A rifled firearm was also more expensive than one with a smooth bore.
@Ruizg5594 жыл бұрын
Which is HUGLEY important factor to consider. Wonder why Matt didn't bring it up. I'm not sure, but I would also suspect that because rifle rounds required tighter tolerances, ammunition was also probably more expensive to produce as well.
@richard61334 жыл бұрын
The quality control issues go up with the tighter tolerances. It was a production feasibility problem, prior to industrialization. Rifles existed well before industrialization, but they were made by hand, and they usually came with their own shot dies for casting the lead balls for that individual rifle. While they were without equal at taking that long shot with accuracy, they were just not logistically ready to be an army's primary battle firearm until factories existed that could standardize production with high enough quality.
@colbunkmust4 жыл бұрын
@@Ruizg559 rifles that existed prior to the invention of the minie ball shot the same lead balls as the muskets(although usually slightly smaller bore size) and had to be pressed into the rifling with a mallet at the muzzle before the ramrod could be used to seat the projectile. This increased the loading time for the earlier rifles which meant not only were rifles more difficult to make due to cutting the rifling, but real disadvantage was rifles had a slower rate of fire which was disadvantageous for line infantry of the period where supremacy was decided by how furiously you could unleash volley after volley of fire to wither the opposing side. When the minie ball(modern bullet) was developed and replaced the conventional musket ball it didn't require the tight fitment because the base of the minie ball in concave and expands on firing to mold to the rifling, allowing rifled muskets to be loaded as fast as smooth-bore muskets while having higher muzzle velocities, longer range accuracy and lethality.
@Archaeopteryx1284 жыл бұрын
@@Ruizg559 Quite correct. I have personally cast both lead round balls and hollow base minnie ball projections. Minnie balls are vastly more difficult to cast, and the moulds are more complicated.
@Ruizg5594 жыл бұрын
@@colbunkmust Thank you for the detailed explanation!
@zettle23454 жыл бұрын
The Minie ball cancelled out the problems with fouling, for the most part. By being a loose fitting bullet that expanded as the pressure built behind it, allowing for easier loading even after multiple shots.
@EXO9X84 жыл бұрын
When is superdry going to sponsor you as an influencer
@beautyson513 жыл бұрын
sorry to be offtopic but does someone know of a method to log back into an instagram account? I was dumb forgot the password. I appreciate any assistance you can give me!
@jamiedarren23843 жыл бұрын
@Beau Tyson Instablaster ;)
@austincummins77124 жыл бұрын
Officer: "And remember recruits- before you start whining and complaining about the bullet that just shattered your ribcage, think about your mate behind you who just got his balls shot off. Rub some dirt on it and get back in the fight!"
@leroidethunes39134 жыл бұрын
Idk mate, you have many more chances of surviving and living a normal-ish life if you're hit in the groin than in the chest, if i was hit in the groin and came back home i would just look for someone that accepted the thing doesn't work or that there's no thing anymore because it was blown off
@The_Crimson_Fucker4 жыл бұрын
@@leroidethunes3913 You don't know how difficult life in the 19th century would be with no proper piss pipe.
@leroidethunes39134 жыл бұрын
@@The_Crimson_Fucker easier than without lungs, that's basic biology
@The_Crimson_Fucker4 жыл бұрын
@@leroidethunes3913 The problem is that, given the medicine of the time, your chances of survival are actually pretty much equal. Your lungs will heal in time, you won't get your dick back. You might not be able to run marathons anymore but living with a cough is a lot easier than dying from sepsis.
@persallnas54084 жыл бұрын
i think it should be added that the reason rifles became a mainstream arm in western armies at the time was the invention of the minie bullet who is not ballshaped and expands a bit at the base when fired making it fit tight with the rifling going out whilst being relatively easy to push down the barrel when loading
@jacobstaten23664 жыл бұрын
"Briefly" (17 minute video). Funny how his videos never seem long.
@corvanphoenix4 жыл бұрын
I haven't watched Matt or historic content in a while now. Boy it feels good to be back.
@Lucius19584 жыл бұрын
One interesting theory I have read on the origin of rifling: there are apparently some very early examples of guns with *straight* grooves in the barrel. It has been suggested that these were originally intended to collect fouling, thereby prolonging the useful time between cleanings; and that some gunsmith attempted to make these grooves *longer* by cutting them in a spiral pattern. It would have been quite a revelation when it was found that accuracy suddenly improved...
@skepticalbadger4 жыл бұрын
This is a myth. No such weapons actually exist.
@mickaleneduczech83734 жыл бұрын
One other issue with loading a front stuffer with a fixed bayonet. It's dangerous. You have to do it just right or you will skewer your hand. And doing it just right in the heat of battle...well... One of my mates learned this the hard way filming the battle scene for the close of Amistad.
@johnfisk8114 жыл бұрын
That is why the bayonets had the point skewed away from the barrel.
@joelkelly1694 жыл бұрын
I have brought down elk at 100 yards with a .75 smooth bore so yes they work. The rifled barrel added range to the game when it came along. I am sure at 1000 yards I could not even see what I was shooting at much less hit it with open sites, but at 250 yards, well out of the effective range of the smooth bore I could. Very good vid here on the history of warfare with firearms. Thank you for putting this one on
@100dfrost4 жыл бұрын
Britain had promising young officer named Ferguson that developed an also promising breech loader. He, unfortunately came to my home state to "bring to heel" a bunch of us "Over the Hill Ulstermen" and thought it was a great idea to ride a white horse, wearing a red hunting shirt to a place here called King's Mountain. Cornwallis was greatly disappointed, with the former officer, not the rifle. This didn't go far much after Ferguson "shuffled off this mortal coil". Great video, thanks.
@macfilms99044 жыл бұрын
They were super ahead of their time, unfortunately metal science hadn't really gotten where it needed to be, and the design had a flaw that resulted in broken stocks at the screw-breech. But one does wonder if he'd lived and iterated on the rifle, if those problems could have been overcome.
@itsapittie4 жыл бұрын
My ancestor Thomas Price participated in that battle on the side of the colonists so I've read a lot about the battle. Despite this error in judgement, Ferguson did design a very advanced rifle for its day.
@SuperFunkmachine4 жыл бұрын
@@macfilms9904 There quite behind the times in terms of mechanics, breech loading goes back for hundreds of years. Henry the eighth had breach loading pistols an lot of there fancy guns.
@victorwaddell65304 жыл бұрын
Ah ! Another Carolininian . I'm from Spartanburg County , South Carolina . I live a few minutes drive from Cowpens Battlefield and the town of Cowpens . Kings Mountain is a little drive up I85 from my house . Ive visited both battlefields a few times . I've also been to Walnut Grove Plantation a couple of times . I went by there this past weekend on a job in Pauline . There is a statue of Daniel Morgan in Morgan Square , Downtown Spartanburg. Have you been there ?
