Confusion About the Proper Terms For Firearms

kevikens

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Location
New Jersey
From reading many threads on this site about the firearms used in the Civil War I have become a bit confused about the correct term for the kind of firearm like the 1853 Enfield or the 1861 Springfield used in that war. From reading the writings of the American Revolutionary period I had gotten the impression that the term musket was the name for any firearm that was designed for military use. Sometimes the term firelock was used. A firearm made for civilian use was a fowling piece or fowler and a rifle was an arm that could be used either as a civilian hunting arm or specialty weapon for elite troops.

In the Civil War it appears that the term musket was being commonly used to describe only a military weapon that was smooth bored. What I have discovered, however, is that the designation of musket might or might not mean a military arm that might also be a rifled arm as well. What I find baffling is that sometimes the troops are said to be carrying rifle muskets or rifled muskets. The last term, rifled musket, I have found being used in two primary source documents, one a tactical manual written by John Gibbon early in the war and one in an 1865 Army-Navy magazine article. So, what is the proper designation for a full length muzzle loading military arm that has a rifled barrel?
 
Like you, I've seen both "rifle musket" and "rifled musket" in original sources although I'd say I think rifle musket might have been the somewhat more common. I don't think there was an official term. As a general collective noun just "musket" seemed to have been used to mean rifled or smooth bore long arms.
 
The way I use it:

  • A musket is, as you say a full length muzzle loaded military firearm. (that can take a bayonet)
  • A rifle is a gun that have rifling inside the barrel. Usually shorter and can't take a bayonet. (but maybe a sword bayonet)
  • A "rifle musket" is a musket that that got rifling inside the barrel and use some sort of system (like Thouvenin, Minie, Lorenz) where the rate of fire is compatible to a smoothbore musket. It was made this way.
  • A rifled musket - the same but a weapon that was originally a smoothbore but later got rifled.

But some people do use "musket" for smoothbores only.

What complicate mattes for me, as a dane, is the fact that the danish army used the words differently.
(here "musket" do specifically mean a smoothbore. The rifle firearms was called "Riffel", "Tap riffel" and "Minie riffel" depending on types... and everything, no matter type was called "Gevær" when used in a order. Just like "arms" are used in the US drill books)
 
From reading many threads on this site about the firearms used in the Civil War I have become a bit confused about the correct term for the kind of firearm like the 1853 Enfield or the 1861 Springfield used in that war. From reading the writings of the American Revolutionary period I had gotten the impression that the term musket was the name for any firearm that was designed for military use.

That is correct. By the time of the CW rifled arms were common but the name "musket" or "rifled musket" was still in use, despite muskets having usually been considered smoothbore weapons.

Sometimes the term firelock was used.

That usually denotes either a flintlock or earlier, matchlock ignition weapon. I'm not familiar with it being used much in CW terms.

A firearm made for civilian use was a fowling piece or fowler and a rifle was an arm that could be used either as a civilian hunting arm or specialty weapon for elite troops.

Not really. "Fowler" is more specifically, a smoothbore shotgun, most commonly used when hunting birds, hence-fowl. A rifle is just that; a rifled barrel long arm as opposed to a smoothbore arm.

In the Civil War it appears that the term musket was being commonly used to describe only a military weapon that was smooth bored. What I have discovered, however, is that the designation of musket might or might not mean a military arm that might also be a rifled arm as well. What I find baffling is that sometimes the troops are said to be carrying rifle muskets or rifled muskets. The last term, rifled musket, I have found being used in two primary source documents, one a tactical manual written by John Gibbon early in the war and one in an 1865 Army-Navy magazine article. So, what is the proper designation for a full length muzzle loading military arm that has a rifled barrel?

As noted earlier, either will do in CW terminology. With the disappearance of smoothbores, and more specifically, the advent of breach loaded weapons, came the disappearance of the term "musket" as well.
 
The way I use it:

  • A musket is, as you say a full length muzzle loaded military firearm. (that can take a bayonet)
  • A rifle is a gun that have rifling inside the barrel. Usually shorter and can't take a bayonet. (but maybe a sword bayonet)
  • A "rifle musket" is a musket that that got rifling inside the barrel and use some sort of system (like Thouvenin, Minie, Lorenz) where the rate of fire is compatible to a smoothbore musket. It was made this way.
  • A rifled musket - the same but a weapon that was originally a smoothbore but later got rifled.

But some people do use "musket" for smoothbores only.

What complicate mattes for me, as a dane, is the fact that the danish army used the words differently.
(here "musket" do specifically mean a smoothbore. The rifle firearms was called "Riffel", "Tap riffel" and "Minie riffel" depending on types... and everything, no matter type was called "Gevær" when used in a order. Just like "arms" are used in the US drill books)
When did Danish army stop using smoothbore- before, during or after US civil war?
 
That is correct. By the time of the CW rifled arms were common but the name "musket" or "rifled musket" was still in use, despite muskets having usually been considered smoothbore weapons.



