Muskets and tirailleurs Part 3/3. Musket range tests with Napoleonic times service loads
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ธ.ค. 2015
- Please support us at: / capandball
I am sure that these tests will be something new for all of us. I've never seen any range tests checking the accuracy of Napoleonic times flintlock smooth bore muskets with original service loads. I've never seen any tests comparing the 16,5 mm roundball adopted in 1777 and the 15,9 mm roundball adopted in 1792. Well here it is! Enjoy the fun! If you would like to support our work, please buy something from our handcrafetd products: kapszli.hu/en/termek-kategoria... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![ป่ะป๊าเลอา ชื่อ ??? [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ssxX0VkJCTo/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for uploading the English version! Excellent work as usual, very informative.
your ability to not flinch is impressive .
You are doing the ML and BP scene a huge service by doing these experiments and expositions on these arms/history/tactics, and recording them for posterity!
For those of us used to imperial measurements in shooting: The musket weighs 4.7 KG (10.36lbs), has a 17.5mm bore, or .69" or roughly 14 bore. The 16.5mm ball is .649" (approx weight: 410gr); 15.9mm ball is .625" ( approx wt: 330gr)... That 11.6 g. charge is 179gr; 500m/s is 1640 f/s. 75m is 82yd; 150m is 164yd. Makes Yah realize why some new soldiers were terrified of their muskets when they roar'd to life (particularly those who'd never been around hunting/shooting before). A 17.14mm (.675") ball or 17.27mm (.680") would have greatly improved accuracy, but that wasn't considered appropriate military ammo in the day (due to not being able to easily shoot through a combat load+ without wiping the bore).
For those of you who have read James Forsyth's "The Sporting Rifle and Its Projectiles", this is his preference for deer (albeit, rifled), and he considers 16 bore (.65") to be the smallest gun "useful" for deer lol
Knowing how heavy these muskets are...watching how much the recoil moved you....I say..."OUCH!" Nasty.
That recoil looked pretty nasty
I have to admit that I've done something like this in the past, with a Japanese reproduction of an English Brown Bess. I also tried to get the maximum accuracy out of the musket with a tightly-patched .730" ball (the original service load used an approximately .690" ball). That was even less fun! 100 grains of powder behind a tightly-patched nearly 1 ounce lead ball just equals pain, when the recoil is transmitted to the shoulder through a brass butt plate...
+Tom Herbert my load was 11,6 gram = 180 grains of 1,5 Fg Swiss :) Thanks for the BEss info!
+capandball Yikes, 180 grains.......no wonder you were sore.
+slowpokebr549 yes, not much fun at all. A regular French infantryman receive 30 rounds, and Austrian-Hungarian 60....
Quite possibly my favorite channel. Thanks for doing what you do. It’s very informative and entertaining.
Side note; the brits in the 18th C. were debating between officers, which charge was best, and there were quite a few arguing the smaller charge would be at least as accurate, if not more so, than the larger one.
Partially, due to the excessive recoil.
And From my own tests, I can attest that (not being a good marksman at all) I do hit much more consistently with the smaller charge.
Still doubt the 500 m/s, though
Like all of your videos - informative, and hugely entertaining! Many thanks
On the first round shot on the leg still considered as an injury.. second round with a larger ball was effective and deadly, but with that caliber I think it’s great for skirmishes or light infantry units. Great vid love it ❤️
You are the ONLY person I trust for accurate tests of these weapons.
I know there have been many attempts to test the accuracy of eighteenth century muskets, but most are done either with little regard for accurate test conditions, or are done with marksmen not accustomed to handling black powder firearms.
Excellent series.
Thank you so much for these tests! It didn't look too fun, but great information! : )
I love your videos! Best wishes from England!
This was an awesome video series. Thank you very much for all of your efforts over all these years.
Awesome :D Thanks capandball
great stuff as always
Great video as always, so glad I subscribed to this channel back in the day!
Lock time of the muskets looked pretty short btw, must have been a good flint :)
Awesome video and impressive accuracy! Now I must have the Pedersoli 1798 Musket! BTW just by coincidence I uploaded a smoothbore vs rifle musket video today too!
