I think a lot of modern people are amazed at the power of these weapons when they see them actually loaded with a projectile. I think this comes from watching renactors who obviously are only loading powder and loose wadding which gives more of a whoosh than a bang.
As a cap and ball shooter, I DISDAIN people who underload these guns. It’s disrespectful to the weapon to load it improperly, then judge the weapon’s potential on that flawed basis. Lead roundball really needs to be traveling 1,000 feet per second at minimum to show its actual impact on target.
@@rezlogan4787 exactly. A properly loaded cap and ball .44 caliber sixgun: loaded with 35 grains of 4f Swiss and a 255 grain flat nose bullet reaches a velocity of ~1100+ft/s, with an energy of ~740ft/lbs. that’s on par with 10mm and .44 Remington magnum. “Fine sporting pistol powder” of the 19th century was the equivalent of 4f Swiss, both in granular size and energy,(or hotter) . The powder used to prime flintlocks was essentially dust. No wad, no filler, no grease over the chamber. Just keep the bore lubed and use the correct cap and projectile. These guns killed bears, boars, horses, bulls, mountain lions and more. With the average loading, the target can’t tell the difference between. .44 c&b and .45acp, or .36 c&b and .9mm. The same goes for .31 c&b and .32acp. They are handguns. They punch a hole the size of the bullet. Rifles are a bit different, only because it creates more hydrostatic shock, being propelled faster the bullet doesn’t have to be as large to create a wound of the same size. Honestly I’d rather be shot with a modern 30-06 compared to an ‘61 Springfield. They leave a NASTY NASTY WOUND.
@@poncholefty471 I regularly shoot an original P 1856 over here in England, for years there was an old oak tree stump on the back bank of our range, last winter we removed it and cut it up. We found bullets from the enfield 10 inches in the stump, seasoned oak, we always load with the original British Ordinance Board recommendations. However, we will be replacing the rifle with a reproduction soon as we wish to continue firing at full load and the old girl is starting to show her age, we are actually sending her off for reproofing soon. I think it depends how often you shoot and antique guns will, over time, start to suffer. It also depends on their history, obviously many P 1856s in British service were passed onto client nations and satrapys and how they were cared for then was a bit if a lottery. Our one was bought by my great great great grandfather, directly from a sale of a batch of 50 from Edinburgh Castle arsenal in the 1880s, he kept three for hunting and sold the rest to a relative in Canada who was in the fur trade. My gggrandfather used it for about 10 years, it was then hung on a wall for 50 years, was used by his son when he was in the Home Guard during WW2 and his son, my grandfather used to shoot it once a year or so until my late father and I got into black powder in the 1980s. So we have a pretty good idea how the rifle was cared for over the years and comparatively low use but high care from 1890 to 1980s. We shoot it monthly but, as mentioned, we will be cutting back on this and are replacing with a new reproduction. I have been building a Baker from one if those Canadian kits but need to order the barrel, our previous gunsmith retired during Covid, which was a damn shame as his work was craftsman.
Very true Richard, having fired these with ball several things become very obvious. Firstly just how much more dangerous they are when loading. how slow the ball exits the gun and the damage they cause when hitting the target. We once fired 30 muskets in two ranks (rows) with the front rank kneeling. We fired at a target 125 yds away, approx the same width we were. When we went forward we noticed that most of the balls had hit the middle centre of the target. When we discussed this those firing at the ends of the line said they had aimed towards the centre so as not to miss thus it was safer to stand at the end of the line at front when being fired at. One other thing never mentioned, on the target we had drawn figures of soldiers holding guns, about 20% of the ball hitting the target would have struck the guns.
You have probably solved a question I’ve had bouncing around my head for 35 years. When using a metal detector in the Jordan River valley I would find round lead disks,I though they were seals of some sort. I recognize the lead balls fired into sand that were flattened as the same thing i found metal detecting. The area was called the John the Baptist site, we would find many old Jewish coins called Widow’s Mites also. Thank you for the video. 😊
With how soft the metal can be they are in theory more efficient damage dealers than modern rounds, are not as good at piercing armor at longer range but minimal over penetration guarantees it will probably take you out of the fight in a single shot to vitals or even inner limb Unlike previous bows and crossbows which had a far chance for the victim to survive a hit or two
I never cease to be amazed by the very high quality of your videos. I am similarly amazed by your SUPERB command of the English language, which helps make watching your videos all the more enjoyable.
I am incredibly impressed. This is, hands down, the best example of experimental firearms archeology I have ever seen. Well done, and thank you very much for sharing.
This is the BEST information I have ever been exposed to on the net about muzzle loading military arms ..and everything else about their historic use!! Well done,Sir!
There is nothing more beautiful than bright Hunglish, pronunciation that would never occur to a native Anglo, yet truly understandable to anyone. This is such a great video
This is something we never see about Match lock Muskets and the muzzle velocity and data suggests this weapon even at 80 meters could be a formidable round to soldiers at the time. Great video thank you for all the information in this video.
I think the problem is a nearly complete lack of ballistic test being done in the era with any data written down in a form that makes sense, and a serious lack of surviving original powder for analysis. Also the lack of stardardisation (relatively speaking) makes data much more difficult to cross reference. If an experiment is noted in an orderly book of an unknown infantry regiment mentioning, say, bullet drop at distance x paces and y paces. that -can- be useful to estimate a general idea of muzzle velocities. If that snippet is from a 30 years war era imperial army, it is hard to tell, to what sort of gun it belonged, what calibre of musket was used, what kind of load.. if the same snippet were found from a british army 1770s, we know with high confidence the weapon, bore size and variation ranges, the range of ball sizes and the reguation amount of gunpowder.
In the 1592 invasion, everything was swept away. Within a fortnight or a month the cities and fortresses were lost, and everything in the eight directions had crumbled. Although it was [partly] due to there having been a century of peace and the people not being familiar with warfare that this happened, it was really because the Japanese had the use of muskets that could reach beyond several hundred paces, that always pierced what they struck, that came like the wind and the hail, and with which bows and arrows could not compare.
Some of my favorite historical firearms, thank you for your hard research work! I have been waiting for a good substantial video on matchlock muskets for some years and have never found any. Thanks again!
Your videos are always amazing teaching productions. I have been shooting percussion, flintlock, Sharps and Rolling Blocks for 47 years now and I build all my flintlocks by hand… I have a crazy urge to build a matchlock and your video was a tremendous help. Thank you once more sir.
What I love the most about those old matchlocks is the sound, it's like thunder, and you can easily imagine how the first armies that experienced the other end of those guns, could panic when that first volley went out.
Thank you so much for your research and work. I'm writing a novel set in the 80 years war period and research like this informs how I write about pike and shot warfare. Thank you for bringing history alive!
Absolutely fascinating, one of the best gun related videos I have ever seen, makes me wish I had gone down the Matchlock route when I dabbled with muzzleloaders.
Very interesting!!! In a way it's hard to imagine going on the battlefield with a matchlock. It's easy for that to be just as dangerous for the user as it is for the enemy. Thanks for this video 👍
@@fenrirrising131 " *powder horns doubled as a grenade* " Some Polish guys tried to blow up a powder horn. Scary, but not very damaging, as the horn withstood the pressure. Then they tried to do the same with an open jar full of powder, and it also withstood the pressure. If I was in a battle, I'd load straight from the horn if needed. The enemy would be several orders of magnitude more dangerous than the powder flask in my hand, it seems.
And for another contemporary take on early 17th Century Military/ Paramilitary firearms technology . from the Virginia Company of London Colony in America . The early experiences of the first wave of Colonists from 1607 are well known. Less well known was that the Investors got serious with the second wave of investment in 1611 . Professional soldier of long experience fighting in the Low Countries Captain Sir Thomas Dale was recruited to be Deputy Governor / Militia Commander/ Marshall of Virginia . On to the relevant connection : Matchlocks were considered adaquate by the standards of the day . for actual Battle use . ie , maneuver into respective lines and positions , and eventually have a battle all at once on purpose . But in an environment with being constantly prepared for Indian ( Native American ) attacks using stealth and surprise , Militiamen needed to be " locked & loaded " to instantly fire any time they were on duty . Turns out that keeping properly burning slow match ready to go during either a shift of guarding the defenses of Henricus Cittie , or for the duration of a patrol , was problematic at best , plus having the glowing tip to give away position at night , or in deep woods . So circa 1612 , they spent top dollar ( top pound ? ) for newfangled Wheellocks .
