But be that as it may. Although, it seems to be at odds with “Lochee later refined the definition when he wrote, ‘the point blank of our firelocks, when attention is paid to the loading, is known to be about 300 yards. I suspect that’s what happened in the case you cite. Minnie bullet like old ball was smaller than caliber of the barrel, but due to special shape under pressure of gases in the barrel expanded and filled the groves. they made 30-40 cartridges out of a pound of powder–that’s 175-230 grains per cartridge. Happily, Mr. Barbieri seems to have set us back down the right path. It shoots a 230 grain .535″ ball with the same exact patch as the Baker, and 90 grains of 2Fg GOEX will get me about 1,600 FPS (plus or minus). The Russian AK47 rifle has a range of only 150 m to 250 M. This is a much smaller range than that of the M16. That’s what research and discovery is all about. is the figure. Rusty, you forget that 18th and 19th century line troops used smaller balls without patches. Albeit it Napoleonic war era, but it provides information relevant to this discussion. Because wind is such a huge variable of ranges more than 3-500 meters, depending on the weapon and ammo, the unstated percentage of hits is assumed and understood. It’s my opinion that over the years, the Colonel’s quote was codified in it’s misunderstood or edited form so many times, by so many different authors, that it became over time the standard answer as to the maximum distance a musket could fire. Whether it was possible for an individual to hit a target at that range is entirely outside the scope of the article. So the 300 yard range for an 18th century musket is not a revelation to me. Given the number of writers who applied it in numerous situations, it is not something that should be ignored and should be accepted as factual. Barrel twist rate matters as well, it’s another factor to consider when choosing barrel length and determining 300 Blackout effective range with your rifle. That means to hit the target one has to aim 20 feet above it — the barrel is no longer “levelled with the horizon.” It is elevated at a significant angle above the horizon. If one wants to debate that conclusion, then similar primary sources of information should be used. [v] Even the French held the same view of musket capabilities. They knew the best powder grainage, best load amount, best ball and patch combination… all of it and they knew it well enough to know exactly where they needed to point the firearm in whatever conditions were present, again like today’s snipers. This unfortunate shot must have been in the hundreds of yards. For those with suppressors, the 1:7 twist favors the heavier subsonic rounds. I’ve also chrono’ed my transitional long rifle, which is a .54″ caliber with a 36″ barrel. Perhaps this is more related to engineering practices, where it’d make sense to have the maximum clear field of fire around your works? Unfortunately, I confused that issue by introducing a present-day definition. No one assaults a fortification alone. The distances to the counterworks that Lochee shows in his diagrams vary considerably, but typically they are about 240-360 yards. Even the creator of the calculator admits the limits of his assumption: “[o]f course, this reference projectile bears little resemblance to either a round ball or to almost any type of actual bullet.” Too many flaws to be an acceptable source. The expression slipped to the back of my mind until I went to work at the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, the producer of the video, and I began to search for its definition. Secondly, the distance becomes much more difficult to dismiss when one realizes it is used to design, build, and attack fortifications—the practical application of the notion. However, if you read the body of the article, it is clear that I included many other distances. Yes, I do doubt the *ACCURACY* of primary accounts when physics and actual experience with the same exact kinds of implements shows that it’s impossible. Using hand-loads that are ballistically equivalent to the Buffalo Bore 180gr WFN/GC (HEAVY 357 MAG OUTDOORSMAN Pistol & Handgun Ammunition) at over 1900fps out of my Win 1892 clone, I have one-shot deer at out to 110m. A problem is that I probably can’t see out to 300 yards! With so many differences between original and modern conditions, it’s even harder for me to deny the period’s claims. Lethal Kinetic Energy The answer eventually appeared while researching an unrelated topic in Lewis Lochee’s Elements of Field Fortification. The creator of the calculator then assumes the trends garnered from those limited efforts will apply to projectiles of all sizes. Much of Herman Karl’s discussion is based on 1,000 fps and I’m curious if that is accurate for the 18th century. A musket ball can go much further than 300 yards as I’m sure you well know and any serious shooter knows. Firstly, they used a trained military sniper who has been schooled primarily in modern day rifle ballistics and fire procedure. Clearly we disagree and I and the rest of the commentators are talking past each other. Rifles were similar in that they used the same kind of flintlock or caplockfiring mechanism, but the main difference was that their barrels were rifled – that is, their barrels had grooves cut into the interior surface which would cause the bullet to spin as it left th… (See Lochee, Plates I, III, and XV.) The real value of Hughes’ work, though, is his evaluation of the actual performance of smooth bore weaponry at various ranges under varying battlefield conditions in several battles of the Peninsular Campaign; I highly recommend it. I am not making this stuff up nor am I basing it on anything other than period documentation. I am sure I speak for many others when I say this exchange has been very helpful. Most other folks have only a passing familiarity with it. And that is clearly what Hanger commented on — not the greatest distance a ball could travel. There are numerous examples of musket-shot being used in fortification construction. 