@itsapittie4 жыл бұрын
@@victorwaddell6530 My family moved to Oklahoma after the Civil War and I haven't traveled much in that area but I plan to now that I'm retired.
@henrya35304 жыл бұрын
I think it is worth pointing out that, unlike a rifle, many muskets did not have a rear sight. The P1853 Rifle used a minie bullet that was simple to load - just pour in the powder and push the bullet down the barrel. No need to faff about with patches or wadding and you can get about 15 shots before you need to swab the barrel. However, a musket can fire "buck and ball" which, given the tactics of the period, is very effective against massed troops. Why did muskets stay in use for so long after the introduction of rifled barrels? Well, there were millions of them and a musket can fire ANYTHING you can stuff down the barrel - with varying degrees of (in)accuracy.
@loquat44404 жыл бұрын
When clean and tightly patched a smooth bore can be used for hunting. The hudson bay smooth bore trade muskets were sold and used for many years in canada and parts of the USA. And yes a 20 ga musket can be loaded shot or ball. Up to about 1750 or so on the American Frontier rifles were not so common and it was smooth bores. i really do need to go buy one.
@henrya35304 жыл бұрын
@@loquat4440 Do not underestimate the capabilities of a well made musket. I recently had the good fortune to fire a Prussian 1805 musket. Though the lock time was comparatively slow (click... swish... fizzle... BOOM!) it was still a pleasant gun to shoot - 65gr 2F and .69 ball - and despite having no rear sight was reasonably accurate. The long barrel helps with aiming. If you can find an English lock made after about 1820 with a roller on the frizzen or frizzen spring then you can expect similar lock times to a percussion lock. Locks made by Mortimer for sporting guns are very fast indeed as well as somewhat more "rain proof" than other locks. If you intend to go hunting Swiss pattern locks are perhaps best avoided. (Can you guess why?)
@bryankropp14704 жыл бұрын
Matt, very nicely done. I think it bears mentioning that the Minnie Ball (really the first conical bullet despite the name) was a significant contributor, both to the range of rifles and the wounding. While conical bullets had no point in smoothbores, they added weight (without adding diameter) to rifle shots, and most importantly, added stabilization. A conical bullet roughly doubled potential range from a rifle. A rifle with a round bullet might be accurate at 400 to 500 yd, with a conical bullet it could reach that 1000 yd. Rifling was around much longer than Minnie Balls though.
@johnfisk8114 жыл бұрын
I have owned and used both the HEIC percussion musket and the Pattern 1853 rifle musket same as Matt. With the paper cartridge of the musket and the Pritchett paper cartridge of the British Army rifle they both take much the same time to load. The windage of the musket and the waxed paper of the rifle musket cartridge allows fire to be maintained for the duration of battles without cleaning out. I thoroughly recommend Brett Gibbons new small book 'The Destroying Angel' to understand why the rifle musket changed warfare as the first modern rifle. BTW the HEIC musket in service used a 0.685" ball wrapped in 2 layers of paper in a 0.76" smooth bore. The Pattern 1853 used a 0.55" paper wrapped bullet in a .58" bore which it expanded to fill the grooves of the rifling.
@scholagladiatoria4 жыл бұрын
Great info, thanks.
@DogWalkerBill4 жыл бұрын
My Father had a 43 caliber, 1870 (43-70) rifle that had been used in the Spanish American War. The lands were worn, but it still fired. It was a"rolling block" breach loader, black powder rifle. When it fired it shot about 7 feet of flames and black smoke! It took seconds to a minute for the smoke to clear, depending on the wind. My Father was an excellent shot. He tested it shooting at one gallon metal gas cans. The rifle fired about 1 foot low at 100 yards! (This was in the 1960's, so the rifle was at least 90 years old and worn!) He went deer hunting with it and got a deer. (He believed in one shot, one kill.)
@euansmith36994 жыл бұрын
It took me a moment to work out that Matt said, "A mortally wounding area", instead of what I first heard, "A more silly wounding area".
@deadhorse13914 жыл бұрын
Good video One advantage a smoothbore had over a rifle at close range was that it could be loaded with “ Buck and Ball”, one normal Ball and then a couple of buck shot also. Made it more likely to hit something. I have an original pattern 1842 musket, I’ve hunted with it a good bit killing geese and squirrels using shot and a deer using Ball One way to increase your accuracy is to use a patched ball
@frederikqu77174 жыл бұрын
I have to correct you. Giving a rotation with rifling to the trajectory does not affect it's curvature caused by gravity. Rifles might have more range than muskets, but it's not from this flattening of the trajectory. In fact, a round ball can have a rotation, that flattens out it's trajectory, but I think that was never used on muskets
@billmelater64704 жыл бұрын
Rifled muskets did exist. The big difference is that with round ball, you want a very low twist rate (no less than about 1:60). For conical, you need a faster twist rate to get it to rotate to the point at which it becomes stabilized.
@mr.stotruppen87244 жыл бұрын
@Herostratus I can't speak specifically for British issue ammunition for the P53, as they did a lot of experimenting with different projectiles throughout the P53's service life, but US issue minie balls had the same weight of lead in a .54 caliber package as the .69 caliber round balls they issued with their smoothbores. Bean counters were probably delighted by that; no changes needed to the weight of lead that needed to be issued to each man to meet regs for the number of cartridges they had to carry.
@ChristianThePagan4 жыл бұрын
Whether you can hít something with smoothbore depends on the ammo and how you load it. If you have a tight fitting ball, use consistent powder loads and pack the stuff down properly you can get good accuracy out to 100 meters. I’ve seen period bullet mould kits that could cast buckshot, sub caliber musket balls for rapid loading (but less accurate shooting) and full caliber compartments to cast balls for accurate shooting (but slower loading). Another thing modern shooters do wrong with these old flinters (especially pistols) and matchlocks is to try and aim them like a modern rifled gun. A lot of (but not all) shooting done with these smoothbores was mostly instinctive, like with a shotgun. Peering down the barrel of a flintlock pistol like we would do with a modern Glock that has actual sights (unlike many flintlock pistols who have none) is a good way to hit nothing.
@hedgehog31803 жыл бұрын
Also putting your face up to something that has burning powder when the safety goggles haven't been invented is not a great idea.
@johanrunfeldt71742 жыл бұрын
So point shooting was a thing, back then?
@ChristianThePagan2 жыл бұрын
@@johanrunfeldt7174Hitting what you are aiming at has always been a thing … depending on the range.
@joabthejavelin51194 жыл бұрын
There is a potential difference in accuracy, due to human concetration, between percussion and flint lock muskets. Flint locks have a greater delay between when the trigger is pulled and the powder is set off. They require more focus and steadiness, which may be difficult when in battle.