This video is a slap in the face for all those who have seen too many Robin Hood movies and take for real that the longbow was a wonderweapon that was far better than any musket could have been. Only in the hands of a maximum-trained archer could the only advantage of the bow , its high rate of fire, place it above the early firearms.
Very much enjoy the way you take known data and use simple math and experiments to derive your conclusions. I suspect your students very much enjoy your classes. I do. Thank you
Zaporozhian Cossacks favourite weapon was the Musket when call up by the Hetman of all arms to the ready each Cossack had to have 300 Musket balls with 5 pounds of gunpowder. In each Zaporozhian Cossack regiment in war footing consisted of 3000 Cossacks with that a 1000 Musketeers it was the infantry that the Cossacks were famed for . The types of Muskets were Dutch and German and mostly imported.
I actually saw a vid today of a guy who is experimenting making his powder. And he was told by others to use a role of toilet paper for the carbon ash, simply sealing it in a can and put on the fire. He made a equivalent 3F and his powder was firing very well and had good velocity records. As to how clean it was well no different than commercial powder. The residue was quite acceptable.
You like doing experiments with guns I have seen the way you drill a hole on the side of the base of a rim fire case for a primer. I have heard that American Indians used strike anywhere matches to reload Winchester Rim fire ammunition. they ground up the match heads added a couple drops of water to make a paste out of the ground up match heads. They rolled the paste into a ball dropped it into a cleaned case and using a stick pushed the paste into the rim of the cartridge. they let it dry a couple of days and loaded powder and ball into the case. I would be interested in seeing you do this if possible. Thanks.
This documentary is amazing! A true treasure! The discrepancy between the ideal most sources give (~400 m/s), and practice (305 m/s) is very interesting: I've actually noticed a similar discrepancy with the Brown Bess in the Seven Years War era (I did my own tests, but never put them in video form): the 18th century military treatises from from around that time give the ideal point blank of a musket from a parapet at 300 yards, but said that in practice the balls rarely went past 240 yards; parapet designs accounted for this fact, and so were designed with the assumption that point blank was 240 yards. It works out that the muzzle velocity for the ideal musket was ~420 m/s, yet in practice could be as low as 311 m/s (all this for Brown Bess)--not too far off from what you're getting here. To get close to that low velocity, I had to use a cheap brand of powder, 2F, and ~125 grains (priming included). Fraud was rampant in the British Army's powder procurement, so shoddy powder was a real consideration (the ideal required 165 grains of 1.5F Swiss powder). Of course, in typical British fashion, the people writing the treatises blamed the soldiers... I suspect that what you say at the end with regards to the variability in velocity--probably applies to the mid-18th century as well.
I've noticed a similar discrepancy in muzzle velocities people get with historical service loads using modern powder and what historical sources indicate their historical counterparts would have gotten. It is often said that the muzzle velocity of a musket ball from a Brown Bess fired with its service charge is anywhere from 450 to 550 m/s. In "The British Gunner", the "first grazes" range of the Brown Bess musket is listed as 169 yards, where "The above arms, with flint locks, were severally fired, loaded with the service charges* given in the General Table of Musquet, &c, Cartridges, over a horizontal plane, at the height of four feet, six inches from the ground." For a 0.68" lead ball to have 169 yards of horizontal displacement by the time it hits the ground after falling from a height of 4'6", as described above, its muzzle velocity would have to be almost exactly 349 m/s (~Mach 1.03). *The service charge listed for the "Brown Bess" musket in the General Table is 6 drams (164 grains) of powder.
@@Marmocet " It is often said that the muzzle velocity of a musket ball from a Brown Bess fired with its service charge is anywhere from 450 to 550 m/s." Whoever said that has likely never fired a Brown Bess or chronographed it with service charges. I'm wondering if these people simply didn't rip this off the Graz tests; if you can tell me more, I'd be happy to read up. What follows are data from my actual tests, which I did with a friend (I have part of the results at Project SYW): 125 grains of 2F Goex gave 305 m/s (this was the cheap powder alluded to above) 125 grains of 2F Graf gave 297 m/s 125 gains of Swiss 1.5F gave 334 m/s 165 grains of 2F Goex gave 335 m/s (not exactly 164 grains, but close enough: I wanted to specifically test the official charge, which bear in mind was set in 1775; we don't really know what the charge was before then, but it could have been as high as 220 grains) 165 grains of 1.5 Swiss gave 404 m/s (Old Gynsford gave a similar result) As you can see, using the powders I could get, and testing those did not produce anything close to the 450-550 m/s range; it's simply impossible using the powders and quantities available to me. The theoretical velocity (420 m/s) I got from Lochee's data (where I got the 300 yard point-blank) is doable, if you use 125 grains of the powder tested by Mordecai (an 1838 batch); however, this powder is no longer produced; indeed, I can't find a powder as strong as the British one from this period on the market--or rather, I haven't had the luck to find any. The powder used in the test you mention-- the one that yields 349 m/s--sounds like it's somewhere between 2F Goex and 1.5 Swiss, but closer to the Goex. You may notice from the above that, when using the 1838 batch (going by the technical data Mordecai provides--so this is all theoretical), you need to cut the charge of original powder by 25% relative to the official 6 dram charge; the weapon's kick is already quite savage at 404 m/s, so at 420 m/s,. it was probably a little worse. Keep in mind though, that the batch Mordecai tested is for military powder made 40 years after Congreve was done reforming powder production (and getting all the fraud out of the way). My ultimate conclusion, based on the tests me and my friend did, I'll quote here from my article at the project: "Overall, the evidence suggests that the ideal muzzle velocity was in the region of 400 m/s, *though in practice the range could have varied between 3-400 m/s.* " So at 349 m/s, the value you give is pretty much in the middle of the window that I got from testing. Which brings up my question: where can I get a copy of that source? and what year is the test itself from?
@@Albukhshi The original source of the claim that the upper bound of the Brown Bess is 550 m/s seems to be Wikipedia. I don't know where the source of the lower bound 450 m/s velocity comes from. Wikipedia puts the lower bound at 400 m/s. The 450-550 m/s figures are ones I read on message boards and hear bandied about among muzzle loader enthusiasts who like to talk about the huge muzzle energies their favourite weapons allegedly produced. I suspect that this claim from Wikipedia has informed a number of casual experiments that prove the claim by assuming the conclusion (in fact, I am personally aware of one such casual experiment). The source cited on Wikipedia to back up the 400-550 m/s claim is Benjamin Robbins'"New Principles of Gunnery", published in 1742. I read this treatise as well as converted the ballistic pendulum data to velocity data (to the extent that that it is possible to do so, because Robbins doesn't provide enough information about one of the pendulums he used to permit conversion of a large portion of his data into velocity figures). I doubt whoever cited this work actually read it, or did more than extract a few figures without understanding their context. The problem with citing "New Principles of Gunnery" is that Robbins never evaluated the muzzle velocity of a Brown Bess musket with its service charge. What Robbins did was use a barrel with walls nearly 0.775" thick and a bore diameter of 0.775" (meaning it weighed something like 19 kg) to shoot musket balls with 0.75" diameters. He left so little windage that at one point, he notes that even with a hammer, he had great difficulty ramming the balls down the barrel. Not only did Robbins not use a Brown Bess for his tests, he actually warns anyone who wants to replicate his experiments not to use a standard musket barrel because he says he that when he initially tried using standard musket barrels for his experiments, they invariably exploded after just a few shots. This is the reason, Robbins says, why he had to have a barrel custom made for him (the fact that his barrels exploded when he loaded them with enough powder to produce 500+ m/s velocities actually suggests that the metallurgy and barrel construction methods of the day yielded musket barrels that weren't able to withstand the pressures required to create these velocities). In "New Principles of Gunnery", Robbins was not interested in speed testing Brown Bess muskets, nor is that what he did. What he was interested in was developing a theoretical model for predicting muzzle velocity using Newtonian mechanics, and for evaluating the ballistic pendulum, his invention for measuring bullet velocities. I think you may also be right that the Graz test data to many people "proved" that muzzle velocities of historical muzzle loaders approached 550 m/s.
