blank - I use the original source cited by the author of the allthingsliberty article that point blank was 300 yards as my argument: “Mon. Lochee will comment for me [Herman Karl]. His statement clearly makes my point and supports all of my comments. I found this in the original source, Elements of Fortification 1780 [typing effort should be 1783]: “150 toifes [300 yards], upon trial, will be found to exceed the point blank of our firelock which has even a barrel of 3 feet 8 inches in length, and carries a leaden ball of somewhat more than an ounce weight.” The point blank range of a firearm is predicted on the bore being parallel to the ground. In essence, point blank means that when the firearm is pointed at the target (keeping the bore horizontal to the ground) the bullet hits the target. Note well the sights are not adjusted to compensate for bullet drop. The ballistic properties of the projectile, its velocity, and size of the target are the primary variables that determine the point blank range. Given a projectile (bullet) of a certain velocity the point blank range is greater the larger the target. Given a target of a certain size the point blank range is greater the higher the velocity (the trajectory is flatter and the bullet drops less). Let’s illustrate these principles using the 18th century musket. We will assume that the musket is held at about 5 foot height by the soldier. That is the barrel is 5’ above and parallel to the ground. The target is the torso of the opposing soldier, which we’ll define as 5 to 3 feet above the ground. The size then of the target is 2 feet. Consider a .69 diameter ball weighing 495 grains fired from a Brown Bess at a muzzle velocity of 1000 fps. At 300 yards the ball has dropped 254.2” or 21.2’. Of course, the ball will never reach 300 yards as at some distance closer to the muzzle when it has dropped 5’ it will hit the ground; in this case at about 155 yards. To hit the soldier in the torso the ball must drop no more than 2’ or 24” below the axis of the bore, which is at 5’ above the ground. The ball has dropped about 2’ at approximately 105 yards. So at over 105 yards the ball will hit below the target and the point blank is exceeded. In this case point blank extends from the muzzle to about 105 yards. Given the same conditions as above but increasing the muzzle velocity to 1500 fps the drop at 300 yards is 162.3” or 13.5’. The ball has dropped about 2’ at approximately 140 yards. In this case the point blank extends from the muzzle to about 140 yards. At either of these velocities for a ball to reach a target at 300 yards the gun would have to be greatly elevated to account for the drop. This violates the conditions of point blank. For a more in depth discussion see: M. Willegal, The accuracy of black powder muskets, online: www.scribd.com/doc/76363586/The-Accuracy-of-Black-Powder-Muskets-Mike-Willegal
Over all it is a good experiment; however, using people unfamiliar with the weapon does not make and accurate test result. Yes he may be the best marksman with modern guns but watching the video you could tell he was pulling up and to the right which is where he was hitting the targets. Not sure if the demonstrators you used have actual live fire experience or mainly shooting blanks for demo purposes. Would be interesting to see this done with men that are perhaps more competent with a musket, as the soldier of the day would have been. Like you mentioned in the video they practiced a lot, why not use men that have done the same?
Another thing to consider is that they are shooting at targets, not actual people. I heard somewhere that in the 1700s, the Prussian army (which was regarded as the best army in the world at the time) used an entire battalion against a single, white sheet "enemy" the size of a battalion to test musket accuracy. They found that they had 500 hits in the target per volley. However, on the battlefield they were only getting 2 or 3 hits per volley. It seems that even though they were very proficient with a musket, when it came time to shoot a human being, many of the men would purposefully miss rather than kill someone.
@@crackerrips it's a hard thing to kill a man. Most people won't do it even in a life or death situation. Militaries around the world eventually caught onto this and started having their troops practice with human shaped targets, training them to instinctively shoot at anything with a human silhouette. This drastically increased accuracy, but it also occurred around the same time as a massive uptick in shell shock (aka, PTSD).
@@benjamingrist6539 the problem with that theory is that part of the reason they stood in a line and fired simultaneously on command was so that the officers could make sure the men were actually aiming their muskets towards the enemy and firing. Even if any given soldier had difficulty shooting at another human as an individual, he would have had a hard time standing in the front rank and firing with everyone while purposely missing his shot. Maybe one soldier could get away with that a few times without his officer noticing, but for most of the soldiers to be intentionally throwing off their aim while at the same time appearing to load, aim and fire as commanded is very improbable. Far more likely that the overwhelming combination of fear, excitement, and adrenaline of battle led to soldiers underperforming during actual combat as compared to their performance during regular drill, including their aim.
Muskets are strange and finicky beasts. I'm sure they were pretty inaccurate in battle back in the day, for a variety of reasons; however, when being shot just for fun, if you experiment with ball size, patching/wadding combos, and powder charges, they can be surprisingly accurate.
Many thanks for for an interesting and helpful video. In The Battle, Alessando Barbero's account of the battle of Waterloo, he refers to various tests by the British and Prussians (and no doubt the Americans and French) that showed that at about 100 yards the opposing forces would wipe each other out after three or four volleys. However, some estimates for the actual battle had 500 shots being fired for every casualty. The above is not meant as any sort of criticism of your excellent video, but I suspect that the accuracy of any sort of weapon decreases when there is someone firing back.
That shows that the British rate of fire could stop a French Column which certainly helped. Firing from Squares in Waterloo definitely did as well but volley fire with a higher rate of fire than those advancing was effective.
Western armies in the 18th century based their tactics on volley fire. All or nearly all 18th century European armies were armed w/ smoothbore muskets. Blackpowder rifles existed & were more accurate but also more expensive & required more training so only a minority of soldiers in any 18th century army used rifles. Things began to change in the mid-19th century & we see the increasing lethality of single-shot percussion cap rifles during the American Civil War. But both the North & South still used Napoleonic tactics during the Civil War which were more suitable for musket-era battles. When repeating firearms using metal cartridges became standard then we see a major change in battlefield infantry tactics as well as increasing lethality of war.
I'm not sure that they determined it with scientific certainity: Hans Karl von Winterfeldt performed the test in 1755, and achieved 46% hits at 100 yards. As far as the 50 being optimal, doesn't this data come from Scharnhost's test in 1810? [1] [1] Christopher Duffy, Army of Frederick the Great, (Chicago: Emperor's Press, 1996) 128.
+Alexander Burns I believe Hans Karl von Winterfeldt tests were used as a benchmark for the Prussian military tactical doctrine that not only determined their actions on the battlefield but eventually set the standard for all modern armies of Europe. 50 yards was the goal as demonstrated by Prussians during the 7 years war. Is it optimal? Perhaps...or perhaps not
The thing I see that they failed to mention and I am surprised they did not or seem unaware of it is that the British army trained their soldiers in the technique of leveling their muskets when firing at different ranges which . There was a well known British report done after the Revolutionary War by the British that mentions this. The British also did this same test that they did in this vid and they scored far higher hits than they were able to do here .
No matter the accuracy of those brown bess's those things are shooting around 75 caliber lead balls at a slower fps so those would pack a punch no matter where they hit you and would definitely fuck you up.
It frustrates me that after stating that the soldier would have been shooting his weapon for as much as 5 years the then "test" the accuracy of the gun by having someone largely unfamiliar with the techniques of shooting a smoothbore do the testing. I know from personal experience that, with practice (drill) one can consistently hit a one foot circle at 100 yd.s, an eight inch circle at 75 yd.s, and put multiple shots touching each other at 50 yd.s.
+Herman Karl Thank you for the complaint. I shoot a 62 cal. Tulle with a .600 round ball and about a .010 patch (it can vary ever so slightly from linen to linen). What makes the difference (as with all shooting) is practice. With a smoothbore, maintaining a consistent sight picture, and development of muscle memory are a major part of accurate shooting. I must admit that I have not spent very much time bench shooting as it changes the position of the gun in relation to your shoulder, face, and eye; thus changing the sight picture.
+Michael Dempsey I presume you mean compliment. I've been shooting for about 60 years and hand loading for about 55 (including black powder cartridge rifles). I know a little bit about shooting. I do a lot of upland bird hunting with an original circa 1826 Westley Richards flintlock shotgun. I build from scratch flintlock long rifles. Yes, practice, practice, practice. But practice the right stuff. As you know your eye is the rear sight on a fowler with only a front sight. Thus, the cheek must be placed exactly the same on the comb each time (the muscle memory you allude to). Bench rest shooting, when done correctly, mitigates human error in holding. You simply adjust appropriately. My apology to keep citing my paper on this topic, but I covered a lot of ground in it. "To understand better the “style” and “intent” of aiming during the Revolutionary War it is important to look upon it as a stage in the evolution of aiming and marksmanship. As stated above Houlding noted that illustrations in 18th century manuals showed the soldier holding his head above the comb of the stock. The eye is the rear sight on weapons without a rear sight. For accurate and precision shooting the eye must be in the same position for each shot. Placing the cheek firmly against the comb helps accomplish this. Consistency in cheek placement is only developed through much practice. A fraction of an inch deviation in the position of the head shifting the eye (rear sight) is magnified many times down range; it’s the same as changing the adjustments on the rear sight. For example, to determine the proper fit (the dimensions of the butt stock) of a shotgun for an individual to hit where he is looking (aiming) the gun is fired at a target exactly sixteen yards from the muzzle. Effectively a one-eighth inch deviation of the position of the eye (at the gun) results in a two-inch deviation of the shot on target (center of mass of pattern of shot pellets) at sixteen yards. This deviation is increased proportionately with increasing distance." The point of the video is not how accurate the smooth bore is with optimum loads and a skilled and knowledgeable shooter, but how effective was an 18th century musket under the conditions of the time. You might try shooting with an undersized ball and no patch stuffing a bit of paper wadding over the ball to hold it against the charge (you know what happens if there is an air space). As I stated the .69 ball used in the .75 caliber musket is 0.06" undersize. Without a patch your .600 is only 0.02 undersize in your .62 fowler. Try a .562 ball without patch and see what groups you get. We need to compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges. Let us know if you try it.
+Herman Karl Yes, I did, and do mean compliment. I blame autocorrect. l have no argument with your research (or math). I do find that in an attempt to be as accurate (and defensible) I can sometimes forget the human element. For example, I wonder if the illustrations for handling and firing the firelock through the mid 19th century weren't created by the engravers with a bit of artistic license. Not to be purposefully inaccurate, but rather to indicate that the soldier should not close their eyes or look away when firing. Observing a photo of a uniformed figure appropriately shouldering the weapon shows how hidden these fundamentals are in accurately depicted action. Your comments about ball size are appropriate and well received. No doubt, the importance of a smaller ball in relation to reloading speed and muzzle fouling is undeniable. One question I would like to raise in that regard is the safety/practicality of carrying such a "loose ball" load on the march and at the carry. My original comments could have been more articulate. In my study, I find it important to include an empathetic exploration to temper and expand my exploration. I am enjoying our conversation. Respectfully, ...
+Michael Dempsey Your point on questioning the illustrations is well taken. I too questioned them too. I’ve looked at many drill manuals and illustrations. What I found is that over time ‘aiming’ evolved from holding the head above the comb to place the cheek firmly on the comb. My interpretation is that marksmanship was in its infancy. They learned the principles of marksmanship over time. Below are excerpts of what I learned. With regard to the ‘loose ball’ remember that the cartridge paper was rammed on top of the ball and acted as wadding. There is a term “running ball” that referred to a ball loose in the bore without wadding so that it could be easily removed such as during guard duty. There are many accounts of accidental shootings. These guys don’t seem to have been very careful. The point of these comments/replies should be to learn, which we are doing. Too often (as is the case in one comment/reply) it becomes a shouting match. The Manual Exercise as ordered by His Majesty in the Year 1764. Together with plans and explanations of the method generally practiced at reviews and field-days (sold by J. Humphreys, R. Bell, and R. Aitken, Philadelphia: MDCCLXXVI), B2. Bring the firelock briefly down to the present, by extending the left Arm to the full Length, with a strong Motion; at the same Time spring up the butt by the Cock with the right Hand, and raise up the Butt so high upon the right Shoulder, that you may not be obliged to stoop too much with the head, the right Cheek to be close to the butt, and the left Eye shut, and look along the Barrel with the right Eye from the Breech Pin to the Muzzle…. W. Windham and G. Townshend, A plan of discipline, composed for the use of the militia of the county of Norfolk (Printed for J. Shuckburgh, as the Sun, next Richard’s Coffee-House, Fleet-Street, London: MDCCLX (1760); reprinted by Kessinger Publishing’s Legacy Reprints, 19. Bring down the muzzle of your piece with both hands, flipping your left hand forward, as far as the swell of the stock by the tail pipe, and place the butt-end in the hollow betwixt your right breast and shoulder, pressing it clost to you; at the same time take your right thumb from the cock, placing your fore finger on the trigger, both arms close to your body, taking a good aim by leaning the head to the right, and looking along the barrel. Plate 31 referred to in the instructions above shows the soldier with his head erect off the comb of the stock (see text figure 6). It’s of interest that Plate 1 in the Errata label what we call today the bayonet lug the sight. W. Windham and G. Townshend, A plan of discipline, composed for the use of the militia of the county of Norfolk (Printed for J. Shuckburgh, as the Sun, next Richard’s Coffee-House, Fleet-Street, London: MDCCLX (1760); reprinted by Kessinger Publishing’s Legacy Reprints, 115. … the front rank taking care to level horizontally, and the rear ranks to sink their muzzles a little, the butt resting even with the shoulder; and the men must sink their heads a little, in order take a better aim, and look boldly into their fire. Frederick William Baron von Steuben, Baron von Steuben’s Revolutionary War drill manual: a facsimile of the 1794 edition (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1985), 17. Take Aim! One motion. Step back about six inches with the right foot, bring the left toe to the front; at the same time drop the muzzle, and bring up the butt-end of the firelock against your right shoulder; place the left hand forward of the swell of the stock, and the fore-finger of the right hand before the trigger; sinking the muzzle a little below a level, and with the right eye looking along the barrel. An instruction to put the cheek “close” to the butt is not the same as to “place” the cheek on the butt nor, of course, is “leaning the head”. This is not a matter of semantics; it is matter of technique, which directly affects the accuracy obtained by the shooter. What is close? Is it within a quarter inch, within half an inch, within an inch, etc.? To consistently hit where one is aiming, it is critical that the head be positioned consistently on the stock. This is especially true for firearms that lack a rear sight, as the eye becomes the rear sight. One can understand that an instruction to put the cheek “close” to the stock might be confusing when combined with plates illustrating soldiers with their heads erect and cheek off the butt stock. Officers desiring improved marksmanship had to instruct the men to press their cheek against the comb and aim along the barrel using the bayonet lug as a sight. Many battle accounts remark on how often shots went high. A target will be invariably missed high when one holds his head above the stock. Perhaps this was a factor on the battlefield. Parenthetically, on a personal note, my biggest flaw when shooting a shotgun is lifting my head off the stock, which causes a miss high. I was not aware I was doing it and would not believe I did it until shown a videotape of myself. M. de Marolles, An essay on shooting. Containing the various methods of forging, boring, and dressing gun barrels…also instructions for attaining the art of shooting…(Printed for T. Cadell, in the Strand, London, 1789; Gale ECCO print edition), 197. Marolles devotes an entire chapter to how the sportsman should shoulder his fowling piece and aim. He notes the importance of the dimensions of the stock for fitting persons of different sizes and how the dimensions influence “…the act of lowering his head to that place on the stock at which his cheek should rest, in taking aim….” The statement clearly indicates that the cheek is placed on the stock. The explicit and lengthy instructions by Marolles are in contrast to the ambiguous and short descriptions in the military manuals of the same period. Although Marolles is talking about fowling pieces and not muskets, the same principles of good gun mount apply.