That usually denotes either a flintlock or earlier, matchlock ignition weapon. I'm not familiar with it being used much in CW terms.



Not really. "Fowler" is more specifically, a smoothbore shotgun, most commonly used when hunting birds, hence-fowl. A rifle is just that; a rifled barrel long arm as opposed to a smoothbore arm.



As noted earlier, either will do in CW terminology. With the disappearance of smoothbores, and more specifically, the advent of breach loaded weapons, came the disappearance of the term "musket" as well.
Were there any smoothbores still in service by 1865?
 
Were there any smoothbores still in service by 1865?
Quite a few on both sides. Not only smoothbores but even flintlocks. At the first of the war, many a Confederate soldier carried a version of the Springfield model 1816 smoothbore, flintlock.

confederate1862with1816.jpg
 
Quite a few on both sides. Not only smoothbores but even flintlocks. At the first of the war, many a Confederate soldier carried a version of the Springfield model 1816 smoothbore, flintlock.

confederate1862with1816.jpg
1816 flintlock, my goodness sending guys into combat with that against 53 Enfield or 61 Springfield was close to murder
 
1816 flintlock, my goodness sending guys into combat with that against 53 Enfield or 61 Springfield was close to murder

Certainly, rifled arms were advantageous in being able to engage the enemy accurately at longer ranges, however the smoothbores, including flintlocks, were not without their merits. They were faster to reload. You could use buck and ball loads for close-in work. You could usually find flint about in most any area CW battles were fought. Just a few points.

Even with rifled weapons, tactics did not change dramatically, from earlier smoothbore times. It was still about massing fire at the right point. Most fights quickly closed into short-ranged affairs as that was the way one took ground. The bayonet was just as effective on flintlocks as it was on the most current rifled arms.
 
Certainly, rifled arms were advantageous in being able to engage the enemy accurately at longer ranges, however the smoothbores, including flintlocks, were not without their merits. They were faster to reload. You could use buck and ball loads for close-in work. You could usually find flint about in most any area CW battles were fought. Just a few points.

Even with rifled weapons, tactics did not change dramatically, from earlier smoothbore times. It was still about massing fire at the right point. Most fights quickly closed into short-ranged affairs as that was the way one took ground. The bayonet was just as effective on flintlocks as it was on the most current rifled arms.
Was any consideration given about harmonizing weapon types in a regiment to achieve an effective mass of fire?
 
When did Danish army stop using smoothbore- before, during or after US civil war?
Before.
In 1848 when "The 3 year war" or "1st Sleswig war" broke out the army had line and jäger battalions. (and a guard battalion that was organised as a line)

The 17 line battalions had 752 muskets and 48 rifles pr. battalion.(in four 200 rank and file companies) In red uniforms.
The 5 Jägers battalions had the same size and used rifles. In green uniforms.

Since the late 18th century the danish army had a pretty strong focus on a strong skirmishing force.
(Hessian Johann Ewald who fought for the british against the colonials and commanded riflemen became a danish general later in life and published a number of books about the use of light infantry and rifle men)

By the end of the war the line infantry had changed to dark blue uniforms and a number of line battalions had retrained to light infantry and about 20% of the infantry was armed with a rifle musket. (using the Thouvenin system).
More battalions had also been raised and more light infantry was raised than line.

After the war the Jägers was converted to line infantry. (as in, all the line was to learn how to fight like light infantry)
For most of the 1850ties all infantry was trained with muskets, that is smooth bores and they where used for the daily drill, blank fire during exercises and guard duty. The best 20% of each company was after basic training also issued rifle muskets to be used on the firing range and in combat. (this was done not to wear the rifling and the weapons in general)

So 80% could load and point the gun the direction of the enemy and give him a volley of buck shoots. (and just as important have actually learned how to do live fire and basic marksmanship in an organized way... so his first shot in battle was not the first live shot he ever fired)
The 20% was expected to be able to hit things and longer distance with their rifled firearm.
(the way the soldiers was trained really havn't changed much since then. Drilling, then blank firing, then live fire... the big difference is that range estimation was way more in focus than today)
The idea that each company have some good shots with longer ranged weapons had been in use for decades...

During the late 1850ties the army wanted to change competently to rifled weapons.
And a number of arms including the enfield P/1853 and Prussian needle gun was tested and a number of different ways of rifling the smoothbore muskets already in use.
Since the funds was not sufficient to buy both new rifled artillery and new small arms the army ended up rifling many of the "french musket" in use. (they still keeped some smoothbores to be used in the daily service as mentioned above)
Exactly when all where rearmed with rifled muskets Iam not sure, but the process was ongoing when Lincoln was elected and it was finished before late 1863.

This is something that is often overlooked by american historians, By 1860 the rifle musket was not a new weapon but had been in use for about 15 years.
And the European armies was opening up their formations and putting more focus on skirmishing without needing an american war too teach it.
(just like they knew railroads was important for moving troops fast... they had been doing so since at least 1848)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top