Hopefully I can contribute and be a productive member of the forums. I collect identified Civil War artifacts and have written many articles, mostly for Nort South Trader's Civil War and The Gun Report. My latest article is in the most recent issue of NSTCW entitled "Shotguns in the Civil War; Good Arms in the Hands of Brave Men".
One of my next articles in The Gun Report will be debunknig a nearly 150 year old firearm related myth (Civil War related of course!).
Any firearms related questions just fire away and I will try and participate.
Best Regards,
John Gross
__________________ My areas of expertise are firearms and Latin females. Not necessarily in that order.
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Welcome, John. We appreciate you sharing your expertise.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
Well, since you asked, John, and welcome to you from another new guy. Gary, who has written several books on CW era sharpshooting, firearms etc, please feel free to reply. Tomh, the bullet hunter, feel free to weigh in also if you like.
Question: I'm pretty uninformed on this, and you gentlemen may find it an easy answer. Why, considering the weight and size of the .58 cal bullet, of course made to fit the barrel size of the standard weapon used, was it and the rifle to be the weapon of choice in the Rebellion? Would not a smaller bore size and bullet cal have been a more accurate weapon? Wouldn't a smaller (slightly) size of both bore and projectile have been more accurate, and also cause less injury to its target? Of course the object was to kill the enemy, but the large caliber .58 lead slug tended to cause such a hideous maiming injury to its target, wherever that might be in his body. If not killed outright the enemy would many times suffer terribly with his ghastly wound for possibly months, or until death finally ended his suffering. So, were there any metal projectiles used back then, rather than lead? It seems that the "full metal jacket" has been used here in the US for many years, (mandatory for Nato countries) because it causes less internal injury to the enemy soldier. Being made from a hard metal, covering the entire bullet from tip to where if fits into the shell, the FMJ tends to pass through the body of it's target more smoothly, causing less injury than a soft lead projectile, which might expand upon impact. Also, could the FMJ have been any more accurate?
Thank you. Sorry, I obviously have rambled and posted more than the intended one question. Answer any, all, or none, if you wish.
Respectfully,
Leland
__________________ "What armies and how much of war I have seen, what thousands of marching troops, what fields of slain, what prisons, what hospitals, what ruins, what cities in ashes, what hunger and nakedness, what orphanages, what widowhood, what wrongs and what vengeance."
Clara Barton
Last edited by Glorybound; 08-27-2008 at 10:31 PM.
But as to the .58 caliber as the firearm of choice, the US Military spent a great deal of effort in determining this during the mid 1850’s which lead to the adoption of the .58 caliber Model 1855 rifle and rifle-musket (which by the way, was authorized by then Secretary of War Jefferson Davis).
In the context of the time, 58 caliber was small bore as compared to the .69 caliber US Muskets and some of the .70+ caliber European arms.
Joseph Whitworth, among others, did pioneer the concept of the ratio of bullet length to bore diameter, which gun cranks refer to as the bullet’s sectional density and ballistic coefficient. In layman’s terms this is how well (or poorly) a bullet will be able to combat the laws of gravity and forces of nature. For example, a 500 grain .45 caliber bullet will perform better than a 500 grain .58 caliber bullet, all else being equal. It just took the Americans, and the British, the decade after the war to realize the advantage of the “small bore“ .45 caliber.
As to jacked bullets, just an educated guess as jacket projectiles are a bit “modern” for me, but I do not believe that the technology was there during the Civil War.
In the end we have hindsight. A 150 years from now people will be scratching their heads over why the US Military were still using the neary 50 year old M16 in 2008 instead of a 40-watt plasma ray gun.
I hope this helps answer your questions.
John Gross
__________________ My areas of expertise are firearms and Latin females. Not necessarily in that order.
No problem with me, however Tom H did ask me a couple of months ago for his web site so I own him first dibs (see Tom, I didn't forget ). But I have written about two dozen so there should be enough to choose from. Minor problem is that not all manuscripts and photos are saved on my computer and I don't have a scanner, so I guess that will have to be resolved.
In the meantime I'll check with the magazines about copyright issues. I would like to contribute here and not be just dead weight, as I already accomplish that at my day job
Best,
John Gross
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary
Hi John,
Good to learn that we got us here a real writer. Can you share some of your articles with us?
Gary
__________________ My areas of expertise are firearms and Latin females. Not necessarily in that order.
Just to add a bit to John's post, the adoption of the .58 cal was a reduction in size from the former larger bore military weapons. The early 19th century Euro armies used .75 cal and limited .80 cal as the standard, which was first reduced to .69 for US military muskets and then again reduced in the mid 50's to the .58 cal for rifle musket.
No ACW weapons used a jacketed bullet, all were lead or "hardened" lead projectiles.
Regarding accuracy, remember that military doctrine before the minie ball and rifled musket called for massed fire at short distance for effect. Accurate fire was a secondary consideration in pre-ACW conventional infantry tactics.
John,
Thanks for remembering
Just a humble opinion,
TomH
__________________ I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
John Gross / Florida Rebel 
). But I have written about two dozen so there should be enough to choose from. Minor problem is that not all manuscripts and photos are saved on my computer and I don't have a scanner, so I guess that will have to be resolved. 
Linear Mode