@@Marmocet Yeah, I soon as I saw the name Robbins, I knew exactly what the problem was: you sum it up here accurately (I read the treatise myself). I didn't mention him here regarding muskets, as his experiment is, as you know, not directly relevant to what we're trying to do: the velocity is naturally too high.
@@Albukhshi Yes, it would be nice to see people stop claiming that Robins' data shows things that it didn't show. I made a numerical model a few years ago to try to determine what the muzzle velocities of 18th and 19th century military muskets with their service loads would have been. For the Short Land Pattern Brown Bess, the highest velocity it predicts for a .68" ball and a 6 dram service charge is 494 m/s. This velocity is theoretically possible, according to my model, under the following conditions: 1. The barrel length is 42.49" - lightly longer than average. 2. 100% of the powder in the service charge is used, with no spillage. 3. Five of the 164 grains of powder in the service charge are used to prime the pan and all of the remaining 159 grains go down the barrel. 4. The powder is packed to a density of 1.073 g/cm^3, which is probably higher than what would usually have been the case and higher than the average values in the historical data sets I used to validate my model. 5. The powder burns to produce gas extremely efficiently, yielding ~286 cm^3 of cold gas per gram of powder. 6. The combustion gases are extremely hot - 1682 °C. This gas temperature suggests powder that has a moisture content of 0% and a barrel that is either already extremely hot or that is very well insulated. 7. The musket ball's diameter is 0.6849", sightly larger than average (this results in a slightly increased ball mass which decreases muzzle velocity, but this is more than offset by the increase in velocity due to reduction in windage). My model indicates that muzzle velocity was especially sensitive to the temperature of the combustion gases. I don't consider condition 6 to be realistic, but it's useful for attempting to establish what the maximum possible muzzle velocity for this weapon could have been, given its service charge. The conditions I have listed above, taken together, are what I would consider the absolute limit of "reasonable parameters" based on the research I conducted. In practice, I strongly suspect that such conditions would rarely have been achieved, if ever. The lower bound velocity I get for the Brown Bess is 308 m/s, which seems to agree with your findings. Strictly speaking, of course, with damp enough powder the velocity would drop all the way to zero. Using what would appear to have been typical values instead of the ones listed in the above conditions, my model gives me a typical muzzle velocity of 344 m/s, just a hair faster than Mach 1.
Excellent deduction on your Ballistics calculations! Unbelievable video as always, I love this channel and am always learning from your content THANK YOU AGAIN!
I'm a pretty patient person. I watched the whole video. That said, thank goodness for modern cartridge-type, conical bullet type, precision machined rifles of the modern era.
Matchless and truly scientific methodology empoyed to give an answer to many questions - at least, in the case of this particular battle scene. I recommend you to carry out a similar examination in the site of the siege of Kenilworth Castle here in UK.
Fascinating work! The slow velocity and deep penetration into gel were both surprising. Please let us know when, and where, we can read your journal article.
I just went into credit debt to save my sick old dog. However when she and my finances are better, I’m definitely buying from his eBay store!!! Never seen a .44 caliber revolver cartridge former. I honestly didn’t know they exist!!!
Стрельбище у вас интересное.Везде деревья,дорожки,а у дорожки кто-то из мушкета стреляет.Да и вокруг тоже не отстают)))Не видно ведь ничего,куда что летит,куда кто идёт.
You do not need to tighten or untighten the screw on the jaws of the serpent after every shot it takes too long. Splay the jaws, make an initial screw adjustment so it just holds the match will suffice, when it is in place this is easier to remove after firing. Simple checking before the battle is what is needed. Taking off the top of the priming bottle is a bit dangerous, plus you should hold the other end of the matchcord so it does not fly away when the gun is fired, and believe me it often does. The rest was eventually discarded, it was not used to support the gun but to stop it lifting with the recoil.
As an avid traditional archer and archery instructor, I really like to see these accuracy tests done with a musket. I find that the accuracy of archery (both with bows and crossbows) is often very much exaggerated compared to early firearms. I would say that even though the theoredical accuracy of bows and crossbows is higher then smooth-bore firearms like muskets and arquebuses due to the fact that arrows and quarrels are spin-stabelised by the vanes, the practical accuracy is about the same, if not slightly worse. A trained archer can quite reliably hit a person at 50 meters, but beyond that hit probability rapidly deminishes due to the relatively slow speed of arrows. Wounding potential is very difficult to compare though, since arrows and bullets use very different mechanisms to create wounds. While bullets rely on sheer punching-force, arrows with their comparitavely slow speeds and corresponding low kinetic energy, rely more on cutting. Meaning that arrow wounds COULD be much more devestating then lead ball wounds depending on the type of arrow head used. Though the wider the arrow head, the more difficult it will be for that arrowhead to penetrate armour. Archery is good and effective, of that there can be absolutely no doubt of course. Over 50,000 years of it's continual use proves that. But the bow and the crossbow could never compete with any firearm that was developed beyond the handgonne in terms of accuracy, wounding potential, armor penetration and ease of use. Bows only really win when it comes to shots per minute. But rate of shooting was never really as much of a concern in antiquity as it has become in the modern day.
I agree with you. Given that musketeers seemed to out-perform archers in historical battles, even when there was no armor involved, that's hard to reconcile with the greater rate of shot of archers unless we assume that the musketeers were generally hitting their targets more often. Bows and muskets probably can perform about the same on the shooting range, but in battle, where fine motor skill is degraded, the greater precision of form needed for accurately aiming a bow, and the rainbow trajectory, would have been a disadvantage.
Wonderful video. Maybe the reason for priming before loading was that you could leave the slow match on the musket? Faster and safer. At least during battle.
It is so exiting to reproduce former times shooting tactics and ballistics. Great job, thank you very much for this excellent and very informativ video.
Fantastic work! A top tip for matchlock arms, is that modern powder is graphite coated (less hydroscopic), which the match has trouble igniting. If you re-granulate your priming powder, it then ignites instantly and reliably. Also, here's another good resource for 17thc powder charges, should it be of interest: th-cam.com/video/I8jYhagU2kA/w-d-xo.html I've fired a 75 cal musket with a .710 ball and 240gr of Goex FF, and then understood why musketeers leaned heavily into the shot... Very stout recoil with those loads.
Up till approx 1400 gunpowder was supplied loose, problem with this is when travelling in barrells on the bumpy roads the powder ingredients separated with the lighter ingredients settling at the top it had to be re-mixed. They invented Corned Powder. Believe it or not during the intitial mixing they mixed it with water, proceeding to put it back into the Pug Mills which formed grains size of Wheat corns, this also drove out all the water. this corned powder did not separate, However a small percenage had to be ground down into a finer powder for ignition purposes.
@@desthomas8747 They also mixed gunpowder with urine, preferably priests' urine (if the 'demonic' qualities of gun powder feared). Although they didn't know the chemistry at time, the urea nitrate in the urine actually enhanced the powder. Fast forward a few centuries, and there were urine collection campaigns in the weapon desperate Confederacy to collect, concentrate and extract the urea nitrate to make explosives.
17th century military history is quite possibly my favorite era of study Whatta mess lol Great vid though i enjoyed the shoot and the history lesson. Any upcoming hunting trips planned? If your boar hunt vids were on vhs those tapes would be toast Thanks for the continued uploads, fire at will!
I remember a passage from Peterson's excellent "The Book Of The Gun" where he describes the regulations for standing guard at night in the early American colonies. The sentry was to stand his post, musket loaded and match burning at both ends, with his bandolier, powder flask, sword, and bullet pouch, with additional bullet(s) held in his mouth to spit into the barrel for a rapid reload. The regulation went on to admonish the sentry to remain alert and wakeful, and not to fall asleep on pain of flogging. Peterson noted that, given the possible consequences of losing concentration while wearing over a pound of gunpowder and carrying a length of slow match lit at both ends, flogging was the least of the sentry's problems if he nodded off.