@mr.stotruppen87244 жыл бұрын
I'd say the bigger killer of accurate shooting with a flint would have been the big mess of sparks thrown up in your face, making the shooter flinch and jerk.
@billmelater64704 жыл бұрын
They don't call them "Flich locks" for nothing.
@victorwaddell65304 жыл бұрын
I believe percussion ignition invented by a Scottish minister for purposes of shooting waterfowl . The time between trigger pull and ignition of the powder charge was detrimental to his ability to hit fast flying ducks and geese with a shotgun . Waterfowling is usually practiced in wet field conditions where flint ignition is prone to fail . Other hunters recognized the advantage of percussion ignition due to the fact that a game animal could hear the spark of a flintlock and ' jump the shot' before the bullet left the muzzle . Militaries weren't initially interested in percussion ignition due to the fact that soldiers in formation were rather slow moving targets , and percussion ignited weapons were expensive and considered specialized for hunting .
@thomasbaagaard4 жыл бұрын
What he forget is the fact that smoothbores can be used with buckshot at 80 yards. And in the hands of soldiers who are not propperly trained in marksmanship that is a huge advantage. Also hitting a target at 200-300yards, where you have to judge the range take a lot of training in range estimation... and range time with live ammo where you get proper feedback and instruction.. This the british army did to a very structures and extensive way. But that was simply not the case in other armies, like during the american civil war where marksmanship training was not commonly done outside of a few select units. Adn the result was that most combat was done at 100yards, well within the effective range of smooth-bores.
@alecguevara18354 жыл бұрын
Could you mention some instances where buckshot was used for muskets in combat situations during this period? I have never heard of it and I'm curious now. Thanks!
@thomasbaagaard4 жыл бұрын
Alec Guevara The Danish and US army used buckshots. I Will try find time to quote some exambles later today.
@thomasbaagaard4 жыл бұрын
As mentioned the danish army used buckshots during the 1850ties. (not sure about the 3 year war in 1848-50 and earlier) 20% of the men in a unit had rifle muskets. and the rest had smoothbore percussion muskets. But by 1860 the smoothbores was replaced with riflemuskets. During the civil war both sides used buckshots for smooth-bores. Some units, like the Union Irish Brigade actually refused to rearm with rifled muskets early in the war and preferred their smoothbores... they simply accepted that they would loose some men on they way forward, then when they got within 80 yards they would win the firefight by throwing 4 times the number of rounds at the enemy. At Gettysburg on the morning of the 3rd, one union unit* walked across an area where there had been combat the day before. They picked up riflemuskets, to replace their smoothbores. But instead of dropping the original guns, many soldiers picked up 2 or even 3 guns and then loaded most up with just the small buckshots. They where in the direct part of Pickets charge later that day. They first fired their "new" rifled arms with a "minie" bullet, then when the range closed fired of one gun loaded with buckshot after another... *Iam going from memory, but it is mention in "Civil war firearms" by J.G.Bilby
@alecguevara18354 жыл бұрын
Thomas Aagaard thank you! I’ll certainly have to look into it. Have a good one.
@not-a-theist82514 жыл бұрын
Uuh nice a new video. You made my interested in the 19th century. Wasn't my thing until I discovered your Chanel
@ronmcelroy92934 ай бұрын
Great information. Thank you for sharing this video. I own a Nepalese type 1853 Enfield which I enjoy shooting patched round-ball with.
@ronaldpeaden41464 жыл бұрын
scholagladiatoria, Great videos but just a few points of reference. 1) The difference in Rifle VS Musket is the musket has groves and landings. Making the rifle more accurate due to spinning of the ball as it exits the Muzzle. 2) Musket could use what is called Buck and Ball. That is using 3 or 4 smaller caliber ball with the full size ball giving the shooter more projectiles at the target. The Musket was also faster to load. 3) I am not sure about the over penetration. Black powder long guns are Slow and Hard, meaning thay do a lot of trauma on impact but do not normally penetrate as far as a modern firearm. In comparison a 30-06 125 grain with 55 grain of smokeless powder has a 3100 FPS while 180 grain Ball with 70g of BP has a 1471fps. Unless you are at close range you are not going to get over penetration. Just a few points, Love the video. Please keep them coming. P.S. nice long arms.
@animusfault4 жыл бұрын
It does seem much easier just to stick it in the back.
@BRAMB0SSS4 жыл бұрын
and fire
@tombearclaw4 жыл бұрын
Ferguson was as way ahead of his time.
@harryflashman94954 жыл бұрын
animusfault As the actress said to the bishop.
@matthewzito61304 жыл бұрын
1) From what I've read, smoothbore muskets were generally used with slightly undersized projectiles to allow faster reloading with fouled barrels. This would obviously reduce accuracy. ..... By contrast, early rifles used tight fitting bullets and were consequently much slower to load. ..... Rifle-muskets offer the best of both worlds, since they use a bullet that expands slightly when fired (the minie ball). It (the bullet) fits loosely while loading and tightly when fired. 2) Bullet weight depends on bullet shape as well as caliber. A .50 caliber minie ball will be longer and therefore heavier than a round musket ball in the same caliber.
@andrefonteyne2591 Жыл бұрын
Great video but it is the rifle ( elongated) ball that has the curved trajectory and slower muzzle velocity, the musket ball a flatter trajectory and faster muzzle velocity( up to point blank range), but the shape of the elongated ball ( which is also considerably heavier) allows it to fly further. Also, the powder charge is smaller in rifles vs muskets.
@extrasmack4 жыл бұрын
More please? Love blackpowder fireatms. Particularly love hearing historical accounts and examples of their implementation. Cheers!
@killerkraut91794 жыл бұрын
i Like Blunderbusses
@extrasmack4 жыл бұрын
@@killerkraut9179 Definitely something exciting about fire and a handfull of lead grapes shooting out a large barrel. (Or lead peas depending on your needs)
@anthonythomas17354 жыл бұрын
Being ex British Army (1989 - 1996) I absolutely love learning about the history of firearms that our country adopted, l really, really enjoy all of your work but I have a special place in my heart for all types of firearms, I also subscribe to "Forgotten Weapons" the knowledge that Ian has is astounding and I have no problem recommending the channel.
@8thfloormath3694 жыл бұрын
Yet another excellent video by Matt Easton!
@gordonlawrence47494 жыл бұрын
I'm not sure of the veracity of this remark but I have heard it said that the reliable limit for a smoothbore was 50 yards in battlefield conditions. This was for two reasons 1 so much powder was shot that the enemy was obscured and the fumes made you physically sick, and 2 the stress of combat would reduce your ability to shoot straight. It sounds reasonable but is it true?