And you do all that while standing in formation, being ordered by officer into when you should load, level, fire and while being shoot at by enemy formation?
The problem is, is that the stray shots to would have certainly hit the soldiers in the ranks behind. Also, long range shooting was a bad idea, because one a battalion started shooting, it tended not to stop.
I would note that Omaha beech, Gettysburg and Waterloo has close to the same numbers of troops involved, and produce similar numbers of casualties, machine guns, rifles muskets and smooth bore musket respectively.... and we could throw in Aqua Sexte, pre gun that produced similar numbers for similar numbers involved.
There are a number of people here and apparently at Ft Niagara that could benefit from reading some historical accounts of the SB musket's potential. You cannot compare modern replicas with the 18th c muskets. If reading accounts by officers concerning accuracy you will finds statements such as "if not too ill bored". And remember that the 69 caliber American muskets used a .64 caliber ball. And buck and ball ammunition was widely issued (from 1835-1840 3:1 over "ball") "..To partially compensate for the weapon's inaccuracy..". So unless using a regulation ball size, and loaded with the regulation cartridge accuracy comparisons with modern arms are meaningless. In 1837 West Point tested buck and ball 9 shots at 3 rounds per minute put 16 of 27 buckshot in a target at 80 yards. The reference I have "Firearms of The American West 1803-1865" does not mention any hits by the ball part of the load.
I know that many greek klephts used smoothbore weapons to great effect and not in a formation but as individuals. These weapons are as accurate as modern slug firing smoothbores
Exactly. In the 17th-18th century, American pioneers in the frontier were regularly using smoothbore pieces to hunt small game at up to 60 yards. The key is to reduce the windage between projectile and barrel as much as possible using a tight ball and patch. Military paper cartridge loads provided speed, but not accuracy. Modern demonstration of squirrel hunting with smoothbore musket: th-cam.com/video/m1qhEXuntx0/w-d-xo.html
The best book on the subject is: 'DESTRUCTIVE AND FORMIDABLE British Infantry Firepower 1642-1765' by David Blackmore, which also encompasses the American Revolutionary War
I think that was the consensus about 50-100 years ago, but in the light of modern research, it looks like they were preferential, slightly, to accuracy. At least in the British army.
Loved the primary documentation of the British Rangers firing at marks but to say it's logical that the line troops did it too is mistaken. Ranger Companies and Line companies were far different things. Ranger companies were smaller and although they could fight in line, they didn't normally fight alongside the line companies. They more often fought Tree to Tree and they didn't polish they barrels of their muskets like the line companies did because, unlike the line troops, they didn't want to be seen and shiny musket barrels are very noticeable. The most famous rangers were Roger's Rangers from the F&I war. Here's a link to where you can read them: rogersrangers.org/rules/index.html Notice rule #7. The line companies absolutely do not follow rule #7. Rangers range, line companies fight in lines. Nonetheless there is some primary documentation of Line Companies also shooting marks, just not a lot because of the amount of powder and ball they would use up. But to think that because the Rangers did it, the Line did it also is just a faulty approach of applying 21st century thinking to an 18th century practice.
The modern shooter performing the distances test: big problems with the structure of the test. First off, with a new (to you) weapon, you start close; very close and shoot three rounds to establish a pattern and to know where *the *weapon is hitting. Then you adjust the sights or where you aim in order to get that pattern on the paper and where you want it to hit. Then you do the same again and again until that pattern tightens or you cannot do better at tightening the pattern. Now we know something about the weapon and how it works *for *you. It is at this point that we begin to back away from the target to various yardages that are appropriate for the weapon, and continue with the same three round test shoots to learn how distance (and the environmental conditions (ex. wind) affects accuracy.
Appears that someone thought someone with DM batch would make representative shooter for Brown Bess - why did the British drill them for month on it to get it all down? These muskets, when properly charged and in skilled hands stay on a man's silhouette out to 150 yards. With a marshal load you got enough gasses and pressure to stabilize the ball in an "air-bearing-zone" in the barrel. Cal .75 is plenty of lead and a full load isn't pleasant in a sitting/rested position and you got to hold our target thru the shot.
For anyone interested in more applications (and target shooting by a gentleman with actual black powder arms experience) I would recommend the britishmuzzleloaders channel. He has done several arms used by the british army from the 3rd pattern Bess to the Martini-Henry and beyond, with historical kit to go along with it.
The timeline given is for what historians typically refer to as the "long 18th century." This is the period of time the is characterized by common ideas, fashions, and cultural norms.
The shot head around the world was from a civilian loaded gun, may have been better loaded then a military load. I would point out that Waterloo, Gettysburg and Omaha beach had close to the same number of men involved and had close to the same casualties.
have always understood that military muskets were not made for accuracy, but speed of fire. They are shooting into lines of soldiers. In fact the French musket was made so that it was even harder to sight in on a target. Yet in this video one speaker states that accuracy was more important. Keith.
There is issues with testing and having to many variables. Clean the rifle after every shot, proper sized ball, the wad made from same material and thickness, same EXACT powder load every single time.
That would be the same variables as the soldiers in the time period. Even with the "best", most practiced and knowledgeable reenactors/historians, we cannot accurately replicate the actual conditions of the 18th Century, since we aren't living in that time. We simply don't know the day to day living conditions, nor do we have the physical conditioning they did. Can you march 20 miles, with full packs, and go right into a battle? I daresay most people today can't.
the shots were probably much more deadly back then. the ammo was huge, the surgery and infection was terrible. It would be horrifying to be hit anywhere on your body, almost a death sentence.
Quality of powder, windage of shot vs barrel, amount of powder, weight of ball, quality of paper cartridge.. all these things had quite an impact on musket accuracy.. which is why this test is hard to take seriously, as we dont know any of these details. bad cartridge or ball not patched properly by paper might be enough for bullet to end up being completely wasted even from a rifle.. let alone a musket...
One thing they leave out (I guess because the viewer can figure it out), is what the hits would have done (not 100% confident; the graph makes it hard to be sure in some cases): @ 200 yards: that guy just lost his left arm. (1 wounded) @ 100 yards: one will likely lose his left leg from the knee down, another is dead, two others very seriously, perhaps even fatally wounded (one likely to die within days--a stomach shot). (1 dead, 3 wounded) @ 75 yards: one man will die within minutes, another will either die in a few hours or of gangrene (either way his right leg is shattered at the hip joint area). Two will be slightly wounded: one with a flesh would to the shoulder, another will at most lose his ear. (1 dead, 1 fatally wounded, two wounded--one will still be able to fight (the head-wound one)) @ 50 yards: once again, a man will lose his left arm, another will lose his left hand and maybe most of his right arm. One man's just had his face shot off (he's dead), and another's had his hat knocked off of him (and perhaps is bleeding and even concussed). (1 dead, three wounded). In total: 4 men would be killed outright or die within hours, 9 would be wounded. Of the 9, expect ~75% to survive their injuries if wounded (I know the stomach shot guy is fucked...) the total of people who'll die either immediately or later is ~6 or 7 men. This assumes they're attended to rapidly (for the time period).
These muskets didn't have rear sights which might have made some difference also considering the amount of single round ball fired and the damage done, the notion of a "buck & ball" load hadn't been initiated.
We know black powder rifles were more accurate than smooth bore muskets. We can test them today. Rifles were used by hunters in the 18th century but they were more expensive & slower to reload than muskets. It was more practical to outfit armies w/ muskets & bayonets & rely on volley fire which is easier to train masses of men on these tactics. And cheaper to produce on a large scale. Armies were about mass strength & volume of fire not individual marksmanship. If people don't understand why 18th C armies used muskets it's because they don't understand the technology of the day
Anyone with experience with a flintlock knows to only use the finger tip to pull the trigger, keep your aim true and steady, and not flinch when the pan flashes. The so-called marksman was pulling right on every shot meaning he had too much finger on the trigger. Poor example. The guy was a lousy shot. I could have put 80% of shots at 200 yards on the target.
How big is the round and did you use any patches to improve accuracy? Seems you used a 12 to 15 mm ball with only paper cartridge., no patches. In that time period 100 to 150 meters were the most effective.
Burnt powder on their faces shows that there is some validity to this test. Any former serviceman notices this right off. Massed fire Shooting of black powder muskets gets the friers dirty.
That's why they were ordered to hold their fire until they saw "the white of the enemies eyes," or in other words, close enough to get an accurate shot.
im going to call bull on the "logical conclusion" that if Butler's Rangers were training to fire at marks, then so were British regulars. its not a good argument, as rangers were expected to fight in a manner using actual precision and accuracy. Now, British musket-men in the revolution were generally trained better at aiming when firing thanks to the combat of the French and Indian war, but the use of the rangers ans evidence is a non-sequitur.
This was also the time of the 'Rifleman" when the rifled barrel was also coming into existence and, riflemen were being thought about but, unfortunately, it was after this drubbing by the French and Colonists that they were formed. Don't forget the French by the way they made up rather a big part of the American War of Revolution.
Interesting that most reference is to 'British' Soldiers,which is at least better than 'Hollywood' which has all 'Redcoats' as English! It is often forgotten that prior to the American Revolt the British Army was THE Army! There must have been indigenous Troops and there certainly were ''Loyalist' American Troops before and during the Revolution.In fact in many ways the American Revolution was a 'Civil War' with ' Americans' remaining Loyal both before,durinf and after.With Significant consequences immediately after the British defeat for those on the 'Wrong' side!
Muskets are incredibly inefficient in actual combat. Quote as many tests as you want, in actual combat soldier with muskets were remarkably ineffective. Lindybiege has a great video on this and I'll surmise the important part for this video. Prussian testers marched a unit of musketeers to a firing position marked by a white cloth. They found that the unit would land about 500 hits when all lines have completed a volley. In actual combat, they found that that same unit landed 2 hits after all volleys. Shooting a prop for a test to display accuracy, in no way represents the actual ability of this weapon. Try firing accurately with the smoke of previous shots alone.
This test is a marked contrast to experiments by duelist1954 who fired standing with period accurate loading; he also fired at a 2/3 sized target...just sayin
I wonder why they did not do a simple basic rifling of the musket and put a ball which fits better... they did it with rifles it does not look so hard. it would have assured a great advantage.
It takes much, much longer to fire a rifle, and in the most common battle situations masses of fire beat precision fire, since a smoothbore could put three to four balls downrange for every one from a rifle.
the Creative Assembly machinimas muzzle loading rifles became commonplace only after the invention of minie type projectiles, so that undersized bullets could be reloaded (almost as fast as before) and then expand enough to utilize the rifling. before that it was inneficient so rifles were only special forces weapons
Simple reasons: - Rifled Muskets took too long to load - Rifled muskets needed precise ammunition and this was pre-interchangeable parts and Industrial revolution - Rifled Muskets tended to foul easier and quicker making the maintenance too high and more unreliable in battle
There were simply not enough people/makers who could do rifling in the tens of thousands a year required. They could churn out smooth bore barrels by the hundreds of thousands a year. The rate of fire of a period rifle is too slow for close general actions. Even the early 19th century military rifles came with extra smaller diameter paper cartridges for loading just like a musket. Maintaining a rate of fire with the period dirty powder would soon prevent any close fitting ball being loaded. British soldiers came with 60 rounds on their person so they used sub .70" balls in .75" bores. The accuracy was of the platoon not the individual musket. In effect a 20-30 barrel volley fire gun. 40 years later Napoleon removed all rifles from the French army and the small British production of rifles had to rely upon mostly two companies that could rifle the barrels. Also the final weapon was the bayonet making the musket a passable proper size half pike. The rifles were either too thin to support a bayonet or too short to make a decent half pike. The overall length of the musket/bayonet had to be able to reach a cavalry trooper on a horse. It was only when magazine breech loading rifles became standard at the end of the 19th century that the threat of cavalry allowed bayonets to reduce to modern knife lengths. The period musket was the right answer for the military infantry personal weapon at that time.
You should have got an experienced Bess shooter to test accuracy. I would expect a 2 to 2 1/2 foot group at 100m with my Bess shooting a paper patched 710 ball on 80 grains of 2f. Like your shooter I qualified as a marksman under the Royal Navy system. Muskets are a quite different skill.
I think the target precision test was not very good. There are two factors involved here the limits of the weapon and that of the shooter. If the repro is accurate then it should be similar to what the test achieved. The test shooter according to the commentator was experienced and trained with his modern weapon stating out to 800 m( oddly this was one of the practice ranges for Canadian militia during the 1960s). He didn't have two years to get used to the quirks of the weapon and a British new recruit did who would have an instructor giving him advice. So with no disrespect to the shooter, I think he could have done much better with considerable training.