44 40 Rifle Effective Range. There are two matters to be taken into account. Making niter was an imperfect science to say the least. Journal of the American Revolution is the leading source of knowledge about the American Revolution and Founding Era. (Willegal’s graph for 1,000 fps does not extend beyond 300 yards, so I have had to extrapolate.) [citation needed] The Italian moscetto is a diminutive of mosca, a fly. Joan, Sorry for the very tardy reply. A .75″ Brown Bess was typically loaded with a .67″-.71″ ball, depending on manufacturer. Less? It does not matter if you can hit the target if the ball just bounces off the target. I’m wondering if he had a change of mind over the three years prior to “Elements of Field Fortification.”. A variation in velocity makes no difference to my argument. Nor do I doubt that a musket ball could be lethal at that range and beyond. The 18th century definition apparently recognizes that bullets drop (it can’t fly in a straight line) and that the higher the velocity the less it will drop over a given distance (the less crooked its range). What these men were saying was (paraphrased), “If you’re closer than 300 yards, you’re in some danger of getting killed by a musket ball. My comments have focused on the definition of point blank. It makes sense to me that a fortifications engineer would plan defenses for the maximum range at which a musket was judged to at least start to be effective, particularly against an advancing enemy. After a lot of testing in game I am convinced that the effective range of the rifle is too short. The closer the enemy gets, the more balls are likely to hit. His primary interest is in the Napoleonic period but his book is a great resource for any time during the “age of the musket”. For what it’s worth, I agree with you that reference to contemporary sources is essential to understanding this issue in its proper historical context. Writers on siege warfare often commented that the engineers should first use their knowledge of how far shot would reach to determine those areas of the defensive position with the least protection and then begin the trenches to approach that point. Consider a present-day definition of point blank: “In external ballistics, point-blank range is the distance between a firearm and a target of a given size such that the bullet in flight is expected to strike the target without adjusting the elevation of the firearm. If there’s any interpretation needed at all, it’s simply figuring out the average that 18th-century writers used. Of primary significance is its application as part of a rule that states angles of a fortification should not be more than a musket shot apart to allow for mutual protection. The sources used are, for the era, suitably authoritative; George Smith was an instructor at the Royal Artillery Academy at Woolwich, where all sorts of ballistics experiments were conducted; Lewis Lochee was an instructor at a another military academy. Do any of you shoot muskets with live ammo at targets or game? But this is a ridiculous argument and serves no purpose for the discussion. You’d be throwing away fire at best. Granted it will be with more modern firearms and 20th century power but it is a great excuse to get out and put theory to the test. At the time of the Revolution they didn’t know what saltpeter was made out of in chemical form. Effective at 300 yards? Or think of it the other way around – to reach those distances, the defending soldiers at the parapet are firing level, which means they are “aiming” 18 to 40 feet above the heads of the attackers in the ditch. An Introduction to the Art of Fortification, “Fortification Regular,” (London, 1745). Each of those materials will perform differently in ballistics tests. The smaller the target fired at with a given charge the closer the point blank range. Those distances are pretty much what Mike Barbieri’s sources say is “musket-shot” distance for the purposes of planning a fortification. The British muskets averaged a two-percent effectiveness rating at that battle at a range of 100 to 150 yards. I’m assuming he does the same in this 1780 work since he gives other author’s distances that are just that–Stevin’s 1000 Rhineland feet is 344 yards (1000 R. ft. = 1033 London ft.), Errard is 240 yards, de Ville is 300 yards (1 geometrical pace = 5 ft.), and Vauban is 270 yds. (See Lochee, Plates IV and XIII.). Secondly, there is such a preponderance of material placing musket-shot at 300 yards that it cannot be dismissed. I have nothing substantive to add. Great piece, Michael! While looking for information on Thatcher’s reference, I did a bit of rummaging through William Moultrie’s Memoirs of the American Revolution and have come across a couple examples that, while they don’t specifically use the term “musket shot,” show that troops did open fire at more than a few dozen yards. In addition, that ball size in the example you quoted is *WAY* too big, much larger than a typical musket ball of the period which was about .69 to perhaps .72 caliber at most for use in a Brown Bess, and it’s *PATCHED* (and likely that patch was lubricated) which helps provide a seal between the projectile and the bore, increasing its velocity. The velocity of the ball, sighting, and the other variables you mention are irrelevant to my point (yet reinforce it). I am not saying that they waited until 100 yards, for example, because the ball would not travel farther than that. We feature smart, groundbreaking research and well-written narratives from expert writers. Beyond that a man might be hit by chance but the effect may not be incapacitating. I think you make an excellent point. They used an average based on their experiences and those differed because of the gunpowder quality. In summary, the article says: “Period sources use the term ‘musket shot.’ Other period sources give this definition for musket shot, so this is what probably what people meant when they said ‘musket shot.'”. The second is that there is a difference between accurate range (i.e. Sights, or lack of sights, are another major problem. So for those reasons, I’d take that 1,600+ FPS reading with a huge grain of salt. Just for the record… Inadvertently I said “in a straight line” in my first post. That the 18th century considered musket-shot as 300 yards seems to fly in the face of modern sentiment regarding the firelock’s capabilities. Below this range the projectile is either not armed and only functional as a kinetic impactor, or incapable of tracking and only effective against a perfectly stationary target. Rifleman were trained to shoot from prone, seating, and lying position. Does he give any indication of what elevation of a musket would bring the ball in at 300 yards? If you want to disregard that as irrelevant to the discussion OK. Maybe Hugh using his software can calculate the drop at 300 yards for a .69 dia. A few weeks back there was a very learned piece in a high quality publication listed at: http://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/the-inaccuracy-of-muskets/, I think we could use a good debate piece to clarify the situation. Great article, Mike. I didn’t know how they made fire with flint and steel or cordage out of bark but I learned. [vi] Clairac, the author of a major French book on fortification, referred to musket-shot as 300 yards on more than one occasion. It loses velocity *FAST*. This is very unrealistic. The allow the use of the first shots to show the wing value. The range at which a "high" expert marksman can be expected to achieve a hit on a human-sized target at least 80-90% of the time. Weapons designed primarily for anti-aircraft use often have their AA Ceiling quoted, which is a measure of the maximum vertical range at which they can successfully engage a target. Clear the land within 300 yards of your fortification so you can endanger an approaching enemy.” That’s with a tight-fitting patched ball (so more resistance). In addition to addressing the second question, I wondered if any other writers claimed musket-shot to be 300 yards. All of you can argue about the affect of powder, equipment, etc. And, the comment about not firing indicates that others had been firing. [vii] It is ironic that a primary source includes a description of minimal capability that is beyond what many today believe to be the maximum. [v1, p340], Another says, “It was a maxim with the old king of Prussia, that young troops should begin to fire at two hundred yards distance; by which he said ‘they became animated, and enveloped with smoke, saw no danger, and rushed on like old soldiers.” [v2, p246]. That’s one interpretation. I see Hanger quoted (and misquoted) everywhere. A .735″ ball traveling at 1,635 FPS at the muzzle would still hit the dirt before 300 yards even if it was sighted in at 150 yards. In my youth I calculated page after page of exterior ballistics tables, but I had only a slide rule 🙂 and then I went to the shooting range. As Jimmy Dick has pointed out, the powder is considerably different. Using a "ramrod" the weed is packed down and the tube is trimmed. So the range of a musket varied depending on the quality of powder and that varied over the course of the war. The key word is effective. Determining the distance meant by a “musket shot” may be a bit more complicated than you thought Mike. [xi] It is also used to help deal with undefended areas. The effective range, meaning a reasonable probability of hitting a man at whom you aimed, is under 150 yards as practical experience. I first heard the term “musket-shot” many years ago in a video about the Battle of Valcour Island. I think the comments have advanced the discussion and everyone’s knowledge. Well, the discussion has gone pretty much as I expected–using modern experience(s) to debate the article. I usually go by 19th century ordnance manuals, when they were able to better standardize and measure the performance of .69 caliber smoothbore muskets. Wayne – Forget Tim Murphy. Also, we really don’t know the load that was used in the 1770’s. Further on, Lochee has a table comparing the point blank and maximum range of cannon. But the barrel has to be elevated; the physics are the same for a modern high velocity cartridge. For me, its always been simply a qualitative expression meaning “close”– an expression like ‘by the skin of my teeth’ or a ‘hair’s breadth’. Today’s black powder (by the way, that term didn’t even exist in the 18th century) is a far better quality than probably the best gunpowder at the time of the Revolution. In this regard, Don Hagist is essentially saying the same thing I am and much more succinctly. An old thread but still very relevant. I believe that it has more to do with the energy needed to be lethal at that range. I too would be interested in doing some long range testing. We haven’t even factored in the differences that would have resulted in what powder was used to ignite the powder in the barrel. I suspect readers have moved on from this discussion as should I. When someone says “musket shot is” and gives a distance, then that’s what it is. It is, in fact, much more of a chess game wherein opponents try to put their enemy in an untenable position, in part by messing with their minds. Regardless of how far a musket shot would carry, there were very few occasions where a 300 yard range was possible in the American Revolution.
Kaathil Thenmazhayayi Chords, Purple Hunter Transmog, Professional Boxing Coach License Uk, What Is An Effective Paragraph, Growers Choice Led 720 Specs, Where Is The Face Shadow In Gacha Club, 38-55 Vs 30-30,