@ironanvil14 жыл бұрын
As I recall, there was an issue with early Minie rifles that the barrels would heat up a lot faster than smoothbore equivalents due to the increased friction, making holding them to reload awkward.
@johnfisk8114 жыл бұрын
er. No
@patrickg36184 жыл бұрын
Many thanks. Top drawer presentation. A man who handles longarms with great familiarity and comfort.
@wolfetom104 жыл бұрын
The model 1853 Enfield was also widely used in the American civil war. I own one dated 1963 from the Tower company, acquired by my grandmother in the southern U.S. circa 1940. The Confederacy lacked the arms manufacturing ability of the North and so imported several hundred thousand British Enfiields, making it the second most widely used rifle of the war after the U.S. Springfield rifle.
@juanecheyt4 жыл бұрын
And Now...... For Something Completely Different........
@albanfisher68572 жыл бұрын
Great video Matt! I would love to see more videos that tie in to late 18th early 19th century conflicts. I have learned so much about the sabers and swords of the era on this channel it would be cool to see some sword bayonets or even linear warfare tactics and units. Food for thought 🤔
@elifaletgutierrez91414 жыл бұрын
"...rebels, freedom fighters; whatever you want to call them." The words of a man who has made many historical related videos and had to deal with the KZfaq comment section, hahaha. Love your work, thanks for the content.
@spectre90654 жыл бұрын
Bows were considered obsolete during the time of the musket. They took too much training and muscle power to shoot proficiently and they weren't actually more accurate than later muskets. Bows were also more expensive to produce than firearms when gunpowder became widely available in Europe. Perhaps their main disadvantage is stopping power, a .65 musket ball is much more deadly to both tissue and armor than any arrow was. This had both a practical and a psychological impact on the battlefield as the sound of muskets going off would demoralize enemy troops. Crossbows on the other hand are a viable alternative to early firearms. They are just as easy to shoot as muskets and are more powerful than longbows. If medieval armies continued to perfect crossbow technology, they could have designed a crossbow that shoots faster and more accurately than muskets, while still retaining the stopping power of an arbalest. As a matter of fact, some special forces still use crossbows today.
@englishalan2224 жыл бұрын
I disagree about stopping power. The bodkin arrowhead was designed to punch through armour and it frequently did.
@spectre90654 жыл бұрын
@@englishalan222 Bodkins sometimes penetrated plate, but often did not, especially at longer ranges. Anytime plate armor gets struck by a musket ball, a gaping hole is formed.
@englishalan2224 жыл бұрын
@@spectre9065 At Waterloo, soldiers said that they could hear the musket balls pinging off the metal plates of the French cavalry. Some said it sounded like pebbles being dropped onto a tin plate.
@lindajohnston32254 жыл бұрын
Um ok
@lindajohnston32254 жыл бұрын
I will tax you 100 dollars for that
@iivin42334 жыл бұрын
Matt it doesn't change your point but it is still interesting to note that black powder rifles even up into their latest generation designs still fired with a substantial arc at what we might call the far end of effective combat range. Early smokeless rifles were amazingly straight shooting compared to black powder rifles. Channels like CandR Arsenal and Inrange TV point out as you did that ranges rifles could reach out to far exceeded what was necessary. History seems to have agreed with them.
@billmelater64704 жыл бұрын
I'd like to know what their loading regiment was like. I've got a .54 RB cap-lock and I can't hardly ram the damn thing down on the 3rd or 4th shot (depending on how much powder I use) if I don't swab in between shots. The great thing about black powder is that you really don't need to worry about the powder charge. The only real danger is if you don't have the projectile seated tightly against the powder. I have to wet swab once then dry swab twice between shots, before loading or else my accuracy goes to shit immediately and loading gets really, really hard. Otherwise, BP is a hell of a lot of fun to shoot, and really, cleaning isn't all that bad, but much more of an affair that the smokeless rifles. I can leave some them for a few days (months for some) with no fear.
@mr.stotruppen87244 жыл бұрын
Loose fitting projectiles were the norm to counteract the fouling buildup.
@billmelater64704 жыл бұрын
So I'm guessing that accuracy would be a bit wild before the fouling shots, get better, then start to go away as the grooves filled up?
@mr.stotruppen87244 жыл бұрын
@@billmelater6470 I don't think they especially cared. Accuracy standards were pretty low, rifle or not. IIRC in a test against the Whitworth rifle the P53 got something like (converted from period measurement) 16 MOA.
@billmelater64704 жыл бұрын
Ah, I hadn't considered that. Being able to demand 1-4 MOA is pretty new as far as the span of firearms are concerned.
@arbyreesa4 жыл бұрын
Change your lube, lately I've been using water soluble machine oil mixed with water. Not messy and it kind of cleans the bore as you shoot.
@kerebronemtadrata54594 жыл бұрын
Moreover, larger and slower projectile is more susceptible to atmospheric effects, like crosswind. It might not be a huge factor, but still.
@itsapittie4 жыл бұрын
It's a bigger factor than I used to think. I've found that when shooting a .45-70 at anything beyond about 50 yards you have to account for even moderate winds. It must have been even more true with a .75 caliber black powder round.
@presidentlouis-napoleonbon88894 жыл бұрын
Correct with the accuracy of smooth bores. I thank you a lot for it. When you watch Britishmuzzleloaders, CapandBall, Hickok45, you can see these people shooting some pretty small targets in 75 yards and hit them around six shots. (mostly there target sizes are like a large plate so smaller than a human chest size). The biggest reason why people cannot shoot as accurate with muskets, is because there are no rear-sights.
@kentgoldings4 жыл бұрын
I shoot blackpowder muzzleloaders for hunting deer. I also load my own ammunition for shooting modern centerfire rifles as ranges out to 1000 m. I regularly shoot rifles 1000 m. Once I establish the windage and elevation, I can hit a 1 meter target at 1000 m repeatedly with every trigger pull. But, that’s requires modern powders and projectiles designed to have low drag. I can believe a talented marksman with a good barrel, special bullets, carefully measured charges, and great eye-sight could hit a man sized target up to maybe 500 m. I’m a little incredulous about a standard black-powder infantry rifle accomplishing the same feat at 1000 m. This is based on my own experiences with black powder rifles. Mind you, I have to clean the bore of my muzzleloader between shots to maintain consistency. Blackpowder is so messy.
@zettle23454 жыл бұрын
I have often questioned those claims myself. You would have to have telescopic sights, and I just don't know how accurate you could be with that days technology...