It wasn't 2 to 3 shots per minute. You could not be a member of the British Line unless you could load and fire 3-shots a minute. 2 is not enough. Although there is plenty of documentation of the men practicing live fire from time to time, speed was the main point. A line of 24-men firing 3 times a minute would be deadly to the other side once they got close enough to hit each other. They didn't need accuracy and the load they used was not conducive to it. The line was like a giant shotgun. They needed to fill the air with lead and load and fire faster than their enemy for the best chance of survival. Never heard anyone say "most officers" wanted their men to be accurate and not necessarily fast. I would love to see the documentation Dr. Matthew Spring bases that upon as I have never seen it, nor even heard of it before. And yet he claims it is "most officers".
@@kabinettskriegeblog738 'thanks for that link, but there is so much mis-information in it that it boggles the mind. It appears to primarily be talking about Prussian troops, not British Troops. There were lots of Jeagers in the Rev War, but they were typically the rifle troops that were used as light infantry by the Brits. Uniforms were quite different and they often had mustaches and beards which the Brits and Continentals did not. • The quote is that the British musket fired a .75 caliber ball. That is dead wrong. Although it had a .75 caliber barrel, the British Land Pattern musket was loaded with a .69 caliber ball. Reason for that was so they could keep firing repeatedly as the fouling in the barrel accumulated from the Black Powder they used. Yes it could fire a .75 caliber ball without a patch, but not in the British army. Even firing a .74 caliber ball with a patch would require that you stopped and did a cleaning wipe on the barrel after two shots. So the Brits used .69 caliber balls loaded from cartridge paper with the ball and paper rammed in after the powder. The paper kept that undersized ball from accidentally rolling out. That smaller ball and the many ways it could end up being loaded - slightly high, or to the left, or low, or to the right of the inside of the barrel made it impossible to shoot accurately at distance. HOWEVER as I said before, you put a rank of 24 men together and have them shoot in volleys and as you get within 50-yards, you start hitting things. And, being hit anywhere by a .69 caliber ball means you are out of the fight. • And then there's the claim of a musket shooting point blank at 300-yards...total bull. First of "point blank" specifically means that the bullet will hit the point of aim. If you sighted in your rifle (not musket) at 100-yards, then point blank for your rifle would be 100-yards. Common misconception is that point-blank is so close you can just point the gun and it will hit the target without aiming because it is so close. And to claim a point blank of 300 yards is absolutely ludicrous as the laws of physics are not bypassed with a musket, especially one that is loaded with an undersized ball. Most people don't get that outside of about 10-ft, virtually all shots are going to rise and then sink. For instance, a .50 cal.rifle shooting a .490 lead ball traveling at 1800-ft per sec that is being sighted in for the point of impact to match the point of aim at 100 yards would shoot 1.9" high at 25 yards, 3.2" high at 50-yards, 2.75" high at 75-yards, and dead on at point of aim at 100-yards. That is an arch. Not a big one but an arch. That, by the way is considered a very usable hunting trajectory as anywhere between the firing line and 115-yards that shot will hit within 3.2" of the point of aim. That should result consistently in a lung/heart shot using non-adjustable open sights. Now unfortunately my ballistics program doesn't calculate beyond 200-yards for point blank. But even at 200-yards, IF you could get that .69 caliber lead ball to go the 1800-ft per second common with flintklock rifles (.69 lead ball weighs 3 times as much as a .49 lead ball and would require commensurate increase in powder charge), it would reach its highest point of trajectory between 100 and 115-yds. of 17.4". And that presumes the ball is a stable spinning rifle ball, not a non-spinning knuckleball shot from a musket. All of that presumes the Land Pattern musket could fire the additional powder required to reach those speeds without blowing up the barrel. It is highly unrealistic, perhaps foolish, to claim that a British musket loaded as they did, could accurately hit anything at that distance. Typically rifles started shooting between 300 and 400-yds distant. 300-yards was about the longest for consistent hits although at 200-yards, they could all be expected to hit what they aimed at. Remember, there were more riflemen available (at least in Virginia and Maryland) than there were rifle companies available. So they held competitions for the best shots to see who would get into the company. Every rifleman was expected to hit a head sized target (often used a pumpkin) at 200-yards. This is why the Brits hated them. The lost a lot of officers in their Scarlet Red uniforms, as opposed to the madder red uniforms the common soldier wore. The last shot a rifleman would take would be at 100-yards. Then, he would turn and run as he had only his tomahawk as defense against British bayonets. Whereas the Brits would rarely charge from more than 100-yards away, they could sprint that 100-yds very quickly. At this point the regular Continental Line of musketmen would enter the fray with their volleys of musket fire to counter the charging bayonets. The best example of these tactics would be the Battle of Cowpens where Daniel Morgan's troops routed, killed, wounded, and captured almost all of Banistre Tarleton's 1,000 troops. Tarleton with a handful of men went riding for their lives to escape the battlefield when the outcome became obvious.
@@dgracia18 As the author of the mind-boggling misinformation, I’ll note your errors in reply. 1. Hessians, not Prussians served in the Revolutionary War. This is a mistake commonly made by those unfamiliar with the politics of Europe during the Revolution. 2. Most Hessian troops served as ordinary musketeers, Jäger, or rifle-armed troops were never the majority. 3. No Hessians (or Prussian) troops wore beards during this era, although some did wear mustaches. 4. I am unaware that I wrote that muskets fired a .75 caliber ball anywhere in that blog. I assume you are referring to the video. 5. Regardless of the modern ballistics definition, in the eighteenth century (which is what my blog was discussing) period authors believed that the point blank shot of a musket was 300 yards. Nowhere in my post do I say where or not that claim is accurate from a modern standpoint, I simply say that this is the period definition. You can rightfully come back with, “the period definition is wrong”, but that doesn’t really move the discussion at all. Once again, I offer the link to the Journal of the American Revolution article which provides sources to back up this claim: allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/how-far-is-musket-shot-farther-than-you-think/#_edn3 6. Your summary of rilfemen vs. the British is relatively accurate, assuming that Continental troops were on hand to help. When they were not, the riflemen sometime suffered from suppressing fire. The following is from a British officer’s letter to his family: “...tho’ there’s no people in the World can shoot Black Ducks better than they can, but the Ducks carry no Firelocks and Bayonets; its astonishing to think how the Leaders of this Rebellion have made the poor ignorant People believe, because they are brought up to Gunning, as they call it, they must beat everything, but now they are convinced that being a good Marksman is only a trifling requisite for a Soldier, indeed I myself saw them beat as Marksmen, at Frogneck [Throgsneck, New York, Oct 1776] I was engaged (having mine own and another Company under my Command) with a 150 or 200 Riflemen for upwards of seven hours at their favorite Distance about 200 Yards, they were better cover’d than we were having a house a Mill and a Wall we had only Trees, they got the first fire at us before I saw them, I bid my Men cover themselves with the Trees and Rocks and turn out Volunteers among the Soldiers to go to the nearest Trees to the Riflemen and keep up the Fire with the Hessian Riflemen who came to us but did not stay above an Hour, I continued the popping fire at them and they at us we had the Satisfaction of knocking several of them down and had not a Man hurt, this kind of pop[p]ing continued two or three Days between the Light Infantry and rif[lemen] across a Water ‘till we had kil’d an Officer of theirs besides several Men and had not one of ours wounded, and they at last fairly gave up firing finding themselves beat in their own way, which shew’d a cool Soldier with a good Firelock was beyond a Rifleman with all his Skill but such a Bugbear were they at first our good Friends thought we were all to be kill’d with Rifles.” (Lt. William Dansey, Letter home, January 10th, 1777) 7. During the French and Indian War, the British trained extensively at marksmanship: check out Hugh Boscawen's book on the siege of Louisbourg, and Alexander Campbell's book on the Royal American Regiment (60th) for evidence of this. 8. You seem to have a great grasp of ballistics, and that is wonderful, but you need to back up your statements with more primary source material if you are going to convince me otherwise.
@@kabinettskriegeblog738 Thank you very much for your reply. I'm sorry I didn't understand that you were not validating the claim of 300-yards being "point blank". And you are quite right that most of the Hessians were musket troops. Regarding your nice quote from a particular instance of an encounter, that is hardly indicative of most encounters during the Revolutionary war. Also your assumption that Continental troops were not on hand to help is a very poor presumption. The rifleman troops were first formed to be a light infantry and George Washington was at first convinced they needed to be equipped with folding spears to combat the bayonets. The first call for rifleman was on June 14,1775 when Congress needed riflemen for the army at Boston: "Resolved: That six companies of expert riflemen be immediately raised in Pennsylvania, two in Maryland , and two in Virginia...That each company as soon as completed shall march and join the army near Boston to be there employed as light infantry under the command of [General Washington]" (source: The Journals of the Continental Congress, June 14, 1775 as accessed through library of Congress website at www.loc.gov). Maryland actually raised 8 companies instead of the 6 requested and both Maryland and Virginia raised their two companies within a week. The Virginia companies were under Captains Hugh Stephenson and Daniel Morgan. Peter Bruin, who was one of Daniel Morgans riflemen opined that the challenge was not in finding enough men but in choosing the best marksmen (source: Peter Bruin Pension Application" form Revolutionary Pension applications Vol 12). Virginian Richard Henry Lee bragged that "This one County of Fincastle can furnish 10000 Rifle Men that for their numbe make the most formidable light infantry in the World. The six frontier Counties can produce 6,000 of these Men who from thatir amazing hardihood, their method of living so long in the woods without carrying provisions with them, the exceeding quickness with which they can march to distant parts, and above all the dexterity to which they have arrived in the use of the Rifle Gun. There is not one of these Men who wish a distance less than 200 yards or a larger object than an orange - every shot is fatal. (source: James. C. Ballagh, ed., "Letters of Richard Hnry Lee, Vol 1, [New York; Macmillan Co., 1911 pages 130-131]). These rifle companies were each assigned to a regiment. At one point General Washington made Daniel Morgan's company and independent Company with the intention of moving it where he thought it was needed. Such was the case at the Battle of Saratoga at Freemans Farm. There was a small group of Continental Pickets gathered at the buildings with ~300 yds of cleared field in front of them and 150-yards behind them to the woods. Brits advanced on this position and chased them out. As they came past the buildings they were routed by the 600-strong Daniel Morgan rifle company. Then the classic mistake happened. The rifle company was so inflamed with their success that they chased the retreating Brits back to their lines only to have to turn around and make a hasty retreat as they came under heavy fire from the Brits. This scattered the rifle company and greatly dismayed Morgan. He used a turkey whistle to call them back to him and they took up posts in the trees again. As Colonel Wilkinson, the commander of a light infantry musket company observed: My ears were saluted by an uncommon noise, which I approached, and perceived Colonel Morgan attended by two men only, who with a turkey call was collecting his dispersed troops..."(source: Wilkinson, "Memoirs of My Own Times" Vol 1., page 238 [Philadelphia: Abraham Small, 1816, reprinted by AMS press, 1973].) From this point on the Brits would attack, Morgan's riflemen would turn the attack and Wilkinson's Light Infantry would pursue. Then the Brits would reinforce and it start all over again. Riflemen had been told on numerous occasions to shoot the officers first and then the artillery if either was in range. On the first attack on the woods behind the cabins, the British company lost almost all of its officers as noted by British Lieutenant William Digby: "A little after 12 our advanced Picquets came up with Colonel Morgan and engaged, but from the great superiority of fire received from him - his numbers being much greater - they were obliged to fall back, every officer being either killed or wounded except one" (source: Digby's Journal pg. 272). At one point the Brits brought up an artillery company which fared terribly to the withering rifle fire. Lt. James Hadden, a British Artillery Officer describes the encounter: "The Enemy being in possession of the wood almost immediately attacked the Corps which took post beyond two log Huts on Freemans Farm...I was advanced with two Guns to the left of the 62nd Regt and ye two left companies being formed en potence [refused or bent to protect the flank] I took post in the Angle [elbow of the bend]...in this situation we sustained a heavy tho intermitting fire from near three hours." (source: Hadden Journal, pg 165). In fact the fire was so bad that Hadden lost 19 of his 22 men and all of his horses. Colonel Wilkinson, Commander of the attached light infantry, describes it thus: "The fire of our marksmen from this wood was too deadly to be withstood by the enemy in line, and when they gave way and broke, our men rushing from their cover pursued them to the eminence where, having their flanks protected, they rallied and charging in turn drove us back into the wood from whence a dreadful fire would again force them to fall back; and in this manner did the battle fluctuate, like the waves of a stormy sea with alternate advantage for four hours without one moments intermission. The British artillery fell into our possession at every charge, but we could neither turn the pieces upon the enemy, or bring them off...the slaughter of this brigade of artillerists was remarkable, the captain and thirty six men being killed or wounded out of forty-eight." (source: Wilkinson pg. 241). As this was in 1777 it was a lesson that Daniel Morgan learned well and made use of throughout the rest of his encounters. He used it to great effect at the battle of Cowpens. The only battle that I know of where riflemen were not supported by muskets was the Battle of King's Mountain when the "Overmountain Men" battled and defeated Patrick Ferguson in what was primarily and entirely American Battle - American militia vs. American Loyalists. Major Patrick Ferguson (inventor of the Ferguson breech-loading rifle was the only Brit commanding the loyalist militia although there were about 100 red-uniformed "provincials" (Americans enlisted in the British Army) it was primarily an entirely American force fighting another American force. During the Battle Major Ferguson was killed and his troope surrendered. They did that same type of thing that Morgan did. The enemy was on the long top of a hill and the Overthemountain Men had them surrounded. They would work their way up the hill killing and wounding the Loyalist militia until they got close enough that Ferguson would order a bayonet charge to clear the top of the hill. It was back and forth with fewer and fewer Loyalists left on top of the mountain each time until Ferguson himself was killed and the remainder of his troops surrendered. Of his original 1,100+ troops 290 were killed, 163 were wounded, and 668 were taken prisoner. The American militia suffered 28 killed, and 16 wounded. The only reason this didn't turn out to be a disaster for the American militias was that the British force had nowhere to retreat and Cornwallis'' army was much too far away to be of any help. So the American militia could continue to attack, retreat, and attack again repeatedly in a tactic of attrition that they loyalist militia just couldn't escape. For a really good treatise on the American Rifleman and his role in most of the major battles of the Revolutionary War, I'd suggest procuring the book, "They Are Indeed A Very Useful Corps" (a quote from George Washington) by my good friend Mike Cecere. It is published by Heritage Books but I believe you can also find it on Amazon. It is a bit unusual as it is written from and highly notated to primary documentation from participants in the Rev War. It is well worth a read if you want to know what the American Rifleman really did during the Revolutionary War.
