Buck&ball question

Frankly, though, if it had been me I think I'd have opted to just load and fire more rounds than spend the time sorting them out. And I'd have got one big shot in every bang to boot ! Shame to throw away good lead. Just a thought.

That might work but. . .
CAUTION - Do NOT try this at home.
If improperly loaded, this could result from barrel obstruction and personal injury.

I felt that I had to caution some readers from trying this on their own. Intentionally loading multiple rounds could over stress your gun. If you load multiple buck & ball loads, this could lead to some of the balls or one of the loads to not fully seat and block the barrel.
It is better to be safe than sorry.
 
That might work but. . .
CAUTION - Do NOT try this at home.
If improperly loaded, this could result from barrel obstruction and personal injury.

I felt that I had to caution some readers from trying this on their own. Intentionally loading multiple rounds could over stress your gun. If you load multiple buck & ball loads, this could lead to some of the balls or one of the loads to not fully seat and block the barrel.
It is better to be safe than sorry.

Just for the record, what I meant was to simply fire more often using the whole b&b round rather than separating the buck shot and throwing away the ball. Loading more than one round is certainly unsafe.
 
I felt a warning was well deserved. I've fired several different black powder pistols and rifles, but I've never fired a BP shotgun. I just know you have to use special wadding to keep the load packed tightly.
Loading a shotgun takes some practice and some additional safety steps.
 
They did have buckshot cartridges. I have made them, but didn't like the results when I fired them out of my repro 1842, they hit low, you really had to aim high. They kicked pretty hard too!
The picture posted is from Dean S. Thomas's Round Ball to Rimfire: Part Four book. It's one every Civil War ammo enthusiast should get.

Kevin Dally
Buckshot cartridges.jpg
 
not when your men are missing 90+% of the time when firing at 250 yards...
Then you will just down a handfull of men... not something that will stop the enemy.
Then you fire again at 150 yards and drop a good number more... but they re still not stopping.
Then they get to 75 yards, and give you a volley of buckshots with a higher hitrate than your volleys and 4 timers the lead...
Sure more lead will be exchanged... but no way you will win it now... the is enemy simply able to put more lead down rang than you are... even if your men hit with a higher % of each piece of lead, they will fire 4 times pr. your one.

In the hands of well trained marksmen, the rifle musket was a great weapon... but well trained marksmen was very far from the norm... For the obvious reason that there was no organized system for training the soldiers to be marksmen that was used to any large extent across the two sides.
I think these soldiers were better shots than you credit them. My point was were I a soldier at that time I would prefer a rifle round that I could accurately engage the opponent at a distance that was out of the effective range of B&B. Safer that way.
 
a 10% hit rate is properly way to high at 250 yards under combat conditions.

Suggest you study how the typical soldier was trained in marksmanhsip... it is rather easy. He was not.
(with some exceptions here and there)

Many soldiers had plenty to do with just loading their weapon correctly and firing it at the enemy... as the number of weapons found after gettysburg, that was loaded 2+ times tell us.

You very likely know way more about ballistics and marksmanship than the typical soldiers did back then.

To be a good marksman you need to do live fire in a situation where you are actually told if you hit anything and where a teacher give you feedbacki on what you are doing. This was very rarely done. Most soldiers only firing their guns during combat.

Even after units changed to rifled muskets, they still ended up having the firefight at around 100 yards...
A range where the smoothbore would still be effective. And we have plenty of cases where the range was much closer. (much of the battle of the Wilderness to mention one big battle where close range fighting was the norm)

Sure there where some units, like the CSA sharpshooter battalions that had great marksmen.. but the creation of the battalions just show that the average regiments was not up to the task of doing proper skirmish duty and handling long range firefights. (had they been, then there would be no need for specialized units)

As an individual, sure I would prefer a rifle musket.

But if I by some trick of magic ended up back then and in command of a regiment, I would prefer smoothbores, At least from the start of the war.

Then if I had the opportunity to actually do a serious training program in marksmanship and get the needed cartridges to do it properly, then sure, I would like to change. But I would properly start out by testing everyone and then taking the best 20% and giving them rifled firearms and focusing my time and resources on making them good shots...
The rest just need to be able to load and fire their smoothbores correctly. (and that is asking for more than too many soldiers could manage)
 
It is my impression that by the later years of the war, the good shots in a regiment were known. Then in long range firefights two or three of the not so good shots would load and let the marksman do all the shooting. Even at the Bloody Angle at Spotsylvania Courthouse it seems some of that was going on even when the range got down to a few feet. Of course in a charge or hand to hand fighting that was not practical.
 
I recall the National Rifle Association formed in 1871 due to the founders having been disappointed with Union marksmanship.

I believe most of us have a better understanding of marksmanship and ammunition/ballistics than most of the soldiers on either side. Especially hand loaders.
 