@kentgoldings4 жыл бұрын
I think you’d have to consult a historian to say what is technically possible. Marksman today can hit 1000 meters without optics. British gunsmiths of the day were the best in the world. In a handful of decades, with the advent to smokeless powder, metallic cartridges, and spitzer bullets, long range marksmanship becomes achievable by the common infantrymen. My concerns are not about the rifles or men. Matt mentioned the inconsistency in ammo production. A rifle barrel vibrates like a tuning fork when a gun is fired. Accurate shot placement requires that the muzzle velocity be tuned so that the bullet leaves the barrel when the vibration is at lowest magnitude. Modern marksman will tweak the powder charge, usually by tenths of a grain, in order to do this. Rifle cartridges of the day were probably loaded by volume. Doing so is inherently less accurate. Variations in bullet weight and powder charge in the ammunition available would mean that the rifles would never be expected to shoot as accurately as technically possible.
@astrayadventurer44504 жыл бұрын
I don't usually have a problem putting balls through a chest sized target either.
@MrRobbi3734 жыл бұрын
...but also at a hundred yards?
@thestrongnsilenttype4 жыл бұрын
What the fuck is that even supposed to mean!?
@manfredconnor3194 Жыл бұрын
I have heard/read, that in the US civil war rifled weapons were in relatively wide circulation (with notable exceptions) and were used in conjunction with Napoleonic smooth- bore musketry tactics.....scary indeed!
@garrettharriman63334 жыл бұрын
An unmentioned advantage of smoothbores in close combat is it's wider variation and range in ammunition. I seem to recall units in the American Civil War preferring them because of their ability to fire "buck-and-ball." Essentially a standard sized, or maybe a smidge smaller, musket ball backed up with a half-load of shotgun buckshot. As you can imagine, volley fire with such a loading would be devastating to an enemy formation.
@fabiovarra36984 жыл бұрын
meh, if the other side whit rifles have already decimated your ranks whit their volley fire while you march towards them not that great advantage
@garrettharriman63334 жыл бұрын
@@fabiovarra3698 The 69th New York at Gettysburg would have disagreed.
@johnfisk8114 жыл бұрын
For a poorly trained volunteer/conscript army there is merit at the time in using the musket. Especially as their officers were no batter trained. Trained professional opposition would just sit beyond musket range and pick them off with rifle musket fire. Helmuth von Moltke had it about right for most in the 3rd American Civil War (1st was Parliament versus the King, 2nd was the American Revolutionary War) 'two armed mobs chasing each other around the country'.
@dongeonmaster8547 Жыл бұрын
Matt, Are you familiar with Bernard Cornwell's SHARPE series? I think you would really enjoy the historical fiction and the videos you could make comparing french and english muskets, english muskets vs baker rifles, sabres vs swords etc would be many. The books are full of combat with various weapons often mismatched. I'd love to hear your thoughts and maybe collaborations with other KZfaqrs on the weapons, tactics, history; each tackling the aspects that fit your channels.
@loquat44404 жыл бұрын
I would like to see something on the guns that were used in the 100 years war that I know nothing about.
@PeterSt19544 жыл бұрын
In massed battles, from the viewpoint of a regular ranker, accuracy counted for very little anyway. Battlefields were swathed in clouds of dense smoke from black powder making it almost impossible to see the enemy, In smaller encounters, skirmishing and so on this would not be true. But for prolonged pouring lead into an unseen enemy, shooting more by instinct than by aim, the speed of the smoothbore was probably a great advantage. The Duke of Wellington thought so anyway. A smoothbore was probably more accurate than the average trooper - and could be used a shotgun in the long periods of time between engagements as well.
@shaidrim4 жыл бұрын
I liked when Mat pronounced trajectory multiple time in a row
@billrock67344 жыл бұрын
In fact rifling has no effect on the flatness of the projectile trajectory,that's entirely dependent on muzzle velocity the faster the bullet the flatter the trajectory regardless of whether the bore is rifled or not.
@sergeantbigmac4 жыл бұрын
Mostly but not entirely; the ballistic coefficient of the projectile itself is also important for flatter trajectory path.
@skepticalbadger4 жыл бұрын
There is in fact a correlation. You get higher pressures and therefore higher velocity and *therefore* flatter trajectory.
@hammerandsteelreviews89244 жыл бұрын
Love the video but I'm more excited to see what new item is hung from the wall. Seems like every new video has a new item hung! Very fun!
@timothyissler38154 жыл бұрын
Which new item?
@hammerandsteelreviews89244 жыл бұрын
@@timothyissler3815 I'm not exactly sure. either the cutlasses or the Norman arming sword behind him.. but it seems like more items keep showing up! Lol
@timothyissler38154 жыл бұрын
@@hammerandsteelreviews8924 We'll make it a game: find the new weapon on Matt's wall.
@hammerandsteelreviews89244 жыл бұрын
@@timothyissler3815 ha ha ha!!
@storycraft27964 жыл бұрын
I notice you used Viner Hand ITC for your thumnail. Hail Sithis.
@icarusfencing4 жыл бұрын
nice
@patttrick4 жыл бұрын
In the British army . Flashman mentions the targets were called eunuchs, at the time I read it I had no idea what one was .I pronounced it enuche as in lunch
@patttrick4 жыл бұрын
Shoot low as the kick threw the barrel up
@damiantreanor94684 жыл бұрын
I'm confused, why is the fact that the musket bullet being heavier= going to fall faster? (13.23) I thought we'd established that weight wasn't a factor in gravitational speed. I get the other reasons, and that if the bullet is faster, it spends less time in the air, so less total gravitational force.
@scholagladiatoria4 жыл бұрын
It drops faster because it is bigger and round = more friction/air resistance. The narrower conical spinning rifle bullet is a LOT more aerodynamic.
@colinmoore74604 жыл бұрын
The use of paper cartridges was faster to load than loose powder and ball. Using enemy cartridges, (taken from either prisoners or the dead soldiers ) could (not would) extend your own supplies. Unless they used a larger ball, of course.
@konstantin.v4 жыл бұрын
You've been speaking for 16 minutes and failed to mention the most important development that allowed to move a whole army from smoothbores to rifles: *Minie ball* !
@scholagladiatoria4 жыл бұрын
I mention the Minie really near the beginning of the video....
@konstantin.v4 жыл бұрын
@@scholagladiatoria , I see you fleetingly mention the rifle, but not the ammo. As far as I understand, the ammo was the real game-changer there. By allowing (muzzleloading) rifles have the same reloading time as the smoothbores :^)
@charlesphillips45754 жыл бұрын
@@scholagladiatoria It was the Minie bullet that made a general issue rifle possible. Hence it should have been the main focus of the video. It was a loose fit before firing and expanded to fit the rifling on firing, hence it could be loaded quickly.