We once live fired 32 muskets in two ranks, 16 kneeling, 16 stood. there was a mixture of approx 24 matchlock 8 flint. ranges varied from 125 yda down to 50 yds.
The flintlocks had a higher % of misfire but slightly better hit rate.
We fired at a target approx the same dimensions as those firing i.e. 16 men across and depictred a back rank, each target figure held the depiction of a musket.
What we did notice was most of the hits on the target were towards the middle of the target i.e.middle ten figures. It became obvious we all aimed towards the centre of the target in order not by shooting pass the target. One interesting thing we did not realise would happen was 1 in 8 shots that landed on the target hit a depicted musket.
I visited this place in the summer of 2018 and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s an amazing place to take the family and experience a piece of history.
12:18 I do feel the guy completely. I had almost a 25 year experience of shooting modern military firearms, including heavy machineguns, when I first shot an XVIII century musket. Literally everything was different: the way you load the gun, they way you hold it, they way you aim, the way you pull the trigger -- like EVERYTHING. The hardest part was a complete absence of a rear sight. To tell you guys the truth, it didn't help at all. Like driving a car without the steering weel...
Soldiers of the period must have felt similarly. There are several originals with rear sighting grooves filed into the barrels.
Loading, ball diameter, and powder quality makes a difference. Loaded properly, a smooth bore is surprisingly accurate to 100 yards.Right ball for the barrels bore, not just close enough to fit every barrel on the field. Good fit in YOUR barrel.
Why didnt you use somdone that has lots of experience shooting a musket its way different from a modern rifle
Mark Drinkard That is EXACTLY what I was thinking!! You watch Murphy's muskets or CapNball and they have much better accuracy...
Mark Drinkard as someone who started shooting contemporary first, shooting a flintlock is quite a slice of "humble pie" to swallow first try 😂
I agree, they practiced alot plus that's how they got their meat... and we're experienced ...
I agree with you,
They didn't practice with a helping sandbag either as most 'volley' scenarios were in a line therefore they were standing up without any other aid which will also add to accuracy/inaccuracy of the rounds.
I cannot believe that he did the firing test from a sitting position, when the standard for a soldier of that time was a standing position. Also they didn't say what he loaded: is the musket loaded according to a historic field manual? Paper cartridge and roundball? or patch and roundball?
Difficult to watch.
"the standard for a soldier of that time was a standing position."
Not really, shooting from a more crouched positin was a thing too in those times without mentioning that there was also armies with squad specialize in sooting in prone position too.
In order to adequately approach this subject, one would have to test actual muskets of the era in question , or at least reproductions of those muskets manufactured in the same methods as the original muskets. Modern reproductions , while bearing a strong resemblance to the muskets they seek to replicate, use modern steels and modern barrel making technology. Original barrels were hand made by blacksmiths with a hammer, mandrel, and forge, then welded shut. The exact powder recipe would also be necessary. Our modern powders are made to a much higher consistency and quality standards.
I have a modern reproduction of a Brown Bess musket that consistently clover leafs its shots at 25 yards.I have been shooting this musket religiously, target shooting, casual plinking , and hunting since 1994. The musket has no sights. It has a bayonet lug out front I use as an aim point. I borrowed some ideas from shotgunning and archery to increase my accuracy. With shotgunning, there is no rear sight, the shooters EYE becomes the rear sight, as it were. From archery, I took the idea of an "anchour point". I made a mark on the stock of the musket where the corner of my mouth touched the stock. There, I drilled a fine pilot hole then glued in a solid brass tack.Now, when I bring the musket up to my shoulder, I make sure the brass tack touches the corner of my mouth, so my eye is more or less in the same place each shot, and use the bayonet lug as a front "sight". I fire a patched round ball of .735 diameter, not the .69 calibre originally used.With this method I have been able to keep my shots inside the diameter of a paper plate at 75 yards.
11:32 If you want to write correctly with the long-s " ſ ", the word class is written "claſs".
Basically, short-s "s" is used ALWAYS at the end of a word.
Yes, to succeſsfully use the long ' ſ ' where a double-s occurs, at the middle or end of a word, the first s is long, the second is short.
Would really like to have seen what the marine marksman load was. Did he use a paper cartridge, or did he use a tightly patched ball? I was disappointed that he didn't elevate his musket for the long shots. He said he was shooting at center mass and with a really fast-traveling 5.56 or 7.65 modern round it wouldn't necessarily drop a lot. But when you are firing a .69 caliber round ball at 200 or even 100 yards, the drop is measured in feet, not in inches. He should have placed his POI (Point Of Aim) at the head instead of center mass. British soldiers of the 1700's knew to do so. My guess would be that he used a paper cartridge with the historically correct .69 round ball as his accuracy was all over the place. With a tightly patched ball to fit a .75 caliber barrel, his accuracy at 50 and 75 yards would have been far superior to the battlefield loads.
Enjoyed the reenactors firing, and running, and firing and running as they went from 200 to 100 to 75 and finally to 50 yards. It would actually be very unusual to have them run like that if they were line troops. Line troops advanced as a line and it usually wasn't that fast unless they had fixed bayonets and were doing a bayonet charge. I think this part of the video though did show why they fired as a line. Even if your accuracy is poor, you are putting enough lead in the air that you can score hits on troops that a single musket would probably never hit. This was FUN!
This video was downright hard to watch. Too many variables and not enough attention paid to each.
@Davis Tierney Pretty much everybody tried to run away from a bayonet charge if they couldn't reload and fire before they got there. When they were able to load and fire because the bayonet charge came to soon, it decimated the bayonet charge. Riflemen virtually never stood in a line and they disappeared quickly before the opposing Brits got within effective range of 50-yards or so shooting those .69 cal lead balls from their .75 cal Land Pattern muskets (Brown Bess).
Early in the war the militia troops developed a reputation for running away from attacking British troops. British troops on the other hand were known for continuing their advance while their comrades were being killed next to them. When you hear about British discipline, this is what they are talking about and why the British troops were regarded as the "best in the world". If you can advance on your enemy through fire and still have and effective fighting force when you get there, the enemy will clear the field and you will technically have one because you hold the field.
Continental soldiers did not have that measure of discipline until after the Winter of 1777-1778 when Baron Von Steuben formulated and taught a drill at arms that was quicker and more effective than the British Drill Manual of 1764. Afterwards, Continental Line troops then developed a reputation for being a tough opponents that did not flee the field under fire.
In the battle of Cowpens in 1781 prior to the battle of Guilford Courthouse, Nathaniel Green had split his army sending Daniel Morgan with half of the Continental force under General Daniel Morgan southwest of the Catawba River to cut supply lines and hamper British operations in the backcountry. Cornwallis then split his army sending the hated Lt. Banister Tarleton with about 1,150 troops after him. Daniel Morgan set up in three lines of battle. The first line was the sharpshooters that Daniel Morgan's Rifle company was well known for. The picked of about 15 of Tarleton's advancing Dragons shooting especially at the officers in the Scarlet Red uniforms (as opposed to the darker red troops uniforms). With the Dragoons in retreat, the sharpshooters returned to the second line, which was about 150-yards behind them.
Here's the kicker. The second line was made up primarily of militia and everyone knew how militia always ran when attacked by Brits. Daniel Morgan had instructed them to fire two volleys and then retreat to the third line. Then came the brunt of the British attack and most of the US militia fired two shots and ran. Many of the riflemen that had also been in the first line withdrew to the trees on either side of main battle line and continued to snipe at the Brits. Of course the Brits were emboldened by the militia that was running away and charged. As they chased after them, they ran right into the 3rd line of battle-hardened Continental line solders and right into a double envelopment. Being fired upon from all sides the British troops started surrendering in large groups while Tarleton and a few of his cavalry officers fled the battlefield on horseback. Virtually all the Brits but the few fleeing officers on horseback were killed or captured because Daniel Morgan played upon the reputation of the militia running from battle. Daniel Morgan took his men and his captives north into Virginia to drop them off and rejoin General Nathaniel Greene. General Morgan ended up staying in Virginia while recovering from his chronic illness, while his men went to join General Greene at the Dan River.
Also bear in mind that "taking the field" doesn't necessarily mean you won the battle, although that is precisely how the Brits regarded it. At the battle of Guilford Courthouse in 1781, after the Battle of Cowpens, the Continentals were a force about 4,000 men strong with an equal combination of militia and hardened and experienced line troops. Using a similar strategy as General Morgan had at Cowpens, the Continental army was able to inflict massive casualties to the Cornwallis' British army. Near the end of the day, the Continentals had to leave the field, but their army was still virtually intact. By comparison, the British had burned their supply train to try to catch General Greene there so they had no supplies, and they suffered massive casualties including most of their officers.
As a result, General Cornwallis no longer had an effective army and he marched for the Virginia coast to reinforce and re-supply. He never took the battlefield in North Carolina or Virginia again until he the siege at Yorktown. His last post was Yorktown, where he was badly defeated by the US and French. He surrendered his remaining 8,000 men, which were all that were left from the British Southern Army. From then until the peace treaty in 1783 the British primarily stayed put in the big cities as they were no longer a viable force in the South.
@ 14:40
So what I got out of this is that I can shoot my musket, standing up, better than he can on a bench...
true, considering my patterns standing at 25 yards with my howdah 62 cal smoothbore using round ball, im fairly certain i could out shoot this man at those ranges as well
It'd be interesting to repeat these tests with longbows, crossbows, spears, etc. Then try with U.S. Civil War muskets, WWI and WWII rifles, and modern sniper's weapons.
We once did something similar to this, we had 20 musketeers and 20 x 100 lb longbow archers. We went through the training the aimed at the butts. By the time the archers were fully trained and up to strenght tu pull a 100 lb bow we recloned that the musketeers would have fired a million shots and got bored and gone home.
@@desthomas8747 wow, you actually did that. I learnt that sitting on my arse in a lecture and got told by my professor that Archery was a skill taught by a Welsh dad to his son from hunting in the woods, it effectively took a lifetime of skill.
The whole idea of musket drill was that you could get any spazmo, even an American, dress them up in a uniform, so they don't get lost, put a firestick in his hand, beat a drum and make him do the steps like a stupid lead-sponge slightly quicker than the other lead sponges opposite you.
So that's the whole idea of a musket, you don't have to spend your entire childhood in some dank Welsh forest shooting deer to learn how to draw a bow of yew properly.
I'll add a comment from the peanut gallery. The marine in the video was clearly inexperienced shooting a flintlock. His flinch was visible and completely normal (no disrespect, I'm sure he's a great marksman). That goes away with training. Tons of evidence - personal experience included - that demonstrates significantly better accuracy even in a military smoothbore with an undersized ball. The second test was much better. Really good, in fact, because it shows what happens when you introduce multiple variables. Matthew Spring's book is a great resource for showing why casualties rates weren't so much worse - i.e. move away from linear, close order formations, etc. The second test was really cool.
Two things people don't seem to grasp while watching this video:
1) Why fire from a bench?
2) How does a Marine rifleman make a difference?
They were looking at the accuracy inherent to the Land-pattern musket, not the formations themselves. In order to have repeatable, quantifiable results, you have to have a constant test as free from human error as possible. When you fire from a bench you get a steadier hold every time and you get a better idea of the accuracy of the musket's barrel with specific loads.
Secondly, the fundamentals of shooting are universal and something the Marine Corps drills into you constantly, especially in the infantry where a rifleman operates.
Further, all the people complaining about the formations should read "With Zeal and with Bayonet Only" the author of which was interviewed in this video. The British in North America weren't standing in tight, close order like you'd see in "The Patriot."
There's a lot of new research out there, including this video, and you'd do well to be open to it instead of clinging to these tired myths that all of you "experts" seem to like. Do more than the bare minimum of research and assume that these things that are common knowledge are really valid.
"When you fire from a bench you get a steadier hold every time and you get a better idea of the accuracy of the musket's barrel with specific loads. " Only when it's held correctly.
"Only when it's held correctly" Well yes, but that is the case with any firearm in any position. The point here is that shooting from a rest provides a steadier position that is far more free from human error and influence on the firearm. If you want a true test of the weapons mechanical accuracy, you're even better off putting it in a led sled with a mechanical device to pull the trigger and have it fire at a large target and measure the grouping.
I agree on your second point... I grew up near a Marine Corp base, and when I'd go to the local gun range, it was always swamped with marines, and in my experience, to outshoot a marine is not really that difficult.
That 5 man drill was intense!
You used an "expert" who fired sitting down with a gunrest...... thus making the tests pointless. Also a musket shooter knows to allow for fall of shot and windage, adjusting both for distance. By his own words he aimed at centre mass..... which isnt what a musket shooter would do. Finally, as he was resting the gun on a gunrest he wasnt holding the forestock so the gun kicked about, thus making it less accurate.
He may be a USMC marksman, but he has sod all idea how to use a musket.
One more point....I dont see the point of deciding to fire at a single man target. Troops fired in formations. By that mark any of the hits on the other boards downrange score as a hit.
+sanmanhh67
1) Were Redcoats trained to aim properly
2) Aside from the bayonet did a regular carry a knife
3) What weapons do flag holders and cannon crew carry
1) Yes. British troops were highly trained, highly drilled, and usually had a lot of experience under their belts as it was a professional standing army.
