A rifled firearm was also more expensive than one with a smooth bore.

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.

When is superdry going to sponsor you as an influencer

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!"

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

"Briefly" (17 minute video). Funny how his videos never seem long.

I haven't watched Matt or historic content in a while now. Boy it feels good to be back.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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".

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Uuh nice a new video. You made my interested in the 19th century. Wasn't my thing until I discovered your Chanel

Great information. Thank you for sharing this video. I own a Nepalese type 1853 Enfield which I enjoy shooting patched round-ball with.

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.

It does seem much easier just to stick it in the back.

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.

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.

More please? Love blackpowder fireatms. Particularly love hearing historical accounts and examples of their implementation. Cheers!

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.

Yet another excellent video by Matt Easton!

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?

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.

Many thanks. Top drawer presentation. A man who handles longarms with great familiarity and comfort.

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.

And Now...... For Something Completely Different........

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 🤔

"...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.

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.

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.

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.

Moreover, larger and slower projectile is more susceptible to atmospheric effects, like crosswind. It might not be a huge factor, but still.

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.

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.

I don't usually have a problem putting balls through a chest sized target either.

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!

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.

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.

I would like to see something on the guns that were used in the 100 years war that I know nothing about.

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.

I liked when Mat pronounced trajectory multiple time in a row

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.

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!

I notice you used Viner Hand ITC for your thumnail. Hail Sithis.

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

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.

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.

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* !

Set your camera to manual exposure. It's jumping all over the place as you step towards and away from the lens

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.

While doing "Holdfast Nations at War," I realized that a musket gun was just worse than trash.

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.

Good video, nice to see some muskets and rifles

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.

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?

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.

Fantastic video matt

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.

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...

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.

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 !

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.

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.

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.

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).

Rifles! Now THAT's soldiering.

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.

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.

Maybe talk about history of breech loading? And why it took so long for lots of peep to adopt.

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 .

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!

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.

You should change your channel name to SuperiaDrayatoria hahha, i like that brand too tbh ;)

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?

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.

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

Too bad that you didn't touch on greased bullets to reduce fouling in the barrel:)

You have to understand that Napoleonic tactics at 1000 yards you had a giant Target

Minié Ball for the win!

Already been said, mid 1800s the troops were still shooting at smoothbore distances so often the rifled guns were not an advantage.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nice video, didn’t know the Sepoys still had smoothbores

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.

In China during the opium war matchlock rifles were considered rare

He has the coolest shirts on youtube