Like others posting here I have fired buck and ball loads from an original Model 1842. My experience is that there is no effect on the one large round ball's accuracy whether it is fired with or without an additional buckshot load. There also seemed to be no rhyme or reason as to where the buckshot wound up going. At the 50 yard range the ball consistently hit (from the standing position) the silhouette target. The buckshot often missed any part of the target while sometimes (not often) all three buckshot hit it. When I moved to the hundred yard range the accuracy of the ball fell off with many misses. As for the buckshot at that range, I may have droped a few starlings or sparrows, or maybe gophers or moles, but the man sized target seemed safe enough.
 
Like others posting here I have fired buck and ball loads from an original Model 1842. My experience is that there is no effect on the one large round ball's accuracy whether it is fired with or without an additional buckshot load. There also seemed to be no rhyme or reason as to where the buckshot wound up going. At the 50 yard range the ball consistently hit (from the standing position) the silhouette target. The buckshot often missed any part of the target while sometimes (not often) all three buckshot hit it. When I moved to the hundred yard range the accuracy of the ball fell off with many misses. As for the buckshot at that range, I may have droped a few starlings or sparrows, or maybe gophers or moles, but the man sized target seemed safe enough.

Interesting

I wonder if it’s a combination of nominal bore diameter and the wadding used and/or position of the pellets in the load.

May I make a suggestion/request for testing the load?

Try it at say 25 yards, 15 yards and 10 yards. It may give us an idea as to what the load is doing at longer ranges. Something I did with modern ammunition when experimenting with buck and ball 12gauge rounds.
 
I would say that if the target consistently then in a real packed formation, the two buckshot would probably hit something. it is pretty deadly stuff at close range. I would not like to be on the receiving end of a regiment firing it. It would be very devastating. Good luck to any firing this combo.
 
What about vs a standard ball? Was there an accuracy difference?

That depends entirely on distance. Up close the buck and ball was devastating. Beyond 75 yards or so the load rapidly lost both accuracy and energy.
 
With the comparative sectional density of the musket ball v the buckshot, the ball will pass through and overtake the shot before 50 yards, possibly deflecting the ball on striking a shot or the shot being scattered by the ball and it's turbulence. The ball will be affected by the turbulence of the shot as well.
 
With the comparative sectional density of the musket ball v the buckshot, the ball will pass through and overtake the shot before 50 yards, possibly deflecting the ball on striking a shot or the shot being scattered by the ball and it's turbulence. The ball will be affected by the turbulence of the shot as well.

About 50 yards is the optimum range for a smoothbore musket so bullet deflection should be fairly minimal.

Ryan
 
The Indian Army (albeit trained professionals) sighted their muskets to 140 yards. Now a trained athlete on a track can cover this in about 15 seconds. Tired, frightened, poorly fed and loaded with rifle, ammunition and kit plus wearing boots and usually it is uphill to a defensive line, you would be pushed to do it in less than 45 seconds and probably more. If I were the defence, starting loaded I can get off three rounds, quite possibly four at you. Only the last would be on the chosen target with buck and ball. I would choose pure ball to make them all potentially count. Now you could keep buck and ball for the last shot at 50 yards or less but that is beyond poorly trained troops under extreme stress.

However. Buck and ball was used in muskets in the ACW but there were reasons why other armies did not choose to use it routinely.
 
For the up close and personnel touch the buck & ball was it. Not much on long range but the CW really wasn't a long range war. Bottom line in the trenches I would have preferred the buck and ball as in today I would prefer the Remington Trench shotgun.
People often speak of 700 plus yard shots (SEDGWICK!!!), yet those weapons were rare and those marksmen were rarer. Ive read many expert say that 100 yards or less was typical range even with rifled weapons in battle during the ACW
 
The Indian Army (albeit trained professionals) sighted their muskets to 140 yards. Now a trained athlete on a track can cover this in about 15 seconds. Tired, frightened, poorly fed and loaded with rifle, ammunition and kit plus wearing boots and usually it is uphill to a defensive line, you would be pushed to do it in less than 45 seconds and probably more. If I were the defence, starting loaded I can get off three rounds, quite possibly four at you. Only the last would be on the chosen target with buck and ball. I would choose pure ball to make them all potentially count. Now you could keep buck and ball for the last shot at 50 yards or less but that is beyond poorly trained troops under extreme stress.

However. Buck and ball was used in muskets in the ACW but there were reasons why other armies did not choose to use it routinely.


I know people say in the ACW 20 seconds per shot but watch the videos of people doing this as an exercise and then try doing it...on a target range with no one shooting at me I find it difficult especially when trying to sight the target at 130 yards
 
I mat be wrong but, I believe that the 12th New Jersey gathered dropped muskets and lo


I may be wrong but, I believe that the 12th New Jersey gathered abandoned muskets and loaded them with buckshot to use when the Confederates got close enough. I don't think that they bothered to sort out the buckshot while the Confederates were advancing.
great point
 
Back
Top