2) All troops of that age carried a pocket knife (bear in mind those were not titchy pen knives...think small bowie rather than Swiss Army Knife). It was part of a soldiers non issue kit. They did not wear them as part of the uniform, but it would have been kept handy in a pocket or their pack. Soldiers carried a range of small tools and blades used to maintain their kit and as utensils. Working class men that fed the army recruitment drives all would carry knives from early ages as utensils and tools. Was there a standard issue knife tho.... no.
3) Cannon crew were armed with muskets and bayonets the same as normal troops, which were stacked in "tripods" behind the cannon ammo pile. Officers were armed with pistol and sword. Also bear in mind that a cannon crew would have tools such as hammers, shovels and axes to hand. Read actual accounts written by contemporary sources and you will see that skirmishes around cannon lines were bloody affairs not a case of cavalry having the run of things easily.
Flag bearers were mostly unarmed in that they often did not carry a musket and bayonet. If lucky they had a basic "1796 type" infantry sword and a pistol. NCOs usually carried a short musket and a spontoon (that pike like thing) which was used to direct troops and "dress the line". Some regiments issued the NCO with a 1796 or 1803 type infantry sword as well. Same goes for the poor sodding drummer and fife lads.
Bear in mind that the above was the norm, but even though the Board of Ordinance set standard and levels of kit, that some regiments were privately raised or privately equipped and so variations in standard issue kit were commonplace. Ive seen regimental variants in the so called standard issue 1803 infantry officers swords that a specific regiment issued to all officers and NCOs as well as some units of troops. One regiment that operated in the West Indies were known to use much shorter versions of the 1803 sword as they spent a lot of time aboard ship where short blades were normal.
Full standardization of kit and issue only really took effect fully and strictly post Waterloo in the Victorian era. Prior to that the Board of Ordinance regulations were seen more as guidelines. The Duke of Wellington, when he became involved in politics post Waterloo, was one of the main drivers for full standardization of issue and kit, having suffered issues during the Napoleonic wars as a result if issue variations.
Examples of issue variations sit on my wall....I have examples of shortened "NCO" and even shorter "cavalry carbine" Brown Bess variants, and several variants of the 1796 and 1803 type infantry and cavalry blades.
+sandmanhh67 Thanks very much man I have been asking this question but nobody seems to be this informed about the question. Since the flag carrier and drummer didnt carry a musket or bayonet did they carry that small bowie knife u mentioned
Standard bearers were issued with an infantry sword, and if they had money to buy one or an officer took pity on them they would have had one or two pistols of the 1796 light or heavy cavalry type as well. Defend the flag while still holding it aloft sort of stuff, so weapons you can use one handed. The swords varied from the 1796 spadroon type, through the slimmed down infantry versions of the 1796 light cavalry sword, to eventually in 1803 the standard issue sabre like infantry fighting sword (commonly called a flank officers sword...its a deceptive name as other ranks were issued with them - sergeants, standard bearers, etc). Musicians were usually young lads, so sod all use in a scrap anyway. The Brit army of the Napoleonic era thought it bad form to deliberately kill a drummer as they were usually young lads and unarmed.
The type of knife carried by workmen and laborers, so the type of knife commonly carried by troops, would be like an Opinel (its a type of very basic modern French wood handled folding knife) or a modern wooden or horn handled traditional hunting knife/small bowie type blade. That or a dagger that looked like an old plug bayonet. Very basic and utilitarian, unless they had robbed it from somewhere on campaign. Dont forget for a soldier that their knife, a wooden bowl and a spoon would have been their 'mess kit'. Just a basic workmans all purpose knife they brought with them when they joined up, or picked up along the way, or in some French examples I have seen a blade made from the broken end of a sword.
Like I said, the standard issue was basically just the uniform, boots, pack, ammo, blanket and musket/bayonet (and parts such as flints, cleaning tools, etc). Its not till much later (early Victorian) that full standardized kit issue comes into effect, thanks in a big part to the efforts of old Bignose Welly.
Brits were pretty hard done by considering French troops of the same era carried the brass handled 'sabre briquet' short swords as a side arm as well as the bayonet.
Its an oddity of Brit armies that fighting knives havent been a big thing or standard issue (barring of course our solid boys in the Ghurkas whose Kukris have ended many a scrap). Other than the WW2 Fairburn Sykes 'commando' knife I dont recall coming across mention of a standard issue knife, especially in the 18th and 19th century Brit army. The only real fighting knives of the era were the 'sword bayonets' made to fit early rifles like the Baker and Brunswick, short rifle muskets of the Enfield types, or sapper and artillery carbines (Snider, Martini Henry). Some odd sword bayonets were issued in India by the EIC to troops carrying the Pattern F musket of the 1840s. Ive been after one of them for a while now. Some Nepalese units of the same era also used odd looking Kukri bayonets.
You should be the one in this video u are way better than these 'experts'
I HAD to view this again.
And just AFTER shooting a Brown Bess with live ammunition. I would have to say THIS video/ talk was bang on right correct..
I read an excellent letter from an officer after the civil war where (I think) a Michigan had mustered out after 3 years of combat and were take to a rifle range to display their marksmanship and not a single one would hit a target further than 2 yards.
Guys there are also rifled firearms in the American War of Independence. Just that not entire armies used them because too slow to reload.
If you visit Niagara Falls do yourself a favor & drive a few miles north & see Ft. Niagara, it's amazing.
Who needs accuracy when you have a hundred men in a line all firing in the same direction? The true strength of musket infantry was in large formations of well-drilled men who could maintain their formation and some semblance of order in discharging massed volleys. If you have dozens of shots being fired in the same direction at men also massed in similar formations it becomes easy to understand the massive casualty rates of these kinds of battles, especially when you factor in artillery and the advent of light cavalry tactics.
exactly mate.....and I think getting hit by a low velocity soft lead ball three quarters of an inch across helped ensure the battlefield quacks were kept busy ;-)
No. The conclusion was wrong. They showed that the musket WAS an accurate weapon with their test, then just nonchalantly concluded what a backward old gimmick it was. Even though their test showed the opposite. Every gap between the front rankers was taken up by the men in the second rank, and third rank. So if 30% of the front line was shot, 100% of the 2nd and 3rd line was shot. So the musket was an accurate weapon. Other than that, this is a great vid.
If you want to see what a particular type of musket is capable of in trained hands head over to Murphysmuskets or cdsadler channels. Murphy does some interesting long distance single target tests, and cdsadler tests Brown Bess musket and Baker rifle to the original Ordnance Board test standards.
I have seen him many times. I think with modern powder he is a bit too accurate.
That and they're firing a 75 caliber ball
I find it odd, to first talk about how the soldiers were usually carer oldiers and well trained, and were trained to fire at marks, and then seemingly show a person who has never fired a musket before, and record his first shots.
Muskets are a diffrent animal of sort, compared to modern arms, so I would think the gentleman shooting should have been given a few days worth of firing at marks, to get the to know the musket as such.
I agree 100%. Herman Carl just cannot see our point through his biased research. Yes, all research is biased because one is looking for data to prop up their argument.
Yes... at 100 yards I'd do a lot better than that with a black powder revolver... in fact I have done so...and yes, offhand too.....
@@KathrynLiz1 I believe you because I can as well.
...note the absence of sights on the muskets....also note that the questions of effectiveness, accuracy, etc are seen through the eyes of those of us who only have modern repeating, rifled arms as a benchmark or reference...the sergeants were the ones who maintained the lines of British infantry as they either stood or as they marched in ranks towards the enemy's fire (small arms & crew served weapons) always closing the ranks as men were killed outright or dismembered....constant training, brutal discipline (as well as not letting your mates down) & stright out courage kept the sun from setting on most of the Empire...
Many eighteenth-century muskets were outfitted with sights. You can see examples of rear sights here: allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/the-aim-of-british-soldiers/
Other countries, such as Prussia, had fore-sights installed on the end of their muskets.
Massive flinch on one of those 200yd shots
why did you use someone with no experience with the weapon test it
More than that, the results he got were very lethal, but the narrator somehow concludes that it was inaccurate and useless.
@@projectilequestion I was going to say the same thing, Even though he didn't hit his intended target they would have done damage to the men around it and that is the point.
If you ever get a chance, read the book Thundersticks, and it details how Native Americans obtained and use the weapons of the time, especially during before the French and Indian War and prior, during the conflicts from 1601 onward and how they perfected the close range ambush with smoothbore trade guns and even those in charge of the both British and French outposts at the time marveled at how deadly efficient their tactics were using those guns.
To learn something about shooting muskets go to SHOOTING THE 1776 CHARLIEVILLE MUSKET by Mike Beliveau. I've been a shooter for over 73 years and this is my go-to guy for black powder shooting.
In the 18th century, it was all about the bayonet. Volleys were just the prep for the bayonet charge.
At 20:13, Awwww, look at the baby!!!😍
Well, modern sniper cannot be as effective as soldiers of the time... He had no time to train his muscles and instincts to completely different type of weapon.
Phenomenal good work, guys! Wish you'd done more shooting out to 300 yards (the "point blank" range of a firelock according to period treatises), but still awesome and useful.
+Niels-Viggo Hobbs
With regard to treatises of the period stating that point blank of a musket is 300 yards, I repeat what I said in my initial comment.
Point blank range is often misunderstood. For a discussion see my (Herman Karl) comments on the article "How Far Can A Musket Shoot?” at:
allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/how-far-is-musket-shot-farther-than-you-think/
I provide one short excerpt from a lengthy comment/reply session in my discussion arguing that 300 yards was not point blank - I use the original source cited by the author of the allthingsliberty article that point blank was 300 yards as my argument:
“Mon. Lochee will comment for me [Herman Karl]. His statement clearly makes my point and supports all of my comments. I found this in the original source, Elements of Fortification 1780 [typing effort should be 1783]: “150 toifes [300 yards], upon trial, will be found to exceed the point blank of our firelock which has even a barrel of 3 feet 8 inches in length, and carries a leaden ball of somewhat more than an ounce weight.”
The point blank range of a firearm is predicted on the bore being parallel to the ground.
In essence, point blank means that when the firearm is pointed at the target (keeping the bore horizontal to the ground) the bullet hits the target. Note well the sights are not adjusted to compensate for bullet drop.
The ballistic properties of the projectile, its velocity, and size of the target are the primary variables that determine the point blank range.
Given a projectile (bullet) of a certain velocity the point blank range is greater the larger the target.
Given a target of a certain size the point blank range is greater the higher the velocity (the trajectory is flatter and the bullet drops less).
Let’s illustrate these principles using the 18th century musket.
We will assume that the musket is held at about 5 foot height by the soldier. That is the barrel is 5’ above and parallel to the ground. The target is the torso of the opposing soldier, which we’ll define as 5 to 3 feet above the ground. The size then of the target is 2 feet. Consider a .69 diameter ball weighing 495 grains fired from a Brown Bess at a muzzle velocity of 1000 fps. At 300 yards the ball has dropped 254.2” or 21.2’. Of course, the ball will never reach 300 yards as at some distance closer to the muzzle when it has dropped 5’ it will hit the ground; in this case at about 155 yards. To hit the soldier in the torso the ball must drop no more than 2’ or 24” below the axis of the bore, which is at 5’ above the ground. The ball has dropped about 2’ at approximately 105 yards. So at over 105 yards the ball will hit below the target and the point blank is exceeded. In this case point blank extends from the muzzle to about 105 yards.
Given the same conditions as above but increasing the muzzle velocity to 1500 fps the drop at 300 yards is 162.3” or 13.5’. The ball has dropped about 2’ at approximately 140 yards. In this case the point blank extends from the muzzle to about 140 yards.
At either of these velocities for a ball to reach a target at 300 yards the gun would have to be greatly elevated to account for the drop. This violates the conditions of point blank.
For a more in depth discussion see:
M. Willegal, The accuracy of black powder muskets, online: www.scribd.com/doc/76363586/The-Accuracy-of-Black-Powder-Muskets-Mike-Willegal
Over all it is a good experiment; however, using people unfamiliar with the weapon does not make and accurate test result. Yes he may be the best marksman with modern guns but watching the video you could tell he was pulling up and to the right which is where he was hitting the targets. Not sure if the demonstrators you used have actual live fire experience or mainly shooting blanks for demo purposes. Would be interesting to see this done with men that are perhaps more competent with a musket, as the soldier of the day would have been. Like you mentioned in the video they practiced a lot, why not use men that have done the same?
Another thing to consider is that they are shooting at targets, not actual people. I heard somewhere that in the 1700s, the Prussian army (which was regarded as the best army in the world at the time) used an entire battalion against a single, white sheet "enemy" the size of a battalion to test musket accuracy. They found that they had 500 hits in the target per volley. However, on the battlefield they were only getting 2 or 3 hits per volley. It seems that even though they were very proficient with a musket, when it came time to shoot a human being, many of the men would purposefully miss rather than kill someone.
@@benjamingrist6539 they would purposefully miss really?
@@crackerrips it's a hard thing to kill a man. Most people won't do it even in a life or death situation.
Militaries around the world eventually caught onto this and started having their troops practice with human shaped targets, training them to instinctively shoot at anything with a human silhouette. This drastically increased accuracy, but it also occurred around the same time as a massive uptick in shell shock (aka, PTSD).
@@benjamingrist6539 the problem with that theory is that part of the reason they stood in a line and fired simultaneously on command was so that the officers could make sure the men were actually aiming their muskets towards the enemy and firing. Even if any given soldier had difficulty shooting at another human as an individual, he would have had a hard time standing in the front rank and firing with everyone while purposely missing his shot. Maybe one soldier could get away with that a few times without his officer noticing, but for most of the soldiers to be intentionally throwing off their aim while at the same time appearing to load, aim and fire as commanded is very improbable. Far more likely that the overwhelming combination of fear, excitement, and adrenaline of battle led to soldiers underperforming during actual combat as compared to their performance during regular drill, including their aim.