+murpheysmuskets A ggod friend of mine always says: The question is not which to buy, but in what order to buy them all. :)
+capandball I am going to appropriate that saying. Cheers!
Thank you for this video.
Fascinating. Thanks.
I've been trying to find out what a typical muzzle velocity for military use muskets from this era would have been and have been seeing figures all over the place, ranging from 300 to 550 m/s. I recently came across the 1844 edition of J. Morton Spearman's "The British Gunner", where the point blank range of the British flintlock regular infantry musket is listed at 169 yards (~154.5 meters). The footnotes mention that this figure was determined by loading the musket with its service charge and firing it over a horizontal plane from a height of 54 inches (~1.37 meters). If the meaning of "point blank range" in this context is the range at which the musket ball would strike someone in the foot when the gun is fired at an angle of zero degrees, then a point blank range of 154.5 yards indicates that the muzzle velocity was a hair under 350 m/s.
6:27 you can see the musket ball in the air
Nice job on that ! I have been useing a .62 cal Tulle Fusil DeChase for the past 20 years and have had exelent reolts from it ! Now the French Mariens used a similer wepon the Tullie Fusil de Grenidear . And it would be nice to see if you can get one . A test with it ! My wepon came from Centermark in the U.S. ! Thanks and good job !
I never cease to be amazed at the bravery of the common man to be in the open field struggling with these venerable dinossaurs. Of course, there's technical considerations of context and tactics, but even so.
Dang cap now that kicking like a mule
Excellent series. That didn't look like it would be fun after the first few shots.
#capandball
if I may ask: would it be possible to do a video explaining the conditions of battle in that time, and how these affected aim? what affect would firing from a standing position had? the short aim times? stress and fatigue?
It's always been an interest of mine to see that--to observe the difference between theory and practice on the battlefields of the day.
The factor missing here is the soldier would have been massed in line formation with his Battalion and firing into another mass of ranks .So what would be a miss at THAT target the poor private to his left or behind the one you're aiming at would have his body part destroyed by the large calibre ball instead .
What do you think Skirmishers shoots at ? I thought it was other Infantry before OTHER battalions advanced behind him to attack the same group of enemy
I think that if you shot off hand standing ,you would be able to roll with the recoil better, there for making the recoil more manageable
One reason for the change to the smaller ball was an attempt to shorten the gap in rate of fire between the 1777 AN IX and the Brown Bess musket. Once the AN IX muskets start to foul after multiple volleys with the 16.5mm balls, it slows the rate of fire on the line as it becomes harder to load. This would give the British lines an advantage in rate of fire.
The later load would shoot from seriously fouled bores and kicked less. In mass production it may have cost less for the lead. In pure volley fire, targeting was less important than the rain of bullets. Smoothbore musketry was very much a "spray and pray" system where quantity not quality of fire was the goal.
+Jeffrey Plum Yes, in fact this is why in the 19th century all test were conducted on large target areas simulating the face of a closed line. but as light infantry tactics appeared in the normal line infantry regulations as well, the accuracy could have been a question as well.
So Very Interesting! Thank You So Much! DaveyJO in Pennsylvania
Great conclusion to the series. Did you notice any difference with difficulty in loading with the bigger ball? Was there any documented reason for the change to the smaller ball? Cheers.
+britishmuzzleloaders According to Cotty the ball size was reduced to make it easier to ram down the cartridge. But to tel you the truth I did not have any problem with the bigger ball. It was tighter, but no loading problem at all.
+capandball Did you do any cleaning between each string? My shoulder aches in sympathy.
+capandball I think you discovered the need that lead to the development of the minie' ball technology. well done.
gg Interesting. How would you relate the two technologies?
+capandball I figured as much. But interesting that you found that the result was to the detriment of accuracy...
+gg Minie' ball gave rifles the loading ease of smoothbores. Rifles were far slower and harder to load than smoothbores. Fouling hurt them more too. In American use, it took some time before formations were adjusted from the smoothbore standard.
Hey, great vid! Do you have the original, hugnarian version of these available? :)
In the States in the same period with smooth bore muskets to improve their lethal
force is load what was known as 'Buck N Ball' Load Regular Musket Load with an
Added OO Buckshot Load on Top of the Ball with a Patch/Wad on Top.