I own a multitude of modern firearms. But I love watching blackpowder shooters perform. It's so elegant. Next to watching Japanese archery. 😎👌 also thanku for this informative display and history lesson 👏
Excellent report. I think that from 500 m/s of speed the lead melts (due to the friction temperature). If so, it is not practical for a lead bullet to exceed this speed. Therefore, I think that the 490 m/s muzzle speed is optimistic. Thank you very much for your work.
I had an idea of what you were going to say about that 17th century powder production just from first hand experience. I've made a few batches of gun powder myself and noticed even though the grain was basically the same as store bought, it was weaker. The recipe I had said nothing of compressing the powder lol. So I just figured out that likely makes it much stronger. Just that alone explains a lot about how guns were designed way back then.
@@ducthman4737 Well it's not a perfect system, nonetheless though, a huge technological leap from the matchlock.. Taking also into consideration the fighting style of the era, being able to reload faster and shoot faster than your opponent is a huge plus, that outweighs the occasional misfiring, witch also dependent on the quality of the steel and flint used.
@@TheAncientAstronomer Than the paper cartridge is also a big leap forward. Just look how it improved the rate of fire. And if he would have used part of the blackpoder from the cartridge to fill the pan it would even been faster. The big leap forward was to not have a source of fire , the burning match, with all that black powder laying around.
@@ducthman4737 As far as I know, slow match is not actually a sure thing to ignite powder, as it does not burn that much hotter than what is needed to ignite powder. Wind makes matchlock muskets iffy at times, and the match itself can fizzle out, or have enough ash build up to prevent instant ignition. Also, the match technically has to be removed and replaced after every shot, at least as per manual instructions of the era, and tested for proper placement every time. The match always shortens itself so it is useful even if it were not advisable to keep if aways from your powder flask for loading. The flintlock (and wheellock) sparks burn much hotter, and also manage to ignite the coarse powder from the main charge, making paper cartridges even more fast to use.
@@lutzderlurch7877 I only know flintlock (Brown Bess) and my experience is that after 8 to 10 shots during 'battle' you get more and more misfires. I have no idea how that would be for the other systems.
Amazing, Simply Amazing! I have a replica, but not like yours, it's a cheap indian made that required a lot of effort to be put into firing conditions... Still a lot of fun!
@@slowarim5091 well, the black Paint was melting under my hands, si i had to... Sobstitute It. The firing Pan bas not large enough to contain a sufficent ammount of powder so i used an handdrill to enlarge It (took a lot). The mouth of the barrel was bent and had to be shortened by a couple of MM using a metal saw. Then the muzzle had to be refurbished. The ramrod was mad of low quality wood and broke easily, so i made a new One using an agluminum One and a bronze tip. And small minor works here and there. The only thing safe (luckily) was the barrel, that thing it's not gonna Blow up any time soon. So yes, abit of carpentry was invilved into the process, and of curse crafting the slow match itself, but i'm Happy with the results.
It would be fun to see you partner with an armor smith who can make some period armor plating of the time of this matchblock and test the results. Like Tod’s Workshop did with longbow testing.
Dear Sir, I must say that while I always enjoy your work (and videos), this one was was exceptionally good. Thank you for the work you do, and for sharing your findings. Please keep up the good work.
Was double patch and double ramming common in musket drill in the 16th or 17th century? I’m more familiar with late 18th early 19th century musket drill where a ball on top of wad or the paper wrapped ball is rammed down on top of powder in a single action.
A few years ago I put together a numerical model to try to determine what typical muzzle velocities for various 18th and 19th century military muzzle loaders would have been. I used 18th century ballistic pendulum data from a few different sources to validate my model. For my effort, I determined what I think is pretty well understood, namely there was clearly a lot of variation in powder quality during this period. In particular, there seems to have been a lot of variation in the temperature of black powder's combustion gases, which could have arisen for a variety of reasons. One thing my model did indicate, and which I confirmed using a different line of inquiry, is that the muzzle velocities they did get from their service charges were generally more modest than the velocities modern shooters achieve with reproduction muskets using the same service loads but obviously using modern black powder. For example, the muzzle velocity I got from my numerical model for a 0.68" musket ball shot with its 6 dram service charge (5.5 drams down the barrel) from a Brown Bess with a 42" barrel and a bore diameter of 0.753" is 344 m/s, assuming an "average" combustion gas temperature. I then discovered that the "first grazes" range for this musket was listed as 169 yards in Captain J. Morton Spearman's "The British Gunner", where a note explains that to determine the first grazes range, all firearms listed were "severally fired, loaded with the service charges given in the General Table of Musquet, &c., Cartridges, over a horizontal plane, at the height of four feet, six inches from the ground." A first grazes range of 169 yards for a 0.68" diameter lead ball shot in the manner described corresponds to a muzzle velocity of ~349 m/s (Mach 1.03). This is quite a bit slower than the muzzle velocities in the Mach 1.3 - 1.6 range I often see asserted as this musket's service load muzzle velocity.
Excellent. I also used the first grazes recorded in Austrian manuals to determinate the ballistic curve of the bullets fired from various 19th century Austrian military arms. I was also able to determinate the muzzle velocity this way.
@@capandball I look forward to reading your paper when it comes out. Make sure you tell us where we can read it. Great work! And in case you read this, do you have a link where I can download the Austrian manuals where you got the "first grazes" for Austrian muskets?
Verry informative video! Excellent presentation,shooting, excellent besties test. I like the matchlock musket. I like your history lesson! David Back from Menifee county Kentucky USA.
Your methodology and results would seem to support the conclusions for this engagement. Did the other researchers you referenced use balls from this engagement or from other battlefields to reach their higher velocity conclusions?
I think a lot of modern people are amazed at the power of these weapons when they see them actually loaded with a projectile. I think this comes from watching renactors who obviously are only loading powder and loose wadding which gives more of a whoosh than a bang.
I think it also comes from modern cartridges being designed to be as small as possible, while still being lethal, so more ammo can be carried.
As a cap and ball shooter, I DISDAIN people who underload these guns. It’s disrespectful to the weapon to load it improperly, then judge the weapon’s potential on that flawed basis. Lead roundball really needs to be traveling 1,000 feet per second at minimum to show its actual impact on target.
@@rezlogan4787 exactly. A properly loaded cap and ball .44 caliber sixgun: loaded with 35 grains of 4f Swiss and a 255 grain flat nose bullet reaches a velocity of ~1100+ft/s, with an energy of ~740ft/lbs. that’s on par with 10mm and .44 Remington magnum. “Fine sporting pistol powder” of the 19th century was the equivalent of 4f Swiss, both in granular size and energy,(or hotter) . The powder used to prime flintlocks was essentially dust. No wad, no filler, no grease over the chamber. Just keep the bore lubed and use the correct cap and projectile.
These guns killed bears, boars, horses, bulls, mountain lions and more. With the average loading, the target can’t tell the difference between. .44 c&b and .45acp, or .36 c&b and .9mm. The same goes for .31 c&b and .32acp. They are handguns. They punch a hole the size of the bullet. Rifles are a bit different, only because it creates more hydrostatic shock, being propelled faster the bullet doesn’t have to be as large to create a wound of the same size. Honestly I’d rather be shot with a modern 30-06 compared to an ‘61 Springfield. They leave a NASTY NASTY WOUND.
@@poncholefty471 I regularly shoot an original P 1856 over here in England, for years there was an old oak tree stump on the back bank of our range, last winter we removed it and cut it up. We found bullets from the enfield 10 inches in the stump, seasoned oak, we always load with the original British Ordinance Board recommendations. However, we will be replacing the rifle with a reproduction soon as we wish to continue firing at full load and the old girl is starting to show her age, we are actually sending her off for reproofing soon.
I think it depends how often you shoot and antique guns will, over time, start to suffer. It also depends on their history, obviously many P 1856s in British service were passed onto client nations and satrapys and how they were cared for then was a bit if a lottery. Our one was bought by my great great great grandfather, directly from a sale of a batch of 50 from Edinburgh Castle arsenal in the 1880s, he kept three for hunting and sold the rest to a relative in Canada who was in the fur trade. My gggrandfather used it for about 10 years, it was then hung on a wall for 50 years, was used by his son when he was in the Home Guard during WW2 and his son, my grandfather used to shoot it once a year or so until my late father and I got into black powder in the 1980s. So we have a pretty good idea how the rifle was cared for over the years and comparatively low use but high care from 1890 to 1980s. We shoot it monthly but, as mentioned, we will be cutting back on this and are replacing with a new reproduction.