Muskets are strange and finicky beasts. I'm sure they were pretty inaccurate in battle back in the day, for a variety of reasons; however, when being shot just for fun, if you experiment with ball size, patching/wadding combos, and powder charges, they can be surprisingly accurate.
Jafon Buckley very instructive and entertaining guy!!
THAT was very, very interesting!!! Thank you!
Many thanks for for an interesting and helpful video. In The Battle, Alessando Barbero's account of the battle of Waterloo, he refers to various tests by the British and Prussians (and no doubt the Americans and French) that showed that at about 100 yards the opposing forces would wipe each other out after three or four volleys. However, some estimates for the actual battle had 500 shots being fired for every casualty.
The above is not meant as any sort of criticism of your excellent video, but I suspect that the accuracy of any sort of weapon decreases when there is someone firing back.
That shows that the British rate of fire could stop a French Column which certainly helped. Firing from Squares in Waterloo definitely did as well but volley fire with a higher rate of fire than those advancing was effective.
Western armies in the 18th century based their tactics on volley fire. All or nearly all 18th century European armies were armed w/ smoothbore muskets. Blackpowder rifles existed & were more accurate but also more expensive & required more training so only a minority of soldiers in any 18th century army used rifles. Things began to change in the mid-19th century & we see the increasing lethality of single-shot percussion cap rifles during the American Civil War. But both the North & South still used Napoleonic tactics during the Civil War which were more suitable for musket-era battles. When repeating firearms using metal cartridges became standard then we see a major change in battlefield infantry tactics as well as increasing lethality of war.
OUTSTANDING!
These tests were done already in the mid 18th Century by the Prussians, and it was determined that 50 was optimal.
I'm not sure that they determined it with scientific certainity: Hans Karl von Winterfeldt performed the test in 1755, and achieved 46% hits at 100 yards. As far as the 50 being optimal, doesn't this data come from Scharnhost's test in 1810? [1]
[1] Christopher Duffy, Army of Frederick the Great, (Chicago: Emperor's Press, 1996) 128.
+Alexander Burns I believe Hans Karl von Winterfeldt tests were used as a benchmark for the Prussian military tactical doctrine that not only determined their actions on the battlefield but eventually set the standard for all modern armies of Europe. 50 yards was the goal as demonstrated by Prussians during the 7 years war. Is it optimal? Perhaps...or perhaps not
The thing I see that they failed to mention and I am surprised they did not or seem unaware of it is that the British army trained their soldiers in the technique of leveling their muskets when firing at different ranges which . There was a well known British report done after the Revolutionary War by the British that mentions this. The British also did this same test that they did in this vid and they scored far higher hits than they were able to do here .
I would love to work at a place like that. Oml.
No matter the accuracy of those brown bess's those things are shooting around 75 caliber lead balls at a slower fps so those would pack a punch no matter where they hit you and would definitely fuck you up.
It frustrates me that after stating that the soldier would have been shooting his weapon for as much as 5 years the then "test" the accuracy of the gun by having someone largely unfamiliar with the techniques of shooting a smoothbore do the testing. I know from personal experience that, with practice (drill) one can consistently hit a one foot circle at 100 yd.s, an eight inch circle at 75 yd.s, and put multiple shots touching each other at 50 yd.s.
+Herman Karl Thank you for the complaint. I shoot a 62 cal. Tulle with a .600 round ball and about a .010 patch (it can vary ever so slightly from linen to linen). What makes the difference (as with all shooting) is practice. With a smoothbore, maintaining a consistent sight picture, and development of muscle memory are a major part of accurate shooting. I must admit that I have not spent very much time bench shooting as it changes the position of the gun in relation to your shoulder, face, and eye; thus changing the sight picture.
+Michael Dempsey
I presume you mean compliment.
I've been shooting for about 60 years and hand loading for about 55 (including black powder cartridge rifles). I know a little bit about shooting. I do a lot of upland bird hunting with an original circa 1826 Westley Richards flintlock shotgun. I build from scratch flintlock long rifles. Yes, practice, practice, practice. But practice the right stuff. As you know your eye is the rear sight on a fowler with only a front sight. Thus, the cheek must be placed exactly the same on the comb each time (the muscle memory you allude to). Bench rest shooting, when done correctly, mitigates human error in holding. You simply adjust appropriately.
My apology to keep citing my paper on this topic, but I covered a lot of ground in it.
"To understand better the “style” and “intent” of aiming during the Revolutionary War it is important to look upon it as a stage in the evolution of aiming and marksmanship. As stated above Houlding noted that illustrations in 18th century manuals showed the soldier holding his head above the comb of the stock. The eye is the rear sight on weapons without a rear sight. For accurate and precision shooting the eye must be in the same position for each shot. Placing the cheek firmly against the comb helps accomplish this. Consistency in cheek placement is only developed through much practice. A fraction of an inch deviation in the position of the head shifting the eye (rear sight) is magnified many times down range; it’s the same as changing the adjustments on the rear sight. For example, to determine the proper fit (the dimensions of the butt stock) of a shotgun for an individual to hit where he is looking (aiming) the gun is fired at a target exactly sixteen yards from the muzzle. Effectively a one-eighth inch deviation of the position of the eye (at the gun) results in a two-inch deviation of the shot on target (center of mass of pattern of shot pellets) at sixteen yards. This deviation is increased proportionately with increasing distance."
The point of the video is not how accurate the smooth bore is with optimum loads and a skilled and knowledgeable shooter, but how effective was an 18th century musket under the conditions of the time. You might try shooting with an undersized ball and no patch stuffing a bit of paper wadding over the ball to hold it against the charge (you know what happens if there is an air space). As I stated the .69 ball used in the .75 caliber musket is 0.06" undersize. Without a patch your .600 is only 0.02 undersize in your .62 fowler. Try a .562 ball without patch and see what groups you get. We need to compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges. Let us know if you try it.
+Herman Karl Yes, I did, and do mean compliment. I blame autocorrect. l have no argument with your research (or math). I do find that in an attempt to be as accurate (and defensible) I can sometimes forget the human element. For example, I wonder if the illustrations for handling and firing the firelock through the mid 19th century weren't created by the engravers with a bit of artistic license. Not to be purposefully inaccurate, but rather to indicate that the soldier should not close their eyes or look away when firing. Observing a photo of a uniformed figure appropriately shouldering the weapon shows how hidden these fundamentals are in accurately depicted action. Your comments about ball size are appropriate and well received. No doubt, the importance of a smaller ball in relation to reloading speed and muzzle fouling is undeniable. One question I would like to raise in that regard is the safety/practicality of carrying such a "loose ball" load on the march and at the carry. My original comments could have been more articulate. In my study, I find it important to include an empathetic exploration to temper and expand my exploration. I am enjoying our conversation. Respectfully, ...
+Michael Dempsey
Your point on questioning the illustrations is well taken. I too questioned them too. I’ve looked at many drill manuals and illustrations. What I found is that over time ‘aiming’ evolved from holding the head above the comb to place the cheek firmly on the comb. My interpretation is that marksmanship was in its infancy. They learned the principles of marksmanship over time. Below are excerpts of what I learned.
With regard to the ‘loose ball’ remember that the cartridge paper was rammed on top of the ball and acted as wadding. There is a term “running ball” that referred to a ball loose in the bore without wadding so that it could be easily removed such as during guard duty.
There are many accounts of accidental shootings. These guys don’t seem to have been very careful.
The point of these comments/replies should be to learn, which we are doing. Too often (as is the case in one comment/reply) it becomes a shouting match.
The Manual Exercise as ordered by His Majesty in the Year 1764. Together with plans and explanations of the method generally practiced at reviews and field-days (sold by J. Humphreys, R. Bell, and R. Aitken,
Philadelphia: MDCCLXXVI), B2.
Bring the firelock briefly down to the present, by extending the left Arm to the full Length, with a strong Motion; at the same Time spring up the butt by the Cock with the right Hand, and raise up the Butt so high upon the right Shoulder, that you may not be obliged to stoop too much with the head, the right Cheek to be close to the butt, and the left Eye shut, and look along the Barrel with the right Eye from the Breech Pin to the Muzzle….
W. Windham and G. Townshend, A plan of discipline, composed for the use of the militia of the county of Norfolk (Printed for J. Shuckburgh, as the Sun, next Richard’s Coffee-House, Fleet-Street, London: MDCCLX (1760); reprinted by Kessinger Publishing’s Legacy Reprints, 19.
Bring down the muzzle of your piece with both hands, flipping your left hand forward, as far as the swell of the stock by the tail pipe, and place the butt-end in the hollow betwixt your right breast and shoulder, pressing it clost to you; at the same time take your right thumb from the cock, placing your fore finger on the trigger, both arms close to your body, taking a good aim by leaning the head to the right, and looking along the barrel.
Plate 31 referred to in the instructions above shows the soldier with his head erect off the comb of the stock (see text figure 6). It’s of interest that Plate 1 in the Errata label what we call today the bayonet lug the sight.
W. Windham and G. Townshend, A plan of discipline, composed for the use of the militia of the county of Norfolk (Printed for J. Shuckburgh, as the Sun, next Richard’s Coffee-House, Fleet-Street, London: MDCCLX (1760); reprinted by Kessinger Publishing’s Legacy Reprints, 115.
… the front rank taking care to level horizontally, and the rear ranks to sink their muzzles a little, the butt resting even with the shoulder; and the men must sink their heads a little, in order take a better aim, and look boldly into their fire.
Frederick William Baron von Steuben, Baron von Steuben’s Revolutionary War drill manual: a facsimile of the 1794 edition (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1985), 17.
Take Aim! One motion. Step back about six inches with the right foot, bring the left toe to the front; at the same time drop the muzzle, and bring up the butt-end of the firelock against your right shoulder; place the left hand forward of the swell of the stock, and the fore-finger of the right hand before the trigger; sinking the muzzle a little below a level, and with the right eye looking along the barrel.
An instruction to put the cheek “close” to the butt is not the same as to “place” the cheek on the butt nor, of course, is “leaning the head”. This is not a matter of semantics; it is matter of technique, which directly affects the accuracy obtained by the shooter. What is close? Is it within a quarter inch, within half an inch, within an inch, etc.? To consistently hit where one is aiming, it is critical that the head be positioned consistently on the stock. This is especially true for firearms that lack a rear sight, as the eye becomes the rear sight. One can understand that an instruction to put the cheek “close” to the stock might be confusing when combined with plates illustrating soldiers with their heads erect and cheek off the butt stock. Officers desiring improved marksmanship had to instruct the men to press their cheek against the comb and aim along the barrel using the bayonet lug as a sight. Many battle accounts remark on how often shots went high. A target will be invariably missed high when one holds his head above the stock. Perhaps this was a factor on the battlefield. Parenthetically, on a personal note, my biggest flaw when shooting a shotgun is lifting my head off the stock, which causes a miss high. I was not aware I was doing it and would not believe I did it until shown a videotape of myself.
M. de Marolles, An essay on shooting. Containing the various methods of forging, boring, and dressing gun barrels…also instructions for attaining the art of shooting…(Printed for T. Cadell, in the Strand, London, 1789; Gale ECCO print edition), 197.
Marolles devotes an entire chapter to how the sportsman should shoulder his fowling piece and aim. He notes the importance of the dimensions of the stock for fitting persons of different sizes and how the dimensions influence “…the act of lowering his head to that place on the stock at which his cheek should rest, in taking aim….”
The statement clearly indicates that the cheek is placed on the stock. The explicit and lengthy instructions by Marolles are in contrast to the ambiguous and short descriptions in the military manuals of the same period. Although Marolles is talking about fowling pieces and not muskets, the same principles of good gun mount apply.
And you do all that while standing in formation, being ordered by officer into when you should load, level, fire and while being shoot at by enemy formation?
Very interesting and educational. Thank you!
bro the guy shooting has little to no experience with flintlock smoothbore shooting...look at that flinch
The problem is, is that the stray shots to would have certainly hit the soldiers in the ranks behind. Also, long range shooting was a bad idea, because one a battalion started shooting, it tended not to stop.
I'll expand by saying that the soldiers tended not to stop firing- even when they were ordered.
I would note that Omaha beech, Gettysburg and Waterloo has close to the same numbers of troops involved, and produce similar numbers of casualties, machine guns, rifles muskets and smooth bore musket respectively.... and we could throw in Aqua Sexte, pre gun that produced similar numbers for similar numbers involved.
There are a number of people here and apparently at Ft Niagara that could benefit from reading some historical accounts of the SB musket's potential. You cannot compare modern replicas with the 18th c muskets. If reading accounts by officers concerning accuracy you will finds statements such as "if not too ill bored". And remember that the 69 caliber American muskets used a .64 caliber ball. And buck and ball ammunition was widely issued (from 1835-1840 3:1 over "ball") "..To partially compensate for the weapon's inaccuracy..". So unless using a regulation ball size, and loaded with the regulation cartridge accuracy comparisons with modern arms are meaningless. In 1837 West Point tested buck and ball 9 shots at 3 rounds per minute put 16 of 27 buckshot in a target at 80 yards. The reference I have "Firearms of The American West 1803-1865" does not mention any hits by the ball part of the load.
I know that many greek klephts used smoothbore weapons to great effect and not in a formation but as individuals. These weapons are as accurate as modern slug firing smoothbores
Exactly. In the 17th-18th century, American pioneers in the frontier were regularly using smoothbore pieces to hunt small game at up to 60 yards. The key is to reduce the windage between projectile and barrel as much as possible using a tight ball and patch. Military paper cartridge loads provided speed, but not accuracy.
Modern demonstration of squirrel hunting with smoothbore musket: th-cam.com/video/m1qhEXuntx0/w-d-xo.html
The best book on the subject is: 'DESTRUCTIVE AND FORMIDABLE British Infantry Firepower 1642-1765' by David Blackmore, which also encompasses the American Revolutionary War
You massed your men for more concentration of fire..little thought was given to accuracy in those formations as a wall of lead was the idea.