+BigBossManBBQ Buck n ball was in use as early as the 15th century in Europe
If you access to a Baker rifle, it would be interesting to see the difference.
+Pieter Batenburg The only repro I know about is an Indian made repro with smooth bore.
***** the rifle shoppe sells kits to build one. Middlesex village trading company will fit a rifled barrel to one of their Indian ones.
awesome video! thanks for torturing yourself to make it for us! that 1798 Austrian sure is a good looking firearm id love to have one someday
Excellent video. Have you ever considered doing a similar comparison between the Kentucky Long rifle and the Brown Bess? Would be interesting to see just how superior the accuracy of the long rifle was
Jake Ralph entirely different weapons with entirely different purposes
That was awesome, ouch, i felt that.
In the US we can only obtain 0.60, 0.62, and 0.662 Lyman Round ball molds. Based on your video, you were using 0.625 and 0.65 round balls. I am trying to replicate the loads for my French AN IX muskets. Also, do you have any data on the original powder loads? In your video you use approx 180 grains, is there any solid written evidence we can base this on? It's well known that the powder was low quality, but it sounds like you are matching muzzle velocity rather than just straight charge weight.
Thanks!
Marty's Arms, out of MN. makes ball molds in imperial and metric sizes. The imperial sizes run from .180" (BB) to .750", in hundredth increments; and the metric sizes run from 4mm (roughly #1 shot), all the way up to 12mm, in .5mm increments up to 6mm, then in 1mm increments up to 12mm.
+capandball
Sir, where did you get the 500 m/s numbers from?
One reason for larger loads in military service was, that you needed some punch, to be effective sown range. But also, to flatten trajectory a bit, also to further the effective range, account for priming, spillage, substandard quality of powder, small ball, maybe some damp in the powder etc.
And lastly, the military powder usually was inferior to the excellent powder they no doubt could produce in the era, but was expensive and in limited supply.
Most thing's I have seen suggest that military charges and loads threw out the ball at just below speed of sound or even a bit less.
I am regularly shooting military loads with deliberately choosen brands of powder, and even definately subsonic, the recoil is remarkable.
+LutzDerLurch There are many early 19th century sources for this muzzle velocity: Duane, Cotty, Demian. They all indicate a muzzle velocity around 500 m/s. Duane gives exact velocity numbers, Cotty and Demian desrcibe the trajectory and momentum of the ball accuaretely, that can be used to calculate the initial velocity if you know the BC of the ball.
*****
Interesting. I know of some mid 18th C. attempts to measure the Vo of Bullets, but they results were shaky.
And though the Feet per second numbers were rather large, much of the Vo disappeared, when the proper italian "feet" measure was used, instead of english feet.
*****
Hello again. I was unable to find the works you mentioned. Can you give me the full names, and possibly the titles of their works/papers/books, to help me find them?
Thank you very much
+LutzDerLurch Start here: William Duane: Compendium of modern tactics (Philadelphia, 1809) page 204;
Hermann Cotty: Mémoire sur le fabrication des armes portatives de Guerre (Paris, 1806) page 27.
*****
thank you very much.
Interesting conclusion to the series. I have to ask though, is a reproduction musket from Pedersoli an accurate representation for the period gun? With better manufacturing and metallurgy, surely the modern replica is a better, more accurate musket (comparatively) than one from the period? Having watched your 2 videos from the Pedersoli factory, they have manfacturing down to a fine art - much better I would have thought, than the factories of the 1770's.
+J Corbett The 17,5 mm smooth bore is something very-very close to the original. The barrel lenght is the same, the lock is the same, so it is 100% acceptable for the test.
+J Corbett
the results match what one British officer, Col. George Hanger, had to say on the subject in 1814:
"A soldier's musket, if not exceedingly ill bored, will strike the figure of a man at 80 yards; it may even at 100; but a soldier must be very unfortunate indeed who shall be wounded...at 150 yards, provided his antagonist aims at him; I do maintain...no man was ever killed at 200 yards, by a common soldier's musket by the person who aimed at him.¹ "
his first test was at 75m; the second was at 150 meters (which is greater than 150 yards).