@ethan0734 жыл бұрын
Set your camera to manual exposure. It's jumping all over the place as you step towards and away from the lens
@MrFloatPilot4 жыл бұрын
The .75 caliber smooth bore muskets generally used a .735-.745 diameter lead ball with a cloth patch. The spherical ball, which weighs 598 grains if it is pure lead, has a very poor ballistic coefficient. Thus it sheds velocity and has a more arced trajectory........ I use an Enfield .577 caliber Pattern 1861 artillery carbine in competition. Usually with the 460-470 grain short Minie ( hollow base with deep grease grooves) carbine bullet which has a much better ballistic coefficient and thus retains its velocity over a greater distance than the round lead balls., this results in a flatter trajectory. Although sometimes I do use the longer 500-520 grain Minie style bullet that was meant for the longer 3 band Enfield rifles. which I have found to be just as accurate. ........ One thing that was common with smooth bore muskets was using BUCK and BALL loads. This was a large single round ball and a few pellets of buck-shot. While not accurate, it did fill the air with more lead. Troops sometimes disassembled the Buck and Ball paper cartridges and loaded straight buck-shot loads for close encounters. A book called "the history of the rifled musket" claims that most US Civil War unit-on-unit encounters occurred at ranges of around 40 yards, since the leadership of the time had not adapted to the potential longer range of rifled weapons.
@nickn19913 жыл бұрын
While doing "Holdfast Nations at War," I realized that a musket gun was just worse than trash.
@justsomeguy39314 жыл бұрын
There are so many examples of guns with all the various characteristics that it's often easiest just to say muzzle/breech loading X(flint, wheel, match)lock rifle/musket. A muzzle-loading flintlock rifle, or breech loading wheellock musket, etc. Just my thoughts. One good reason breech loaders are better IMHO is they are safer. I've heard of cases (US Civil War, I think) where people in panic or lack of skill or mistake etc, had a loaded and cocked and primed gun and went to load it again and it fired by whatever means and killed or injured them. Also, when one has less to do, one gets less confused. Some people would double load muzzle loaders, because they were always rotating the gun around to load or prime or fix problems or de/attach ramrod or bayonet etc, or loading a battlefield pickup. So they'd load twice and blow themselves up. Tougher to do when everything is in one little spot to work with. It's easier to check if the gun is if the breech opens, and doesn't leave vision or require extra steps or move the weapon around so wildly, begging for things to fall out or go wrong. Example: putting the muzzle-loader pointing at the sky to load after priming, and forgetting on is standing in water or similar environment, and the primer or pan gets wet/muddy/full of debris, etc. Can't contemplate a 1000 yard/meter shot with iron sights? Why? Lindybeige had never shot before, and easily made hits at half that distance with iron sights. Many US firearms academies will take people who've never shot before and get the consistently hitting man sized steel at 500 with iron sighted AKs or ARs in three 8 hour days. That's halfway there right from the get go! It's not easy, but it's doable. When you say "point five seven inches" etc. It sounds SO weird! In the US and everywhere else I've ever seen, they just say "fifty seven caliber." My first time trying to hit a steel plate smaller than a human head at 200 yards with my Glock pistol using cheap ammo, I did it. On the last of my 13 + 1 rounds lolz but still. I also rolled a golf ball out 20 or 30 yards away and hit it my first try, just a Glock21 and iron sights. I surprised myself both times - best 2 shots of my life. The operator is always the limiting factor, the weapon will meet you every step up the path.
@VinceW1874 жыл бұрын
Good video, nice to see some muskets and rifles
@dandannoodles70704 жыл бұрын
The point about velocity and trajectory isn't actually true; minie rifles like the Enfield had lower muzzle velocities, since too much pressure could rip the skirt off the end of a conical bullet. Smoothbore muskets firing round balls could shoot higher velocities, since the ball was more robust, thus they enjoyed a considerably longer 'point blank range', while still being less accurate within that range.
@Zajuts1494 жыл бұрын
Wasn't the idea behind the Minié ball that it would not fit too tightly into the rifle grooves when you where ramming it down, but when fired, the cavity in the base of the bullet would expand and engage more firmly with the grooves to give it spin?
@scholagladiatoria4 жыл бұрын
Yes
@richard61334 жыл бұрын
The quality of the loading components and the variations in the loading between individual shots is a bigger deal with a rifle than with a smoothbore. Internal pressures developed during ignition affect velocity, velocity affects the spin stabilization and drop rate, and these have a great effect on inherent accuracy of a rifle. Insufficient or excessive spin imparted to the projectile can send a shot considerably off course, and it gets more pronounced with greater distances. At musket ranges and with a musket, minute-of-torso accuracy is all you need.
@sparkymmilarky4 жыл бұрын
Fantastic video matt
@fabricio-agrippa-zarate3 жыл бұрын
During the war between Paraguay and Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, the allied forces used rifles while Paraguayan forces had smooth bores. This happened from 1865 to 1870.
@reddevilparatrooper4 жыл бұрын
I love the Enfield P1853 Pedersoli repro. I love the ladder sight on the rifle. The Springfield repro I don't like. I am thinking of getting an Enfield P1853 for my own personal Christmas present. I haven't shot one in years but I think it's time to own one myself...
@johnfisk8114 жыл бұрын
Try to get a second hand genuine Parker Hale reproduction. They use the proper progressive rifling and were made using actual Enfield pattern gauges. In effect Pattern 1853's made in the 1970's. Cheaper too.
@caninedrill_instructor58614 жыл бұрын
Sir, Some bright chappie figured out that you wouldn't need a mallet to load a rifle if you used a slightly smaller projectile and wrapped the patch around the ball. As seen in the paper cartridges used during the Napoleonic wars.
@scholagladiatoria4 жыл бұрын
Yes that's the solution for faster loading, but as paper never produces such a tight fit in the barrel you sacrifice power and some accuracy. That's why target shooters do not generally load that way.