I think that was the consensus about 50-100 years ago, but in the light of modern research, it looks like they were preferential, slightly, to accuracy. At least in the British army.
Very enjoyable presentation: thanks a lot.
Considering the the shots went left and right of the target means that this would have hit the man to the side of him in a line battle. 100% hit rate
Loved the primary documentation of the British Rangers firing at marks but to say it's logical that the line troops did it too is mistaken. Ranger Companies and Line companies were far different things. Ranger companies were smaller and although they could fight in line, they didn't normally fight alongside the line companies. They more often fought Tree to Tree and they didn't polish they barrels of their muskets like the line companies did because, unlike the line troops, they didn't want to be seen and shiny musket barrels are very noticeable.
The most famous rangers were Roger's Rangers from the F&I war. Here's a link to where you can read them: rogersrangers.org/rules/index.html Notice rule #7. The line companies absolutely do not follow rule #7. Rangers range, line companies fight in lines.
Nonetheless there is some primary documentation of Line Companies also shooting marks, just not a lot because of the amount of powder and ball they would use up. But to think that because the Rangers did it, the Line did it also is just a faulty approach of applying 21st century thinking to an 18th century practice.
The modern shooter performing the distances test: big problems with the structure of the test. First off, with a new (to you) weapon, you start close; very close and shoot three rounds to establish a pattern and to know where *the *weapon is hitting. Then you adjust the sights or where you aim in order to get that pattern on the paper and where you want it to hit. Then you do the same again and again until that pattern tightens or you cannot do better at tightening the pattern. Now we know something about the weapon and how it works *for *you. It is at this point that we begin to back away from the target to various yardages that are appropriate for the weapon, and continue with the same three round test shoots to learn how distance (and the environmental conditions (ex. wind) affects accuracy.
Not only a new weapon, but clearly a novel weapons system as he clearly had never fired a flintlock before.
Coming from personal experience it's pretty effective.
OMG, I didn't know you were still with us, Marquis de Montcalm!
Kabinettskriege Blog no still dead we have WiFi in heaven you know.
Appears that someone thought someone with DM batch would make representative shooter for Brown Bess - why did the British drill them for month on it to get it all down?
These muskets, when properly charged and in skilled hands stay on a man's silhouette out to 150 yards. With a marshal load you got enough gasses and pressure to stabilize the ball in an "air-bearing-zone" in the barrel. Cal .75 is plenty of lead and a full load isn't pleasant in a sitting/rested position and you got to hold our target thru the shot.
For anyone interested in more applications (and target shooting by a gentleman with actual black powder arms experience) I would recommend the britishmuzzleloaders channel. He has done several arms used by the british army from the 3rd pattern Bess to the Martini-Henry and beyond, with historical kit to go along with it.
*For your information, the 18th century started on January 1st, 1701 and ended on December 31st, 1800. Your scale at **2:36** is therefore inacurate.*
The timeline given is for what historians typically refer to as the "long 18th century." This is the period of time the is characterized by common ideas, fashions, and cultural norms.
The shot head around the world was from a civilian loaded gun, may have been better loaded then a military load.
I would point out that Waterloo, Gettysburg and Omaha beach had close to the same number of men involved and had close to the same casualties.
17:40 the powder in their faces
very nice video!
Some battles where close to about 75 yards to 50 yards during line battles
have always understood that military muskets were not made for accuracy, but speed of fire. They are shooting into lines of soldiers. In fact the French musket was made so that it was even harder to sight in on a target. Yet in this video one speaker states that accuracy was more important.
Keith.
There is issues with testing and having to many variables. Clean the rifle after every shot, proper sized ball, the wad made from same material and thickness, same EXACT powder load every single time.
That would be the same variables as the soldiers in the time period. Even with the "best", most practiced and knowledgeable reenactors/historians, we cannot accurately replicate the actual conditions of the 18th Century, since we aren't living in that time. We simply don't know the day to day living conditions, nor do we have the physical conditioning they did. Can you march 20 miles, with full packs, and go right into a battle? I daresay most people today can't.
"Come on you bloody backs, fire if you dare! We know you dare not!
Typo in thumbnail. Cool vid.
the shots were probably much more deadly back then. the ammo was huge, the surgery and infection was terrible. It would be horrifying to be hit anywhere on your body, almost a death sentence.
"Do not fire until you see the whites of their eyes..." Col. Wm Prescott
they were low on ammo they had to make it count shock and awe then give them steel.
I love the shako hats
he was a new flintlock shooter and he flinch
Quality of powder, windage of shot vs barrel, amount of powder, weight of ball, quality of paper cartridge.. all these things had quite an impact on musket accuracy.. which is why this test is hard to take seriously, as we dont know any of these details. bad cartridge or ball not patched properly by paper might be enough for bullet to end up being completely wasted even from a rifle.. let alone a musket...
One thing they leave out (I guess because the viewer can figure it out), is what the hits would have done (not 100% confident; the graph makes it hard to be sure in some cases):
@ 200 yards: that guy just lost his left arm. (1 wounded)
@ 100 yards: one will likely lose his left leg from the knee down, another is dead, two others very seriously, perhaps even fatally wounded (one likely to die within days--a stomach shot). (1 dead, 3 wounded)
@ 75 yards: one man will die within minutes, another will either die in a few hours or of gangrene (either way his right leg is shattered at the hip joint area). Two will be slightly wounded: one with a flesh would to the shoulder, another will at most lose his ear. (1 dead, 1 fatally wounded, two wounded--one will still be able to fight (the head-wound one))
@ 50 yards: once again, a man will lose his left arm, another will lose his left hand and maybe most of his right arm. One man's just had his face shot off (he's dead), and another's had his hat knocked off of him (and perhaps is bleeding and even concussed). (1 dead, three wounded).
In total:
4 men would be killed outright or die within hours, 9 would be wounded. Of the 9, expect ~75% to survive their injuries if wounded (I know the stomach shot guy is fucked...)
the total of people who'll die either immediately or later is ~6 or 7 men. This assumes they're attended to rapidly (for the time period).
Murphey's Muskets: That guy hit a smaller target, shot after shot, at eighty yards.
He’s a US Marine?
These muskets didn't have rear sights which might have made some difference also considering the amount of single round ball fired and the damage done, the notion of a "buck & ball" load hadn't been initiated.
kabinettskriege.blogspot.com/2018/05/military-buckshot-in-mid-eighteenth.html
We know black powder rifles were more accurate than smooth bore muskets. We can test them today. Rifles were used by hunters in the 18th century but they were more expensive & slower to reload than muskets. It was more practical to outfit armies w/ muskets & bayonets & rely on volley fire which is easier to train masses of men on these tactics. And cheaper to produce on a large scale. Armies were about mass strength & volume of fire not individual marksmanship. If people don't understand why 18th C armies used muskets it's because they don't understand the technology of the day
Prussian guard under frederick the great shot a cloth wall. Close range it still was not above 60 percent hits.
Obviously the shot heard around the world didn't hit anything, otherwise we'd know which side fired it.
great VAMPIRE teeth at 18:14
You mean 1722 AD not 1717 AD. The Charleville was designed in 1717 my friend.
Charleville 1777 were the best musket of all!
Anyone with experience with a flintlock knows to only use the finger tip to pull the trigger, keep your aim true and steady, and not flinch when the pan flashes. The so-called marksman was pulling right on every shot meaning he had too much finger on the trigger. Poor example. The guy was a lousy shot. I could have put 80% of shots at 200 yards on the target.
Exactly..... the nut on the butt was pretty hopeless...
why is he using a stabilizer I just don't understand why they would do this if trying to mimic battlefield environments
100 feet is the max effective battlefield range for a smooth-bore firelock (musket)
kabinettskriege.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-accurate-were-regular-soldiers-in.html
I'm curious what that guy doing the marksmanship testing was using for ball diameter, wading and powder charge?
How big is the round and did you use any patches to improve accuracy? Seems you used a 12 to 15 mm ball with only paper cartridge., no patches. In that time period 100 to 150 meters were the most effective.
Burnt powder on their faces shows that there is some validity to this test. Any former serviceman notices this right off. Massed fire Shooting of black powder muskets gets the friers dirty.
That's why they were ordered to hold their fire until they saw "the white of the enemies eyes," or in other words, close enough to get an accurate shot.
No they were told that because nearly didnt have any ammo.
when these tv guys piss off re-enactors at this we over load the musket so the kick will let them know they are in trouble.
im going to call bull on the "logical conclusion" that if Butler's Rangers were training to fire at marks, then so were British regulars. its not a good argument, as rangers were expected to fight in a manner using actual precision and accuracy. Now, British musket-men in the revolution were generally trained better at aiming when firing thanks to the combat of the French and Indian war, but the use of the rangers ans evidence is a non-sequitur.
This was also the time of the 'Rifleman" when the rifled barrel was also coming into existence and, riflemen were being thought about but, unfortunately, it was after this drubbing by the French and Colonists that they were formed. Don't forget the French by the way they made up rather a big part of the American War of Revolution.
Interesting that most reference is to 'British' Soldiers,which is at least better than 'Hollywood' which has all 'Redcoats' as English! It is often forgotten that prior to the American Revolt the British Army was THE Army! There must have been indigenous Troops and there certainly were ''Loyalist' American Troops before and during the Revolution.In fact in many ways the American Revolution was a 'Civil War' with ' Americans' remaining Loyal both before,durinf and after.With Significant consequences immediately after the British defeat for those on the 'Wrong' side!
I wonder why no one thought up the rifled slug back then...
Did anyone notice Mr. Buckley dropped the ramrod down the barrel?
Muskets are incredibly inefficient in actual combat. Quote as many tests as you want, in actual combat soldier with muskets were remarkably ineffective. Lindybiege has a great video on this and I'll surmise the important part for this video.
Prussian testers marched a unit of musketeers to a firing position marked by a white cloth. They found that the unit would land about 500 hits when all lines have completed a volley. In actual combat, they found that that same unit landed 2 hits after all volleys.
Shooting a prop for a test to display accuracy, in no way represents the actual ability of this weapon. Try firing accurately with the smoke of previous shots alone.
allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/the-aim-of-british-soldiers/
kabinettskriege.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-accurate-were-regular-soldiers-in.html
This test is a marked contrast to experiments by duelist1954 who fired standing with period accurate loading; he also fired at a 2/3 sized target...just sayin
Muskets were pretty accurate right? Especially with the intro to rifling.
Which was then a Rifle and not a Musket.
I wonder why they did not do a simple basic rifling of the musket and put a ball which fits better... they did it with rifles it does not look so hard. it would have assured a great advantage.
It takes much, much longer to fire a rifle, and in the most common battle situations masses of fire beat precision fire, since a smoothbore could put three to four balls downrange for every one from a rifle.
the Creative Assembly machinimas muzzle loading rifles became commonplace only after the invention of minie type projectiles, so that undersized bullets could be reloaded (almost as fast as before) and then expand enough to utilize the rifling. before that it was inneficient so rifles were only special forces weapons
I have seen a rifle being loaded it was not so slow
Simple reasons:
- Rifled Muskets took too long to load
- Rifled muskets needed precise ammunition and this was pre-interchangeable parts and Industrial revolution
- Rifled Muskets tended to foul easier and quicker making the maintenance too high and more unreliable in battle
There were simply not enough people/makers who could do rifling in the tens of thousands a year required. They could churn out smooth bore barrels by the hundreds of thousands a year. The rate of fire of a period rifle is too slow for close general actions. Even the early 19th century military rifles came with extra smaller diameter paper cartridges for loading just like a musket. Maintaining a rate of fire with the period dirty powder would soon prevent any close fitting ball being loaded. British soldiers came with 60 rounds on their person so they used sub .70" balls in .75" bores. The accuracy was of the platoon not the individual musket. In effect a 20-30 barrel volley fire gun. 40 years later Napoleon removed all rifles from the French army and the small British production of rifles had to rely upon mostly two companies that could rifle the barrels. Also the final weapon was the bayonet making the musket a passable proper size half pike. The rifles were either too thin to support a bayonet or too short to make a decent half pike. The overall length of the musket/bayonet had to be able to reach a cavalry trooper on a horse. It was only when magazine breech loading rifles became standard at the end of the 19th century that the threat of cavalry allowed bayonets to reduce to modern knife lengths. The period musket was the right answer for the military infantry personal weapon at that time.
You should have got an experienced Bess shooter to test accuracy. I would expect a 2 to 2 1/2 foot group at 100m with my Bess shooting a paper patched 710 ball on 80 grains of 2f. Like your shooter I qualified as a marksman under the Royal Navy system. Muskets are a quite different skill.
I think the target precision test was not very good. There are two factors involved here the limits of the weapon and that of the shooter. If the repro is accurate then it should be similar to what the test achieved. The test shooter according to the commentator was experienced and trained with his modern weapon stating out to 800 m( oddly this was one of the practice ranges for Canadian militia during the 1960s). He didn't have two years to get used to the quirks of the weapon and a British new recruit did who would have an instructor giving him advice. So with no disrespect to the shooter, I think he could have done much better with considerable training.
It wasn't 2 to 3 shots per minute. You could not be a member of the British Line unless you could load and fire 3-shots a minute. 2 is not enough. Although there is plenty of documentation of the men practicing live fire from time to time, speed was the main point. A line of 24-men firing 3 times a minute would be deadly to the other side once they got close enough to hit each other. They didn't need accuracy and the load they used was not conducive to it. The line was like a giant shotgun. They needed to fill the air with lead and load and fire faster than their enemy for the best chance of survival. Never heard anyone say "most officers" wanted their men to be accurate and not necessarily fast. I would love to see the documentation Dr. Matthew Spring bases that upon as I have never seen it, nor even heard of it before. And yet he claims it is "most officers".
kabinettskriege.blogspot.com/2018/05/how-rapidly-could-soldiers-load-in-mid.html
kabinettskriege.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-accurate-were-regular-soldiers-in.html
www.amazon.com/Zeal-Bayonets-Only-1775-1783-Commanders/dp/0806141522
@@kabinettskriegeblog738 'thanks for that link, but there is so much mis-information in it that it boggles the mind. It appears to primarily be talking about Prussian troops, not British Troops. There were lots of Jeagers in the Rev War, but they were typically the rifle troops that were used as light infantry by the Brits. Uniforms were quite different and they often had mustaches and beards which the Brits and Continentals did not.