I had no idea powder loads were so massive back then. You could see the exhaustion in your face and body-language at the end of that.
now thas power
For an old gun its dangerous and fairly accurate its clear why they were used plus one bullet may be all it took to kill somebody as there no doctors or tech to disinfect or remove the bullet.
11.6 grams of powder? That is nearly 180 grains for over 1600 feet per second. No wonder it kicks so hard!
+ldekoning still , but it loses power ,6:28 put speed at 0,25 you can see the bullet
+ldekoning the load was too heavy. Modern powders are more refined. Their powders were less refined. I know the British load was 120 gns again their powders were NOT the same as our modern powders. I didn't hear what he was using but in a caliber that size 1F is a good bet.
+TheDave570 yes and no. They were able to make excellent powder in the days, and consistently so. Only catch is, that it was expensive high tier powder.
The munitions grade stuff for waging wars was not half as bad as its reputation today, but markedly diffrent from the good stuff.
For example, the british deliberately used good powder for their service rifles, usually named "fine double streght" or the likes (need to look the term up again).
Also, the british brown bess charge in the 18th C. was somewhere between 220 and 165 grains. That is including the priming, and allowance for all the many things that could go wrong.
Still, I belive they threw their shot only at just about speed of sound, ca. 300m/s
The official charge for the British army from 1775 to at least 1815 was 165 grains; however, the powder quality--particularly after William Congreve's improvements to gunpowder production--mean that in practice, the soldiers were using cartridges that were only around 75% of the official load (i.e. 115-125 grains).
These I actually tested, using Goex FFg: the results were ~1000 ft/sec. This was with a 0.69 caliber ball, wrapped in cartridge paper. I'm still trying to get hold of Swiss powder if I can: I'm told this is closer to the munitions grade for Europe. Bear in mind that in practice, British rounds weren't always 0.69; often they were less (0.67-0.7 is a good range).
The point blank range described for the weapon, as of 1783, is however, somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 yards theoretically, and between 220-240 in practice, as per the military manuals of the day. This is close to the point-black of an American Springfield musket firing a 0.65 ball with 110 grains (~200 yards), as described by Cpt. Mordecai (in the 1850's)
You have to remember that some of that blackpowder is used to charge the flint lock.
I love your videos the way they are, but it would be so much cooler if you had a slow-motion camera next to the range, so that it's not in danger of being hit, but it'll still be able to capture the ball hitting the target.
+Jeremy Whitman Kinghorn Jeremy, I have a small Sony digit cam that can record 400 frame per sec movies with decent resolution, but this musket was just too inaccurate to place it next to the target.
Black powder in a white shirt 😂😂😂
I can tell it kicked hard
I have shot at those distances with a .69 cal. Charleville and placed them all on target .....center mass. I noticed the shooter using WAY too much finger on the trigger causing shots to go left. He should be using only the tip of the finger with a non-jerking squeeze of the trigger.
The video's author wins target shooting competitions with historical forearms. Watch more of his work. His skills are good enough to benchmark the service loads and methods, which are the subject here. If you're scoring 100% hits with service loads, you're amazing, start winning all competitions immediately.
Is the recoil of an musket powerfull or not?
You should get a prize for "Stupidest YT Question"
Why didnt you get any missfires? I suppose that you simply cut them out, or am I missing something?
just because there's a 1-4 chance of a misfire, doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get a misfire for every 4 rounds you shoot, that's not how probability works... one time you may shoot 40 shots without a misfire, the next, you may have your first 4 attempts be misfires... or anything in between
@@wildrangeringreen He fired some 20 shots without a single misfire. French regulation demanded you replace the flint every 30 shots, and I have never, ever gotten close to 20 shots without a misfire in my life. Hence the question. I am aware that probability exists, it simply doesn't address my bewilderment in a plausible manner. Thanks :)
What's the effective range of this musket???🤔🤔🤔
Against single enemy soldier 50-70m, against closed combat formations up to 150 m.
Wasn't the black powder back in those days less powerful than today's commercial powders like GEOX?