I have been building a Baker from one if those Canadian kits but need to order the barrel, our previous gunsmith retired during Covid, which was a damn shame as his work was craftsman.
Very true Richard, having fired these with ball several things become very obvious. Firstly just how much more dangerous they are when loading. how slow the ball exits the gun and the damage they cause when hitting the target. We once fired 30 muskets in two ranks (rows) with the front rank kneeling. We fired at a target 125 yds away, approx the same width we were. When we went forward we noticed that most of the balls had hit the middle centre of the target. When we discussed this those firing at the ends of the line said they had aimed towards the centre so as not to miss thus it was safer to stand at the end of the line at front when being fired at. One other thing never mentioned, on the target we had drawn figures of soldiers holding guns, about 20% of the ball hitting the target would have struck the guns.
I love this kind of real-world experimentation. It certainly gives perspective.
Matchlock content from capandball!.. Christmas has come early!
Amen!
If a matchlock is Christmas what the heck is it when he makes all these weird long dead cartridges that haven’t existed for 150 years???
Thank you!! As a matchlock musketeer, I have been waiting for this quality of research for years!!
You have probably solved a question I’ve had bouncing around my head for 35 years. When using a metal detector in the Jordan River valley I would find round lead disks,I though they were seals of some sort. I recognize the lead balls fired into sand that were flattened as the same thing i found metal detecting. The area was called the John the Baptist site, we would find many old Jewish coins called Widow’s Mites also. Thank you for the video. 😊
With how soft the metal can be they are in theory more efficient damage dealers than modern rounds, are not as good at piercing armor at longer range but minimal over penetration guarantees it will probably take you out of the fight in a single shot to vitals or even inner limb
Unlike previous bows and crossbows which had a far chance for the victim to survive a hit or two
They just let you metal detect around there? 😮
That's awesome 👍
All of the public land of interest in my area is off limits for metal detectors.
I never cease to be amazed by the very high quality of your videos. I am similarly amazed by your SUPERB command of the English language, which helps make watching your videos all the more enjoyable.
I am incredibly impressed. This is, hands down, the best example of experimental firearms archeology I have ever seen. Well done, and thank you very much for sharing.
This is the BEST information I have ever been exposed to on the net about muzzle loading military arms ..and everything else about their historic use!! Well done,Sir!
There is nothing more beautiful than bright Hunglish, pronunciation that would never occur to a native Anglo, yet truly understandable to anyone. This is such a great video
This is something we never see about Match lock Muskets and the muzzle velocity and data suggests this weapon even at 80 meters could be a formidable round to soldiers at the time. Great video thank you for all the information in this video.
I think the problem is a nearly complete lack of ballistic test being done in the era with any data written down in a form that makes sense, and a serious lack of surviving original powder for analysis.
Also the lack of stardardisation (relatively speaking) makes data much more difficult to cross reference.
If an experiment is noted in an orderly book of an unknown infantry regiment mentioning, say, bullet drop at distance x paces and y paces. that -can- be useful to estimate a general idea of muzzle velocities.
If that snippet is from a 30 years war era imperial army, it is hard to tell, to what sort of gun it belonged, what calibre of musket was used, what kind of load..
if the same snippet were found from a british army 1770s, we know with high confidence the weapon, bore size and variation ranges, the range of ball sizes and the reguation amount of gunpowder.
In the 1592 invasion, everything was swept away. Within a fortnight or a month the cities and fortresses were lost, and everything in the eight directions had crumbled. Although it was [partly] due to there having been a century of peace and the people not being familiar with warfare that this happened, it was really because the Japanese had the use of muskets that could reach beyond several hundred paces, that always pierced what they struck, that came like the wind and the hail, and with which bows and arrows could not compare.
A very well executed and documented experiment! 👏🏻 So nice to see the scientific method applied to this topic! Thanks from Sweden.
Some of my favorite historical firearms, thank you for your hard research work! I have been waiting for a good substantial video on matchlock muskets for some years and have never found any. Thanks again!
This is an outstanding video in every respect. It is great to see how these early guns really performed.
Many thanks Mike!
Your videos are always amazing teaching productions. I have been shooting percussion, flintlock, Sharps and Rolling Blocks for 47 years now and I build all my flintlocks by hand… I have a crazy urge to build a matchlock and your video was a tremendous help. Thank you once more sir.
thanks for sharing , very impressive , very thorough ,well done champ from downunder, cheers big ears
Love the Matchlock content! Thank u
What I love the most about those old matchlocks is the sound, it's like thunder, and you can easily imagine how the first armies that experienced the other end of those guns, could panic when that first volley went out.
First guns weren’t those ones… and the first ones weren’t that effective
What was more effective was the artillery cannon
Thank you so much for your research and work. I'm writing a novel set in the 80 years war period and research like this informs how I write about pike and shot warfare. Thank you for bringing history alive!
Absolutely fascinating, one of the best gun related videos I have ever seen, makes me wish I had gone down the Matchlock route when I dabbled with muzzleloaders.
''Dabbled?" you still HAVE Time! that's how I got "HOOKED!" now I Chase the Dragon every CHANCE I Get1
@@davefellhoelter1343 I still have a muzzleloading 12 gauge and have been dabbling since 1968 but only recently got the Matchlock bug....🤔
Great content as always
Greetings from neighbor country Croatia
Very interesting!!! In a way it's hard to imagine going on the battlefield with a matchlock. It's easy for that to be just as dangerous for the user as it is for the enemy. Thanks for this video 👍
Yeah, those old powder horns doubled as a grenade lol
@@fenrirrising131 " *powder horns doubled as a grenade* "
Some Polish guys tried to blow up a powder horn. Scary, but not very damaging, as the horn withstood the pressure. Then they tried to do the same with an open jar full of powder, and it also withstood the pressure.
If I was in a battle, I'd load straight from the horn if needed. The enemy would be several orders of magnitude more dangerous than the powder flask in my hand, it seems.
And for another contemporary take on early 17th Century Military/ Paramilitary firearms technology . from the Virginia Company of London Colony in America .
The early experiences of the first wave of Colonists from 1607 are well known.
Less well known was that the Investors got serious with the second wave of investment in 1611 .
Professional soldier of long experience fighting in the Low Countries Captain Sir Thomas Dale was recruited to be Deputy Governor / Militia Commander/ Marshall of Virginia .
On to the relevant connection :
Matchlocks were considered adaquate by the standards of the day . for actual Battle use . ie , maneuver into respective lines and positions , and eventually have a battle all at once on purpose .
But in an environment with being constantly prepared for Indian ( Native American ) attacks using stealth and surprise , Militiamen needed to be " locked & loaded " to instantly fire any time they were on duty .
Turns out that keeping properly burning slow match ready to go during either a shift of guarding the defenses of Henricus Cittie , or for the duration of a patrol , was problematic at best , plus having the glowing tip to give away position at night , or in deep woods .
So circa 1612 , they spent top dollar ( top pound ? ) for newfangled Wheellocks .
I have so much original Bullets from the 17. Century, and your Tests are absolutely matching.
I thoroughly enjoyed this video. Just incredible what they achieved back then .... funtastic.
This is so cool, the amount of effort and research you put into these videos is amazing. Thank you for sharing!
This video is a slap in the face for all those who have seen too many Robin Hood movies and take for real that the longbow was a wonderweapon that was far better than any musket could have been. Only in the hands of a maximum-trained archer could the only advantage of the bow , its high rate of fire, place it above the early firearms.
Many things here are considered to come to the conclusions you have found and the equanimity you display is formidable and impressive.
Absolutely amazing scientific approach to this problem. This is what sets this channel apart!
Loved this ,very interesting and informative information 👍 .
My Christmas early gift! Thanks!
Thank you for these realistic demonstrations and ballistics studies.
Superb content .
Truly one of the best shooting channels on TH-cam.
TH-cam collaborations that may never happen, but should - this channel and Kentuck Ballistics.