• The quote is that the British musket fired a .75 caliber ball. That is dead wrong. Although it had a .75 caliber barrel, the British Land Pattern musket was loaded with a .69 caliber ball. Reason for that was so they could keep firing repeatedly as the fouling in the barrel accumulated from the Black Powder they used. Yes it could fire a .75 caliber ball without a patch, but not in the British army. Even firing a .74 caliber ball with a patch would require that you stopped and did a cleaning wipe on the barrel after two shots. So the Brits used .69 caliber balls loaded from cartridge paper with the ball and paper rammed in after the powder. The paper kept that undersized ball from accidentally rolling out. That smaller ball and the many ways it could end up being loaded - slightly high, or to the left, or low, or to the right of the inside of the barrel made it impossible to shoot accurately at distance. HOWEVER as I said before, you put a rank of 24 men together and have them shoot in volleys and as you get within 50-yards, you start hitting things. And, being hit anywhere by a .69 caliber ball means you are out of the fight.
• And then there's the claim of a musket shooting point blank at 300-yards...total bull. First of "point blank" specifically means that the bullet will hit the point of aim. If you sighted in your rifle (not musket) at 100-yards, then point blank for your rifle would be 100-yards. Common misconception is that point-blank is so close you can just point the gun and it will hit the target without aiming because it is so close. And to claim a point blank of 300 yards is absolutely ludicrous as the laws of physics are not bypassed with a musket, especially one that is loaded with an undersized ball.
Most people don't get that outside of about 10-ft, virtually all shots are going to rise and then sink. For instance, a .50 cal.rifle shooting a .490 lead ball traveling at 1800-ft per sec that is being sighted in for the point of impact to match the point of aim at 100 yards would shoot 1.9" high at 25 yards, 3.2" high at 50-yards, 2.75" high at 75-yards, and dead on at point of aim at 100-yards. That is an arch. Not a big one but an arch. That, by the way is considered a very usable hunting trajectory as anywhere between the firing line and 115-yards that shot will hit within 3.2" of the point of aim. That should result consistently in a lung/heart shot using non-adjustable open sights.
Now unfortunately my ballistics program doesn't calculate beyond 200-yards for point blank. But even at 200-yards, IF you could get that .69 caliber lead ball to go the 1800-ft per second common with flintklock rifles (.69 lead ball weighs 3 times as much as a .49 lead ball and would require commensurate increase in powder charge), it would reach its highest point of trajectory between 100 and 115-yds. of 17.4". And that presumes the ball is a stable spinning rifle ball, not a non-spinning knuckleball shot from a musket. All of that presumes the Land Pattern musket could fire the additional powder required to reach those speeds without blowing up the barrel. It is highly unrealistic, perhaps foolish, to claim that a British musket loaded as they did, could accurately hit anything at that distance.
Typically rifles started shooting between 300 and 400-yds distant. 300-yards was about the longest for consistent hits although at 200-yards, they could all be expected to hit what they aimed at. Remember, there were more riflemen available (at least in Virginia and Maryland) than there were rifle companies available. So they held competitions for the best shots to see who would get into the company. Every rifleman was expected to hit a head sized target (often used a pumpkin) at 200-yards. This is why the Brits hated them. The lost a lot of officers in their Scarlet Red uniforms, as opposed to the madder red uniforms the common soldier wore.
The last shot a rifleman would take would be at 100-yards. Then, he would turn and run as he had only his tomahawk as defense against British bayonets. Whereas the Brits would rarely charge from more than 100-yards away, they could sprint that 100-yds very quickly. At this point the regular Continental Line of musketmen would enter the fray with their volleys of musket fire to counter the charging bayonets. The best example of these tactics would be the Battle of Cowpens where Daniel Morgan's troops routed, killed, wounded, and captured almost all of Banistre Tarleton's 1,000 troops. Tarleton with a handful of men went riding for their lives to escape the battlefield when the outcome became obvious.
@@dgracia18 As the author of the mind-boggling misinformation, I’ll note your errors in reply.
1. Hessians, not Prussians served in the Revolutionary War. This is a mistake commonly made by those unfamiliar with the politics of Europe during the Revolution.
2. Most Hessian troops served as ordinary musketeers, Jäger, or rifle-armed troops were never the majority.
3. No Hessians (or Prussian) troops wore beards during this era, although some did wear mustaches.
4. I am unaware that I wrote that muskets fired a .75 caliber ball anywhere in that blog. I assume you are referring to the video.
5. Regardless of the modern ballistics definition, in the eighteenth century (which is what my blog was discussing) period authors believed that the point blank shot of a musket was 300 yards. Nowhere in my post do I say where or not that claim is accurate from a modern standpoint, I simply say that this is the period definition. You can rightfully come back with, “the period definition is wrong”, but that doesn’t really move the discussion at all. Once again, I offer the link to the Journal of the American Revolution article which provides sources to back up this claim: allthingsliberty.com/2013/08/how-far-is-musket-shot-farther-than-you-think/#_edn3
6. Your summary of rilfemen vs. the British is relatively accurate, assuming that Continental troops were on hand to help. When they were not, the riflemen sometime suffered from suppressing fire. The following is from a British officer’s letter to his family: “...tho’ there’s no people in the World can shoot Black Ducks better than they can, but the Ducks carry no Firelocks and Bayonets; its astonishing to think how the Leaders of this Rebellion have made the poor ignorant People believe, because they are brought up to Gunning, as they call it, they must beat everything, but now they are convinced that being a good Marksman is only a trifling requisite for a Soldier, indeed I myself saw them beat as Marksmen, at Frogneck [Throgsneck, New York, Oct 1776] I was engaged (having mine own and another Company under my Command) with a 150 or 200 Riflemen for upwards of seven hours at their favorite Distance about 200 Yards, they were better cover’d than we were having a house a Mill and a Wall we had only Trees, they got the first fire at us before I saw them, I bid my Men cover themselves with the Trees and Rocks and turn out Volunteers among the Soldiers to go to the nearest Trees to the Riflemen and keep up the Fire with the Hessian Riflemen who came to us but did not stay above an Hour, I continued the popping fire at them and they at us we had the Satisfaction of knocking several of them down and had not a Man hurt, this kind of pop[p]ing continued two or three Days between the Light Infantry and rif[lemen] across a Water ‘till we had kil’d an Officer of theirs besides several Men and had not one of ours wounded, and they at last fairly gave up firing finding themselves beat in their own way, which shew’d a cool Soldier with a good Firelock was beyond a Rifleman with all his Skill but such a Bugbear were they at first our good Friends thought we were all to be kill’d with Rifles.” (Lt. William Dansey, Letter home, January 10th, 1777)
7. During the French and Indian War, the British trained extensively at marksmanship: check out Hugh Boscawen's book on the siege of Louisbourg, and Alexander Campbell's book on the Royal American Regiment (60th) for evidence of this.
8. You seem to have a great grasp of ballistics, and that is wonderful, but you need to back up your statements with more primary source material if you are going to convince me otherwise.
@@kabinettskriegeblog738 Thank you very much for your reply. I'm sorry I didn't understand that you were not validating the claim of 300-yards being "point blank". And you are quite right that most of the Hessians were musket troops.
Regarding your nice quote from a particular instance of an encounter, that is hardly indicative of most encounters during the Revolutionary war. Also your assumption that Continental troops were not on hand to help is a very poor presumption. The rifleman troops were first formed to be a light infantry and George Washington was at first convinced they needed to be equipped with folding spears to combat the bayonets. The first call for rifleman was on June 14,1775 when Congress needed riflemen for the army at Boston:
"Resolved: That six companies of expert riflemen be immediately raised in Pennsylvania, two in Maryland , and two in Virginia...That each company as soon as completed shall march and join the army near Boston to be there employed as light infantry under the command of [General Washington]" (source: The Journals of the Continental Congress, June 14, 1775 as accessed through library of Congress website at www.loc.gov).
Maryland actually raised 8 companies instead of the 6 requested and both Maryland and Virginia raised their two companies within a week. The Virginia companies were under Captains Hugh Stephenson and Daniel Morgan. Peter Bruin, who was one of Daniel Morgans riflemen opined that the challenge was not in finding enough men but in choosing the best marksmen (source: Peter Bruin Pension Application" form Revolutionary Pension applications Vol 12).
Virginian Richard Henry Lee bragged that "This one County of Fincastle can furnish 10000 Rifle Men that for their numbe make the most formidable light infantry in the World. The six frontier Counties can produce 6,000 of these Men who from thatir amazing hardihood, their method of living so long in the woods without carrying provisions with them, the exceeding quickness with which they can march to distant parts, and above all the dexterity to which they have arrived in the use of the Rifle Gun. There is not one of these Men who wish a distance less than 200 yards or a larger object than an orange - every shot is fatal. (source: James. C. Ballagh, ed., "Letters of Richard Hnry Lee, Vol 1, [New York; Macmillan Co., 1911 pages 130-131]).
These rifle companies were each assigned to a regiment. At one point General Washington made Daniel Morgan's company and independent Company with the intention of moving it where he thought it was needed. Such was the case at the Battle of Saratoga at Freemans Farm. There was a small group of Continental Pickets gathered at the buildings with ~300 yds of cleared field in front of them and 150-yards behind them to the woods. Brits advanced on this position and chased them out. As they came past the buildings they were routed by the 600-strong Daniel Morgan rifle company.
Then the classic mistake happened. The rifle company was so inflamed with their success that they chased the retreating Brits back to their lines only to have to turn around and make a hasty retreat as they came under heavy fire from the Brits. This scattered the rifle company and greatly dismayed Morgan. He used a turkey whistle to call them back to him and they took up posts in the trees again. As Colonel Wilkinson, the commander of a light infantry musket company observed: My ears were saluted by an uncommon noise, which I approached, and perceived Colonel Morgan attended by two men only, who with a turkey call was collecting his dispersed troops..."(source: Wilkinson, "Memoirs of My Own Times" Vol 1., page 238 [Philadelphia: Abraham Small, 1816, reprinted by AMS press, 1973].)
From this point on the Brits would attack, Morgan's riflemen would turn the attack and Wilkinson's Light Infantry would pursue. Then the Brits would reinforce and it start all over again. Riflemen had been told on numerous occasions to shoot the officers first and then the artillery if either was in range. On the first attack on the woods behind the cabins, the British company lost almost all of its officers as noted by British Lieutenant William Digby: "A little after 12 our advanced Picquets came up with Colonel Morgan and engaged, but from the great superiority of fire received from him - his numbers being much greater - they were obliged to fall back, every officer being either killed or wounded except one" (source: Digby's Journal pg. 272).
At one point the Brits brought up an artillery company which fared terribly to the withering rifle fire. Lt. James Hadden, a British Artillery Officer describes the encounter: "The Enemy being in possession of the wood almost immediately attacked the Corps which took post beyond two log Huts on Freemans Farm...I was advanced with two Guns to the left of the 62nd Regt and ye two left companies being formed en potence [refused or bent to protect the flank] I took post in the Angle [elbow of the bend]...in this situation we sustained a heavy tho intermitting fire from near three hours." (source: Hadden Journal, pg 165). In fact the fire was so bad that Hadden lost 19 of his 22 men and all of his horses.
Colonel Wilkinson, Commander of the attached light infantry, describes it thus: "The fire of our marksmen from this wood was too deadly to be withstood by the enemy in line, and when they gave way and broke, our men rushing from their cover pursued them to the eminence where, having their flanks protected, they rallied and charging in turn drove us back into the wood from whence a dreadful fire would again force them to fall back; and in this manner did the battle fluctuate, like the waves of a stormy sea with alternate advantage for four hours without one moments intermission. The British artillery fell into our possession at every charge, but we could neither turn the pieces upon the enemy, or bring them off...the slaughter of this brigade of artillerists was remarkable, the captain and thirty six men being killed or wounded out of forty-eight." (source: Wilkinson pg. 241).
As this was in 1777 it was a lesson that Daniel Morgan learned well and made use of throughout the rest of his encounters. He used it to great effect at the battle of Cowpens. The only battle that I know of where riflemen were not supported by muskets was the Battle of King's Mountain when the "Overmountain Men" battled and defeated Patrick Ferguson in what was primarily and entirely American Battle - American militia vs. American Loyalists. Major Patrick Ferguson (inventor of the Ferguson breech-loading rifle was the only Brit commanding the loyalist militia although there were about 100 red-uniformed "provincials" (Americans enlisted in the British Army) it was primarily an entirely American force fighting another American force. During the Battle Major Ferguson was killed and his troope surrendered.
They did that same type of thing that Morgan did. The enemy was on the long top of a hill and the Overthemountain Men had them surrounded. They would work their way up the hill killing and wounding the Loyalist militia until they got close enough that Ferguson would order a bayonet charge to clear the top of the hill. It was back and forth with fewer and fewer Loyalists left on top of the mountain each time until Ferguson himself was killed and the remainder of his troops surrendered. Of his original 1,100+ troops 290 were killed, 163 were wounded, and 668 were taken prisoner. The American militia suffered 28 killed, and 16 wounded.
The only reason this didn't turn out to be a disaster for the American militias was that the British force had nowhere to retreat and Cornwallis'' army was much too far away to be of any help. So the American militia could continue to attack, retreat, and attack again repeatedly in a tactic of attrition that they loyalist militia just couldn't escape.
For a really good treatise on the American Rifleman and his role in most of the major battles of the Revolutionary War, I'd suggest procuring the book, "They Are Indeed A Very Useful Corps" (a quote from George Washington) by my good friend Mike Cecere. It is published by Heritage Books but I believe you can also find it on Amazon. It is a bit unusual as it is written from and highly notated to primary documentation from participants in the Rev War. It is well worth a read if you want to know what the American Rifleman really did during the Revolutionary War.
this is a very old place