+Bulsh1tMan I am not sure about that. I always create my historical cartridge repros by first researching the original muzzle velocity, and set the charge later to reach those levels. In many case the modern powders - if you choose a granulation that is close to the 19th century standards - are very close to the original powders. This is even valid for Swiss as well, which is considered the strongest on the market. Their 1,5F and 2F powders are very close copies of 19th century powders.
***** I believe the mid-to-late 1800s was the point when the performance of black powder pinnacled. Before that time, I hear historians argue the reason for what we perceive as excessive historic loads for guns was because of less powerful powder. Apparently, there was also performance difference between British and French powder because the French had to refine saltpeter from nitre farms, while the British had access to purer saltpeter in Sicilian bat caves. A lot of variables to account for, though I don't suppose someone had a few intact antique musket cartridges to cut open and test the powder inside?
+Bulsh1tMan I agree that the late 1700s could be the turning point. This is the age on enlightenment when everything was studied in a scientific way, and it is the second half of the 18th century when military standardization started.
11.6 grams. That is 179 grains of holy black! 😳
no ear protection?
EDIT: nevermind. I do wonder now myself.
Most muskets aren't that accurate past 50m, but that wasn't bad shooting!
Did Austrian soldier they use buck and ball round to increence the chance of hitting something?
+Yeung Man Kiu No, they had guard cartridges, but only for the guards of the prisons
What's the difference between tirailleurs, chasseurs and voltigeurs?
+lancer D In French context: tirailleurs were any type of infantry soldier on light infantry/skirmish duty. Chasseur: soldiers of the old hunter battalions that already existed before 1798. Voltigeurs: light infantry units raised for activating the shortest men for military service, also offering elite status for the experienced, good soldiers not having the height necessary to become a grenadier. Voltigeurs were intended to jump up to the horses of light cavalry to be transported quickly where skirmishers were needed. In fact they were very rarely used this way. But they made an excellent elite unit. They were armed with shorter muskets (to compensate the height), and had infantry swords just like the grenadiers. They were raised in 1803 on the order of Napoleon. They formed a 10th company n the battalion: 1 grenadier, 1 voltigeur, 8 fusilier. The French army had never enough from the original hunter battalions raised from the peasants of the Alps, Corse, Pirennies, etc... Napoleon was happy to have a healthy competition between the grenadiers and voltigeurs. Giants against the dwarfs, as he said.
+capandball The French army also had traditional line infantry regiments and line infantry regiments. They were called differently, but they were very close to each other in training and equipment, so no matter what the name was, both were used for light and line infantry duty as well.
***** OK so the French battalion structure was identical to the British - one grenadier company, one light company and eight line companies. Voltigeurs were organised on the company level as light infantry integrated into the regular infantry battalion, Chasseurs were whole battalions of dedicated light infantry recruited from particular regions, and Tirailleur is a catch all term for light infantry in general, is that about right?
Regarding differently named units with the same role - that seemed to happen a lot. British light dragoons and hussars were functionally identical, only differing in name and uniform, and there appears to be no functional (ie. non-cosmetic) difference between fusilier, highland and foot regiments in the British army by this point in history.
+lancer D In general, yes.
thank you!
How would you scale the power of the 16,5mm compared to today's weapons, maybe equal to a .357 magnum revolver?
Compared to a 12 gauge slug
Or someone dropped the gun / it slid down something it was leaned against and dented the end of the barrel!
Why wouldn't you prime in the last step? That 'd be more safe. I Think.
+Riazor1370 Because I replicated the service loading method. In target shooting priming is the last step of course.
Very Very interesting
Thank you
Only one thing ,,,,,,,,,Ear Protection ?????? ,,,,,,..............
That looked punishing.
yo rattlesnake in da mosh
I started playing total war napoleon, it has got me interested in historic firearms. Damn so it really was an inaccurate as i had heard.
The crazy Weaponcrafter i did watch it! It was really interesting. I reload my own ammo for my AR15, very accurate rifle with a scope on it. I shoot about 1" groups at 100 yards with match grade ammo. So i am used the accuracy modern rifles provide. I love miltary history, so learning how far we have come is so fun to learn
They was accurate up to 50 m,no more.
Ubo