Very much enjoy the way you take known data and use simple math and experiments to derive your conclusions. I suspect your students very much enjoy your classes. I do. Thank you
Zaporozhian Cossacks favourite weapon was the Musket when call up by the Hetman of all arms to the ready each Cossack had to have 300 Musket balls with 5 pounds of gunpowder. In each Zaporozhian Cossack regiment in war footing consisted of 3000 Cossacks with that a 1000 Musketeers it was the infantry that the Cossacks were famed for . The types of Muskets were Dutch and German and mostly imported.
Im curious to see even older types of firearms like the handgonne. Just found this channel and looking forward to seeing more.
Good, i will now use a musket to split my wood for this winter 😅
Thank you for an excellent explanation of match lock muskets and their use.
One of the most interesting and well made videos in all of TH-cam. Well done, sir!!!
Amazing to watch the operations all gone through. Thanks.
I actually saw a vid today of a guy who is experimenting making his powder.
And he was told by others to use a role of toilet paper for the carbon ash, simply sealing it in a can and put on the fire.
He made a equivalent 3F and his powder was firing very well and had good velocity records.
As to how clean it was well no different than commercial powder.
The residue was quite acceptable.
excellent work! I loved your approach to find out the charge of powder from the excavated projectiles!
those wheel lock pistols are still some of my favourite, liked seeing them in the background
One of the next films is about the wheellock carbine
@@capandball ooooh thats amazing man
Kind of like simultaneously trying to keep your cigar lit and shooting.
Hannibal Smith knew the trick 🤣🤣🤣
You like doing experiments with guns I have seen the way you drill a hole on the side of the base of a rim fire case for a primer. I have heard that American Indians used strike anywhere matches to reload Winchester Rim fire ammunition. they ground up the match heads added a couple drops of water to make a paste out of the ground up match heads. They rolled the paste into a ball dropped it into a cleaned case and using a stick pushed the paste into the rim of the cartridge. they let it dry a couple of days and loaded powder and ball into the case. I would be interested in seeing you do this if possible. Thanks.
Thank you for posting. Firing a matchlock musket is on my bucket list. Subscribed.
This documentary is amazing! A true treasure!
The discrepancy between the ideal most sources give (~400 m/s), and practice (305 m/s) is very interesting: I've actually noticed a similar discrepancy with the Brown Bess in the Seven Years War era (I did my own tests, but never put them in video form):
the 18th century military treatises from from around that time give the ideal point blank of a musket from a parapet at 300 yards, but said that in practice the balls rarely went past 240 yards; parapet designs accounted for this fact, and so were designed with the assumption that point blank was 240 yards.
It works out that the muzzle velocity for the ideal musket was ~420 m/s, yet in practice could be as low as 311 m/s (all this for Brown Bess)--not too far off from what you're getting here. To get close to that low velocity, I had to use a cheap brand of powder, 2F, and ~125 grains (priming included). Fraud was rampant in the British Army's powder procurement, so shoddy powder was a real consideration (the ideal required 165 grains of 1.5F Swiss powder).
Of course, in typical British fashion, the people writing the treatises blamed the soldiers...
I suspect that what you say at the end with regards to the variability in velocity--probably applies to the mid-18th century as well.
I've noticed a similar discrepancy in muzzle velocities people get with historical service loads using modern powder and what historical sources indicate their historical counterparts would have gotten. It is often said that the muzzle velocity of a musket ball from a Brown Bess fired with its service charge is anywhere from 450 to 550 m/s. In "The British Gunner", the "first grazes" range of the Brown Bess musket is listed as 169 yards, where "The above arms, with flint locks, were severally fired, loaded with the service charges* given in the General Table of Musquet, &c, Cartridges, over a horizontal plane, at the height of four feet, six inches from the ground." For a 0.68" lead ball to have 169 yards of horizontal displacement by the time it hits the ground after falling from a height of 4'6", as described above, its muzzle velocity would have to be almost exactly 349 m/s (~Mach 1.03).
*The service charge listed for the "Brown Bess" musket in the General Table is 6 drams (164 grains) of powder.
@@Marmocet
" It is often said that the muzzle velocity of a musket ball from a Brown Bess fired with its service charge is anywhere from 450 to 550 m/s."
Whoever said that has likely never fired a Brown Bess or chronographed it with service charges. I'm wondering if these people simply didn't rip this off the Graz tests; if you can tell me more, I'd be happy to read up. What follows are data from my actual tests, which I did with a friend (I have part of the results at Project SYW):
125 grains of 2F Goex gave 305 m/s (this was the cheap powder alluded to above)
125 grains of 2F Graf gave 297 m/s
125 gains of Swiss 1.5F gave 334 m/s
165 grains of 2F Goex gave 335 m/s (not exactly 164 grains, but close enough: I wanted to specifically test the official charge, which bear in mind was set in 1775; we don't really know what the charge was before then, but it could have been as high as 220 grains)
165 grains of 1.5 Swiss gave 404 m/s (Old Gynsford gave a similar result)
As you can see, using the powders I could get, and testing those did not produce anything close to the 450-550 m/s range; it's simply impossible using the powders and quantities available to me.
The theoretical velocity (420 m/s) I got from Lochee's data (where I got the 300 yard point-blank) is doable, if you use 125 grains of the powder tested by Mordecai (an 1838 batch); however, this powder is no longer produced; indeed, I can't find a powder as strong as the British one from this period on the market--or rather, I haven't had the luck to find any. The powder used in the test you mention-- the one that yields 349 m/s--sounds like it's somewhere between 2F Goex and 1.5 Swiss, but closer to the Goex.
You may notice from the above that, when using the 1838 batch (going by the technical data Mordecai provides--so this is all theoretical), you need to cut the charge of original powder by 25% relative to the official 6 dram charge; the weapon's kick is already quite savage at 404 m/s, so at 420 m/s,. it was probably a little worse. Keep in mind though, that the batch Mordecai tested is for military powder made 40 years after Congreve was done reforming powder production (and getting all the fraud out of the way).
My ultimate conclusion, based on the tests me and my friend did, I'll quote here from my article at the project:
"Overall, the evidence suggests that the ideal muzzle velocity was in the region of 400 m/s, *though in practice the range could have varied between 3-400 m/s.* "
So at 349 m/s, the value you give is pretty much in the middle of the window that I got from testing.
Which brings up my question: where can I get a copy of that source? and what year is the test itself from?
@@Albukhshi The original source of the claim that the upper bound of the Brown Bess is 550 m/s seems to be Wikipedia. I don't know where the source of the lower bound 450 m/s velocity comes from. Wikipedia puts the lower bound at 400 m/s. The 450-550 m/s figures are ones I read on message boards and hear bandied about among muzzle loader enthusiasts who like to talk about the huge muzzle energies their favourite weapons allegedly produced. I suspect that this claim from Wikipedia has informed a number of casual experiments that prove the claim by assuming the conclusion (in fact, I am personally aware of one such casual experiment).
The source cited on Wikipedia to back up the 400-550 m/s claim is Benjamin Robbins'"New Principles of Gunnery", published in 1742. I read this treatise as well as converted the ballistic pendulum data to velocity data (to the extent that that it is possible to do so, because Robbins doesn't provide enough information about one of the pendulums he used to permit conversion of a large portion of his data into velocity figures). I doubt whoever cited this work actually read it, or did more than extract a few figures without understanding their context.
The problem with citing "New Principles of Gunnery" is that Robbins never evaluated the muzzle velocity of a Brown Bess musket with its service charge. What Robbins did was use a barrel with walls nearly 0.775" thick and a bore diameter of 0.775" (meaning it weighed something like 19 kg) to shoot musket balls with 0.75" diameters. He left so little windage that at one point, he notes that even with a hammer, he had great difficulty ramming the balls down the barrel.
Not only did Robbins not use a Brown Bess for his tests, he actually warns anyone who wants to replicate his experiments not to use a standard musket barrel because he says he that when he initially tried using standard musket barrels for his experiments, they invariably exploded after just a few shots. This is the reason, Robbins says, why he had to have a barrel custom made for him (the fact that his barrels exploded when he loaded them with enough powder to produce 500+ m/s velocities actually suggests that the metallurgy and barrel construction methods of the day yielded musket barrels that weren't able to withstand the pressures required to create these velocities).