@DL24StaS4 жыл бұрын
I think that some of the statements about the trajectory and bullet size that you make near the end of the video are somewhat misleading. In fact, a musket ball is usually much lighter than a rifle bullet *of the same caliber* (diameter) because of the difference in their respective shapes. Just some numbers for reference: 1853 Enfield had a bore diameter of ~15 mm and used a 500 grain cylindro-conical bullet. I couldn't find any statistics for the East Indian musket that is demonstrated in the video, however and earlier pattern "Brown Bess" musket, which had roughly the same caliber as the EIC Model F musket, had a bore diameter of ~19 mm, and its round ball weighted 545 grains. So yes, it's a bigger ball, all right - larger in diameter, but, despite that, its weight is almost the same as the weight of the 1853 Enfield bullet (8% difference). With the same charge of powder, it would have roughly the same trajectory as the 1853 Enfield bullet. As far as I know, the early military rifles of 1840s and 1850s as rule had the same or even worse trajectory than contemporary smooth-bore guns, because the weight of the bullet was roughly the same, the powder charge was roughly the same, and the rifling lowered muzzle velocity slightly. That, of course, doesn't change the fact that a muzzle-loading rifle had an immense advantage over a smoothbore gun in terms of accuracy and hit probability at any distance. And what you are saying about trajectory is completely correct if we compare the early military rifles to the later, small(ish)-caliber black powder rifles, that had calibers of 11...12.7 mm and fired much lighter bullets. E.g. - the 1873 "trapdoor" Springfield - 11,63 mm, 405 grains. Much lighter bullet = much better (flatter) trajectory. But that transition to smaller, faster bullets happened much, much later than this video seems to suggest (late 1860s - early 1870s). Military rifles of 1850s, despite often having smaller bore diameters than smoothbore muskets, still used heavy bullets with relatively poor trajectory. Another thought, on accuracy of smoothbore muskets. Military smoothbore guns always fired very undersized balls as a measure against fouling and also a compensation for crude manufacturing techniques used by then; E.g., the standard Brown Bess ball is said to be only 17.5 mm in diameter - that means that there was a 1.5 mm gap between the ball and the bore of the barrel. Such gap would make the ball spin erratically in flight, which drastically reduces accuracy. Modern black powder shooting is done with much tighter fitting balls, because modern manufacturing tolerances allow for that, and you don't have to worry about fouling much - hence much better accuracy. I don't think that such an experience can be accurately projected onto what happened on historical battlefields. Smoothbore dueling pistols used very tight fitting (usually custom fitted) balls, on the other hand, and are said to be quite accurate. Same thing for the hunting weapons. Anyway, thanks for the video !
@brucetucker48474 жыл бұрын
Quite a few of those Enfield Pattern 1853 rifles made their way over to this side of the pond and into the hands of Confederate soldiers. It was the most widely issued rifle-musket in the Confederate Army.
@scholagladiatoria4 жыл бұрын
It was used by both sides in the US Civil War, not just the South.
@brucetucker48474 жыл бұрын
@@scholagladiatoria Yes it was, but it was much more vital to the Confederate war effort since the South had very little domestic rifle manufacturing capacity.
@johnsalisburyjones90344 жыл бұрын
In your piece you say that rifled muskets, in particular the Enfield rifled muskets using I assume the Minnie ball has higher muzzle velocity and flatter trajectory than a smoothbore, like the Brown Bess. This gives the longer range and accuracy. This seems intuitively correct and sensible. However Brent Nosworthy in his Bloody Crucible of Courage, chapter on advances in small arms 1830-1859, says different. Although ascribing greater accuracy and longer range to the Enfield he also categoricallystates that it had lower initial muzzle velocity and had a consequent less flat (rainbow) trajectory, necessitating the introduction of ladder sights. This does not appear to be a simple misunderstanding as he goes into some detail on this quoting figures and 19th century British, French, Belgian and US army tests. The figures he quotes are for Brown Bess initial muzzle velocity 1500fps and for Minni-type rifled muskets (1850-56) as 1050fps and for the Enfield rifle (1858-65) as 1115fps. Brent Nosworthy is a widely published and I believe respected historian on military history but what he is saying seems counterintuitive. I am no expert and am not qualified to judge but I'd love to know the definitive answer on this.
@rogerlafrance63554 жыл бұрын
Accuracy as it was with bows was not important when shooting at a charging army. You will almost always hit somebody just pointing in the general direction. The Minie ball was the game changer for both weapons increasing range, accuracy and hitting power overall. Pickets Charge is often given as the end of an era.
@brett47114 жыл бұрын
Another advantage of the smoothbore musket is that it would often be loaded with "buck and ball" or one large musketball and one or more much smaller balls, essentially turning it into a long(er) ranged shotgun. The Irish Brigade in the Union army during the American Civil War used muskets for this very reason, and unleashed devastating volleys on Confederate forces both on the defense and attack (if they could get close enough).
@JosephAlanMeador7 ай бұрын
Rifles! Now THAT's soldiering.
@althesmith4 жыл бұрын
A lot of the time in weaponry the materials technology had to get up to the point where new ideas could be incorporated without too much chance of massive failure.
@TemporaryHeroJayLaw4 жыл бұрын
I have a quibble. Muzzle-loading weapons did NOT require the user to stand while loading. I cannot speak to manuals of arms from the UK, but the US manuals from the antebellum era forward do provide instruction on how to load from a prone or kneeling position, should that be the state your line is standing in. At the very least, Scott's, Hardee's, and Casey's Manuals of Arms describe that. Example for Casey's (see Lesson V): www.64thill.org/drillmanuals/caseys_infantrytactics/volume1/part04.htm 19th century infantry did not fight in lines because of the loading, therefore. Rather, it was due to the weapons of the time-- smoothbores, before the adoption of rifles and rifle-muskets as you suggest. They were highly inaccurate, and thus to have a reasonable chance to strike the enemy, fire needed to be massed in volley, and the means to do that is to stand elbow to elbow and delivery the volleys in that way. Likewise, 19th century sharpshooters (named such due to the Sharps rifle) with more accurate fire from rifles, fought in loose, skirmish formations, because they could. Now, during the American Civil War, the men in the field did learn the lesson about accurate rifle-muskets firing into tight formations, though it took far longer than one would have hoped for the tactics to catch up with the technology.
@jintsuubest93314 жыл бұрын
Maybe talk about history of breech loading? And why it took so long for lots of peep to adopt.
@killerkraut91794 жыл бұрын
i hase find some thing about Early Breach loaders kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qZd9dpR2mcDYaYk.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mMt_mtB03cvMZ3U.html
@victorwaddell65304 жыл бұрын
Cheers Mat ! I already commented to another viewer that percussion ignition was originally invented for waterfowling and deer hunting , where lock time and weatherproof shooting was of great interest to sport shooting . To your knowledge , what are the first examples of percussion ignited firearms ? Did British sport shooters use percussion ignition in any numbers before adoption by the British Military ? By the way , I own an American made rifle chambered in .416 Rigby , one of the greatest dangerous game cartriges ever designed . Thanks in advance from one of your American viewers .
@darlingimscared4 жыл бұрын
Have you heard of a game called holdfast nations at war? It's a napoleonic era line battle game or as alot of us call it a black powder first person shooter. I think it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on some KZfaq footage!
@scholagladiatoria4 жыл бұрын
I have and I regularly play Napoleonic Wars. But everyone I know who tried Holdfast said they didn't like it!
@darlingimscared4 жыл бұрын
@@scholagladiatoria :O well NW is good but Holdfast is definitely worth trying and it's going to be on sale at around £7 for two weeks starting in the next few days ;)
@tbjtbj47864 жыл бұрын
This was a subject I wonder about. Once tactics cought up to the rifle it was alot better arm than the smooth bore. But in the early days of the rifle the way it was used still rank and file fighting and at relitvly short range. What do you think would have happened if a country insted of vesting so much in the rifle ml. Went with a bacical dubble barrel's shotgun 10 ga or bigger. Loaded with 10 or so 44 cal balls. ( My 12 ga did ok with 6) Line up at 60 or so yds. The quick release of 40, 44 cal. Balls per shooter seams like it would out do the same # of shooters with 1 rifle bullet.
@filipzietek51464 жыл бұрын
You should change your channel name to SuperiaDrayatoria hahha, i like that brand too tbh ;)
@jerikromero17464 жыл бұрын
The Sharps breech loading rifle was developed in 1854 in the US and used as a cav carbine and a sharpshooter rifle in the American Civil War. That 1853 Enfield was the most imported rifle and used by both sides of the war. Did the Brits have access to the Minie ball like the US?
@kovona4 жыл бұрын
Yes, expanding conical bullets were a pretty common affair in Europe by the 1850s.
@xskyhawkx78214 жыл бұрын
During the american civil war, several companies used smoothbore muskets and would stuff them with multiple musket balls (they called it buck'n ball). the idea was a sort of long range shotgun.
@Ferroes4 жыл бұрын
Hey Matt I know you may already know or may not see this but KZfaq isn't sending your videos into my subscription box and I just realized this after probably over a month
@Fross-8884 жыл бұрын
Too bad that you didn't touch on greased bullets to reduce fouling in the barrel:)
@deathbyastonishment79304 жыл бұрын
Well i suppose he did mention the Indian mutiny 😉
@whiskeyjim41264 жыл бұрын
You have to understand that Napoleonic tactics at 1000 yards you had a giant Target
@LiqnLag4 жыл бұрын
Minié Ball for the win!
@markhatfield56214 жыл бұрын
Already been said, mid 1800s the troops were still shooting at smoothbore distances so often the rifled guns were not an advantage.
@seriousthree60714 жыл бұрын
Napoleon era soldiers did not stand in line because of slow firing, but dreadful inaccuracy of shot above 100 yards in battle. Shooting on a range is completely different. That continued well after breach loaders replaced muzzle loaders. The vast majority of bullets missed. At the same time as the Enfield rifle you had the Whitworth which was far more accurate again. 500 yards group could be in a few inches and easily able to hit a target at 1,000 yards. They were often supplied with telescopic sights.
@nate_thealbatross4 жыл бұрын
A .75 ball in a smoothbore is going to lose velocity at longer ranges too. The flatter .577 in a rifle is going to penetrate better because it is smaller and faster at 200 yards or more. The .75 might go through two people at shorter range, but at longer ranges it will be moving really slowly and lose energy in the first target.
@scholagladiatoria4 жыл бұрын
Indeed.
@johndally7994 Жыл бұрын
Very interesting! Training in the British Army was far superior to, say, the American armies of the time. Except for a few sharpshooter units, American infantry used the new rifled muskets just like smooth bores.
@Harquebuze4 жыл бұрын
Rifles extended the capabilities of the very best marksmen, but for most troops the smoothbore would be much more accurate than they are. Actual hit rates in combat were far, far lower than the inherent accuracy of the weapon would predict. Meaning that most of the innaccuracy of a smoothbore musket was being caused by human error. Giving a rifle to a shaky, poor marksman wouldn't have helped him. We read about some astonishing long-range shots from skirmishers in the American Civil War and other conflicts from this period, but the hit rates of line infantry didn't improve.
@shubbagin494 жыл бұрын
If that Model F musket was a dog, it would be the show winner, sadly show dogs do not fight very well, well sad for the poor punter with the musket when his protagonist is toting a rifle. Love your sojourn into Military firearms old school, you good at sussing out all sorts of interesting military hardware. Some old guns are beautiful.
@Sturm014 жыл бұрын
I learned how to shoot with an 1868 Springfield rifled musket. Firing minni balls best accurate range is MAYBE 150-200 yards. 1000 yards, hell no. You were hitting chest sized targets with smooth bore with ball ammo at 150? Ya... X to dought. You don't even have a rear sight on that thing.
@scholagladiatoria4 жыл бұрын
As I said in the video, 1000 yards is not reliably possible for a chest-sized target with open sights. 500 yards yes, if you are good/lucky. But you CAN shoot 1000 yards at large targets with muzzle loading rifles and people do regularly every week (eg. at Bisley, not far from me). It is a very difficult discipline, but hundreds of people compete at that. As for smoothbore, please listen again :-) - I said I was shooting at **80 yards**. It was easy to hit a chest-sized target at 80 yards. And these smoothbores *do** have rear sights - they are a simply fixed V. Have a closer look on the video ;-)
@johnfisk8114 жыл бұрын
At these extreme ranges you are firing with the rest of your Company to drop a 'beaten zone' onto a whole artillery battery, troop f horses or battalion of infantry.
@Jay-ln1co4 жыл бұрын
I remember hearing Soviet optics being zeroed to 400m, the idea being that if you aim to the center mass, even at shorter ranges you still hit them somewhere on their torso.
@itsapittie4 жыл бұрын
I can't speak specifically to the 400 meter aspect, but military rifles are typically zeroed to "maximum point blank range." This is the zero at which within a minimum and maximum distance you can reliably hit a target of specified size. You can do this because the arc (trajectory) of the bullet crosses the sight line twice -- once close to the muzzle and once further away. Everything in between will be within a certain range of error depending upon the trajectory. For example, the 5.56/.223 is a very flat-shooting cartridge with about 3" of rise between crossing the sight plane on the way up and crossing it again on the way down. This is why you can zero your AR-15 rifle at 50 yards and (providing you do your part) keep the shots within a 6" circle at ranges from 25 to 300 yards with the same point of aim. This is somewhat oversimplified, but you get the idea. This is why military rifles of the Great War era had a "battle sight" zeroed to something the army considered optimal. Theoretically it would be dead on at for example 200 yards and everything from 0 to 400 yards or so would be "good enough." Which is a long around to say that whether or not the 400 yard number is exactly what the Soviets selected, they almost certainly picked a distance to zero the optic such that for the vast majority of shots the sniper would not have to tinker with the scope settings.
@kevinthorpe85614 жыл бұрын
Nice video, didn’t know the Sepoys still had smoothbores
@foseninfo89544 жыл бұрын
After leaving a body the bullet does not simply follow its previous trajectory because flattening or shattering of the bullet and deflection by bones and stuff.
@scholagladiatoria4 жыл бұрын
Of course, but if the bullet is travelling downwards at a few hundred m.p.h. then the chances are that it will continue travelling downwards.
@foseninfo89544 жыл бұрын
@@scholagladiatoria The capandballs channel did some interesting tests on the subjest, You may want to check this.
@your_waifu_hates_you4 жыл бұрын
In China during the opium war matchlock rifles were considered rare