In "New Principles of Gunnery", Robbins was not interested in speed testing Brown Bess muskets, nor is that what he did. What he was interested in was developing a theoretical model for predicting muzzle velocity using Newtonian mechanics, and for evaluating the ballistic pendulum, his invention for measuring bullet velocities.
I think you may also be right that the Graz test data to many people "proved" that muzzle velocities of historical muzzle loaders approached 550 m/s.
@@Marmocet
Yeah, I soon as I saw the name Robbins, I knew exactly what the problem was: you sum it up here accurately (I read the treatise myself).
I didn't mention him here regarding muskets, as his experiment is, as you know, not directly relevant to what we're trying to do: the velocity is naturally too high.
@@Albukhshi Yes, it would be nice to see people stop claiming that Robins' data shows things that it didn't show.
I made a numerical model a few years ago to try to determine what the muzzle velocities of 18th and 19th century military muskets with their service loads would have been. For the Short Land Pattern Brown Bess, the highest velocity it predicts for a .68" ball and a 6 dram service charge is 494 m/s.
This velocity is theoretically possible, according to my model, under the following conditions:
1. The barrel length is 42.49" - lightly longer than average.
2. 100% of the powder in the service charge is used, with no spillage.
3. Five of the 164 grains of powder in the service charge are used to prime the pan and all of the remaining 159 grains go down the barrel.
4. The powder is packed to a density of 1.073 g/cm^3, which is probably higher than what would usually have been the case and higher than the average values in the historical data sets I used to validate my model.
5. The powder burns to produce gas extremely efficiently, yielding ~286 cm^3 of cold gas per gram of powder.
6. The combustion gases are extremely hot - 1682 °C. This gas temperature suggests powder that has a moisture content of 0% and a barrel that is either already extremely hot or that is very well insulated.
7. The musket ball's diameter is 0.6849", sightly larger than average (this results in a slightly increased ball mass which decreases muzzle velocity, but this is more than offset by the increase in velocity due to reduction in windage).
My model indicates that muzzle velocity was especially sensitive to the temperature of the combustion gases. I don't consider condition 6 to be realistic, but it's useful for attempting to establish what the maximum possible muzzle velocity for this weapon could have been, given its service charge. The conditions I have listed above, taken together, are what I would consider the absolute limit of "reasonable parameters" based on the research I conducted. In practice, I strongly suspect that such conditions would rarely have been achieved, if ever.
The lower bound velocity I get for the Brown Bess is 308 m/s, which seems to agree with your findings. Strictly speaking, of course, with damp enough powder the velocity would drop all the way to zero.
Using what would appear to have been typical values instead of the ones listed in the above conditions, my model gives me a typical muzzle velocity of 344 m/s, just a hair faster than Mach 1.
Excellent deduction on your Ballistics calculations! Unbelievable video as always, I love this channel and am always learning from your content THANK YOU AGAIN!
Here I absolutely love this guy and channel
I'm a pretty patient person. I watched the whole video.
That said, thank goodness for modern cartridge-type, conical bullet type, precision machined rifles of the modern era.
Awesome video. I like all the testing and research you did to simulate the old ballistics.
Matchless and truly scientific methodology empoyed to give an answer to many questions - at least, in the case of this particular battle scene. I recommend you to carry out a similar examination in the site of the siege of Kenilworth Castle here in UK.
I just have one thing to say... I'm jealous lol I love the research and historical content of this channel.
Wow never saw one in action, thanks for sharing
Fascinating work! The slow velocity and deep penetration into gel were both surprising. Please let us know when, and where, we can read your journal article.
Dear Douglas, I will!
Brilliant research. Thank you for this.
I just went into credit debt to save my sick old dog. However when she and my finances are better, I’m definitely buying from his eBay store!!!
Never seen a .44 caliber revolver cartridge former. I honestly didn’t know they exist!!!
Splendid work!
I really enjoy your informative videos!
Стрельбище у вас интересное.Везде деревья,дорожки,а у дорожки кто-то из мушкета стреляет.Да и вокруг тоже не отстают)))Не видно ведь ничего,куда что летит,куда кто идёт.
I really happy to see a TH-cam channel this high quality and scientific :D especially if it is Hungarian ;) csak így tovább...
Excellent content, as always 🙂
You do not need to tighten or untighten the screw on the jaws of the serpent after every shot it takes too long. Splay the jaws, make an initial screw adjustment so it just holds the match will suffice, when it is in place this is easier to remove after firing. Simple checking before the battle is what is needed. Taking off the top of the priming bottle is a bit dangerous, plus you should hold the other end of the matchcord so it does not fly away when the gun is fired, and believe me it often does. The rest was eventually discarded, it was not used to support the gun but to stop it lifting with the recoil.
As an avid traditional archer and archery instructor, I really like to see these accuracy tests done with a musket. I find that the accuracy of archery (both with bows and crossbows) is often very much exaggerated compared to early firearms.
I would say that even though the theoredical accuracy of bows and crossbows is higher then smooth-bore firearms like muskets and arquebuses due to the fact that arrows and quarrels are spin-stabelised by the vanes, the practical accuracy is about the same, if not slightly worse. A trained archer can quite reliably hit a person at 50 meters, but beyond that hit probability rapidly deminishes due to the relatively slow speed of arrows.
Wounding potential is very difficult to compare though, since arrows and bullets use very different mechanisms to create wounds. While bullets rely on sheer punching-force, arrows with their comparitavely slow speeds and corresponding low kinetic energy, rely more on cutting. Meaning that arrow wounds COULD be much more devestating then lead ball wounds depending on the type of arrow head used. Though the wider the arrow head, the more difficult it will be for that arrowhead to penetrate armour.
Archery is good and effective, of that there can be absolutely no doubt of course. Over 50,000 years of it's continual use proves that. But the bow and the crossbow could never compete with any firearm that was developed beyond the handgonne in terms of accuracy, wounding potential, armor penetration and ease of use. Bows only really win when it comes to shots per minute. But rate of shooting was never really as much of a concern in antiquity as it has become in the modern day.
I agree with you. Given that musketeers seemed to out-perform archers in historical battles, even when there was no armor involved, that's hard to reconcile with the greater rate of shot of archers unless we assume that the musketeers were generally hitting their targets more often.
Bows and muskets probably can perform about the same on the shooting range, but in battle, where fine motor skill is degraded, the greater precision of form needed for accurately aiming a bow, and the rainbow trajectory, would have been a disadvantage.
Wonderful video. Maybe the reason for priming before loading was that you could leave the slow match on the musket? Faster and safer. At least during battle.
Fascinating!!! Great video. Thank you so much!
Thank you for your in depth video and clear explanations, (that why I keep coming back to your channel.)
It is so exiting to reproduce former times shooting tactics and ballistics. Great job, thank you very much for this excellent and very informativ video.
Thanks Bolage, good set of tests.
Fantastic work!
A top tip for matchlock arms, is that modern powder is graphite coated (less hydroscopic), which the match has trouble igniting. If you re-granulate your priming powder, it then ignites instantly and reliably. Also, here's another good resource for 17thc powder charges, should it be of interest: th-cam.com/video/I8jYhagU2kA/w-d-xo.html
I've fired a 75 cal musket with a .710 ball and 240gr of Goex FF, and then understood why musketeers leaned heavily into the shot... Very stout recoil with those loads.
Up till approx 1400 gunpowder was supplied loose, problem with this is when travelling in barrells on the bumpy roads the powder ingredients separated with the lighter ingredients settling at the top it had to be re-mixed. They invented Corned Powder. Believe it or not during the intitial mixing they mixed it with water, proceeding to put it back into the Pug Mills which formed grains size of Wheat corns, this also drove out all the water. this corned powder did not separate, However a small percenage had to be ground down into a finer powder for ignition purposes.
@@desthomas8747 They also mixed gunpowder with urine, preferably priests' urine (if the 'demonic' qualities of gun powder feared). Although they didn't know the chemistry at time, the urea nitrate in the urine actually enhanced the powder.
Fast forward a few centuries, and there were urine collection campaigns in the weapon desperate Confederacy to collect, concentrate and extract the urea nitrate to make explosives.
17th century military history is quite possibly my favorite era of study
Whatta mess lol
Great vid though i enjoyed the shoot and the history lesson. Any upcoming hunting trips planned?
If your boar hunt vids were on vhs those tapes would be toast
Thanks for the continued uploads, fire at will!
Wonderful research thank you 👏
That’s a job loading, the skill set. 👍😊
I remember a passage from Peterson's excellent "The Book Of The Gun" where he describes the regulations for standing guard at night in the early American colonies. The sentry was to stand his post, musket loaded and match burning at both ends, with his bandolier, powder flask, sword, and bullet pouch, with additional bullet(s) held in his mouth to spit into the barrel for a rapid reload. The regulation went on to admonish the sentry to remain alert and wakeful, and not to fall asleep on pain of flogging. Peterson noted that, given the possible consequences of losing concentration while wearing over a pound of gunpowder and carrying a length of slow match lit at both ends, flogging was the least of the sentry's problems if he nodded off.
I own a multitude of modern firearms. But I love watching blackpowder shooters perform. It's so elegant. Next to watching Japanese archery. 😎👌 also thanku for this informative display and history lesson 👏
Excellent report. I think that from 500 m/s of speed the lead melts (due to the friction temperature). If so, it is not practical for a lead bullet to exceed this speed. Therefore, I think that the 490 m/s muzzle speed is optimistic. Thank you very much for your work.
The French 1777 muskets actually fired their pure lead roundballs with approximately 500 m/s velocity.
80 yards with a matchlock , bravo ! Impressive.
This is so cool from an archeological perspective!
I had an idea of what you were going to say about that 17th century powder production just from first hand experience. I've made a few batches of gun powder myself and noticed even though the grain was basically the same as store bought, it was weaker. The recipe I had said nothing of compressing the powder lol. So I just figured out that likely makes it much stronger. Just that alone explains a lot about how guns were designed way back then.
Amazing stuff!
Thank you for this valuable research
Seeing the whole loading and firering procedure, I can imagine how the flint lock system must have looked like a massive technological innovation.
With a flintlock you can have failures when your flint is wearing out but with this system you will always have fire in the pan.
@@ducthman4737 Well it's not a perfect system, nonetheless though, a huge technological leap from the matchlock..
Taking also into consideration the fighting style of the era, being able to reload faster and shoot faster than your opponent is a huge plus, that outweighs the occasional misfiring, witch also dependent on the quality of the steel and flint used.
@@TheAncientAstronomer
Than the paper cartridge is also a big leap forward. Just look how it improved the rate of fire. And if he would have used part of the blackpoder from the cartridge to fill the pan it would even been faster.
The big leap forward was to not have a source of fire , the burning match, with all that black powder laying around.
@@ducthman4737 As far as I know, slow match is not actually a sure thing to ignite powder, as it does not burn that much hotter than what is needed to ignite powder. Wind makes matchlock muskets iffy at times, and the match itself can fizzle out, or have enough ash build up to prevent instant ignition. Also, the match technically has to be removed and replaced after every shot, at least as per manual instructions of the era, and tested for proper placement every time. The match always shortens itself so it is useful even if it were not advisable to keep if aways from your powder flask for loading.
The flintlock (and wheellock) sparks burn much hotter, and also manage to ignite the coarse powder from the main charge, making paper cartridges even more fast to use.
@@lutzderlurch7877
I only know flintlock (Brown Bess) and my experience is that after 8 to 10 shots during 'battle' you get more and more misfires. I have no idea how that would be for the other systems.
I love seeing such beautifully made arms metal and wood always the way to go
Nice work. My historical group did some informal testing, in less detail, in the 1990's. We obtained similar results.
Dear Brett, It would be interesting to hear more about these tests.
Excellent work. Thank you!
Amazing, Simply Amazing! I have a replica, but not like yours, it's a cheap indian made that required a lot of effort to be put into firing conditions... Still a lot of fun!
what did you have to do with it?
@@slowarim5091 well, the black Paint was melting under my hands, si i had to... Sobstitute It. The firing Pan bas not large enough to contain a sufficent ammount of powder so i used an handdrill to enlarge It (took a lot). The mouth of the barrel was bent and had to be shortened by a couple of MM using a metal saw. Then the muzzle had to be refurbished. The ramrod was mad of low quality wood and broke easily, so i made a new One using an agluminum One and a bronze tip. And small minor works here and there. The only thing safe (luckily) was the barrel, that thing it's not gonna Blow up any time soon. So yes, abit of carpentry was invilved into the process, and of curse crafting the slow match itself, but i'm Happy with the results.
Great video very educational thanks for sharing this type of content greetings from Guatemala
This was great to watch; thank you Cap n Ball. At 30:27 a couple are seen walking; are you warning them to walk around?
Yes. It is a silly system that the road to another range actually goes through the 80m range.
Nice...........once again, thanks for making these videos!!! Greetz from the Netherlands!!!
It would be fun to see you partner with an armor smith who can make some period armor plating of the time of this matchblock and test the results. Like Tod’s Workshop did with longbow testing.
Did you see the paper by Silvia Leever on destructive testing of original breastplates?
Withstood some serious energies
Dear Sir, I must say that while I always enjoy your work (and videos), this one was was exceptionally good. Thank you for the work you do, and for sharing your findings. Please keep up the good work.
Was double patch and double ramming common in musket drill in the 16th or 17th century? I’m more familiar with late 18th early 19th century musket drill where a ball on top of wad or the paper wrapped ball is rammed down on top of powder in a single action.
Hello, big research work and also for the tests. I saw that you have a very good choice "OPINEL" knife. Good video as always.
Great video!! I appreciate your work!
Very scientific video, I love it :) Did you also consider oxidation to PbO of the bullet over time? PbO could also be lost while digging the bullet up
A few years ago I put together a numerical model to try to determine what typical muzzle velocities for various 18th and 19th century military muzzle loaders would have been. I used 18th century ballistic pendulum data from a few different sources to validate my model. For my effort, I determined what I think is pretty well understood, namely there was clearly a lot of variation in powder quality during this period. In particular, there seems to have been a lot of variation in the temperature of black powder's combustion gases, which could have arisen for a variety of reasons. One thing my model did indicate, and which I confirmed using a different line of inquiry, is that the muzzle velocities they did get from their service charges were generally more modest than the velocities modern shooters achieve with reproduction muskets using the same service loads but obviously using modern black powder.
For example, the muzzle velocity I got from my numerical model for a 0.68" musket ball shot with its 6 dram service charge (5.5 drams down the barrel) from a Brown Bess with a 42" barrel and a bore diameter of 0.753" is 344 m/s, assuming an "average" combustion gas temperature. I then discovered that the "first grazes" range for this musket was listed as 169 yards in Captain J. Morton Spearman's "The British Gunner", where a note explains that to determine the first grazes range, all firearms listed were "severally fired, loaded with the service charges given in the General Table of Musquet, &c., Cartridges, over a horizontal plane, at the height of four feet, six inches from the ground." A first grazes range of 169 yards for a 0.68" diameter lead ball shot in the manner described corresponds to a muzzle velocity of ~349 m/s (Mach 1.03). This is quite a bit slower than the muzzle velocities in the Mach 1.3 - 1.6 range I often see asserted as this musket's service load muzzle velocity.
Excellent. I also used the first grazes recorded in Austrian manuals to determinate the ballistic curve of the bullets fired from various 19th century Austrian military arms. I was also able to determinate the muzzle velocity this way.
@@capandball I look forward to reading your paper when it comes out. Make sure you tell us where we can read it. Great work!
And in case you read this, do you have a link where I can download the Austrian manuals where you got the "first grazes" for Austrian muskets?
Another great video as usual! Cheers from Virginia.
Verry informative video! Excellent presentation,shooting, excellent besties test. I like the matchlock musket. I like your history lesson! David Back from Menifee county Kentucky USA.
Great Video, extremely informative. Thank You.
Excellent video! What fun too!
Many thanks Wayne!
Your armor is awesome
Your methodology and results would seem to support the conclusions for this engagement. Did the other researchers you referenced use balls from this engagement or from other battlefields to reach their higher velocity conclusions?
We are the only ones so far who used these bullets. The other researchers used bullets from different battlefields.
Wow, great job sir.
"Nice shot!" 🎯