Questions About Rifled Muskets Versus Carbines

8 month, not 18... ;-)

The rifle musket didn't have a large impact and it didn't cause the diggin in.
If it did, then why didn't the Prussian wars in 1866 war and 1871 end in trench warfare?
Larger armies, better weapons...
 
8 month, not 18... ;-)

The rifle musket didn't have a large impact and it didn't cause the diggin in.
If it did, then why didn't the Prussian wars in 1866 war and 1871 end in trench warfare?
Larger armies, better weapons...

The 1866 war only lasted 7 weeks and was decided by a single battle. The 1871 war featured the Battle of Sedan followed by the Siege of Metz and the Siege of Paris. Sieges sound a lot like trench warfare to me.

Anyway, I am not claiming that the rifle musket is the sole reason for any of these things. I just don't believe that the impact of it can be so easily discounted either. The war was not a lab experiment where you can control for each factor to isolate the effect of everything. Sometimes, what the soldiers believed and the impact it had on morale impacted the tactics in a way that was more important than what the statistics indicate.
 
Last edited:
And I'm willing to bet if a CW soldier had the chance to practice shooting 50-100 rounds at a target, the death toll in the war would have been much higher. As issued, and with the barest amount of practice, I don't think either the musket or carbine was that accurate. Are they capable of being as accurate as a modern weapon? Most definitely, after tailoring the sights and charge to the weapon I'd put either one of them up against a modern rifle, with open sights and shooting off hand.
But later in the war casualty rates were not any higher at Antietam, Gettysburg, or Chickamauga among individual units than they were at First Manassas, Shiloh, in the Seven Days. By 1863 and '64 the majority of regiments had already seen their fair share of fighting and many of the veterans in those regiments had probably fired their musket hundreds of times in battle or on the picket line. Though further training with firearms would be beneficial, I don't think it would increase casualties significantly, as the conditions on the battlefield often were what prevented soldiers, even the most experienced, from firing accurately.

When one considers the buckets of lead fired in the typical skirmish or battle and the number of soldiers actually hit (it took a man's weight in bullets to kill him) I sometimes wonder if anyone was carefully aiming his firearm whatever it was. I think they might have inflicted more casualties if they were issued longbows and short swords and the artillery catapults and ballistas.
From the accounts I've read the black powder smoke typically kept men from being able to even take careful aim at individual targets. Usually the initial volley seems to have been the most destructive, but after prolonged firing at will both sides were firing almost blindly into the smoke.

For example, Maj. Samuel H. M. Byers of the 5th Iowa Infantry mentions in his diary that while fighting on Champion Hill, "I could not see far to left or right, the smoke of battle was covering everything. I saw bodies of our men lying near me without knowing who they were, though some of them were my messmates in the morning. The Rebels in front we could not see at all. We simply fired at their lines by guess, and occasionally the blaze of their guns showed exactly where they stood. They kept their line like a wall of fire. When I fired my first shot I had resolved to aim at somebody or something as long as I could see, and a dozen times I tired to bring down an officer I dimly saw on a gray horse before me."
 
Shooters know that some barrels are better than others. I suspect that sharpshooters selected a musket that had one of those better barrels and was more reliably on point. After that, it was all up to him.

I don't believe a sharpshooter can be made. Training might improve natural skills, but the skills have to be there.

For those intrested, member Gary (Yee) wrote an excellent treatise on sharpshooters.

Edit: Titled, oddly enough, "Sharpshooters." Highly recommended.
 
Last edited:
Scotsman,
When I first got my repro Enfield, I think it shot high about 10" at 100 yards,and using a classic mini ball the groups were measured in feet. Assuming that it is a faithful reproduction of an actual 1853 Enfield, you can see why it took pounds of lead to to actually hit someone.

Booner

WRONG!

No, almost all repro's (excepting the English Birmingham made Parker Hale's) are barreled nothing like the originals. The originals had progressive depth rifling. The bore is the same diameter all the way thru, but the grooves are 14 thousandth's deep at the breech end, progressively getting shallower to 5 thousandth's deep at the muzzle end.

Most repro's are the same depth groove (around 5 thousandth's) depth throughout the barrel. To get a repro rifle to shoot a minnie ball accurately, it needs to be 1-2 thousandth's UNDER the bore size of your barrel. Trying to get a .575" minnie to shoot thru a .581" diameter bore won't work well at all, in my experience. But, you get a .580" minnie, it may surprise you how well it will load and shoot in your .581" bored barrel.

You would be amazed how well the originals could shoot with well made ammo. That progressive depth rifling makes a big difference, seems to be more forgiving about what you load thru it. One reason Skirmishers like to have custom made barrels with progressive depth grooves/rifling, or good shooting originals!
The type of LUBE you use is also important!

Kevin Dally
 
The 1866 war only lasted 7 weeks and was decided by a single battle. The 1871 war featured the Battle of Sedan followed by the Siege of Metz and the Siege of Paris. Sieges sound a lot like trench warfare to me.

Anyway, I am not claiming that the rifle musket is the sole reason for any of these things. I just don't believe that the impact of it can be so easily discounted either. The war was not a lab experiment where you can control for each factor to isolate the effect of everything. Sometimes, what the soldiers believed and the impact it had on morale impacted the tactics in a way that was more important than what the statistics indicate.
When WW I began it seems that the European Armies had to learn all over again about the importance of trenches to conserve lives, this time from the machine gun. Look at all the above ground maneuvering at the First Marne before they went to earth,
 
WRONG!

No, almost all repro's (excepting the English Birmingham made Parker Hale's) are barreled nothing like the originals. The originals had progressive depth rifling. The bore is the same diameter all the way thru, but the grooves are 14 thousandth's deep at the breech end, progressively getting shallower to 5 thousandth's deep at the muzzle end.

Most repro's are the same depth groove (around 5 thousandth's) depth throughout the barrel. To get a repro rifle to shoot a minnie ball accurately, it needs to be 1-2 thousandth's UNDER the bore size of your barrel. Trying to get a .575" minnie to shoot thru a .581" diameter bore won't work well at all, in my experience. But, you get a .580" minnie, it may surprise you how well it will load and shoot in your .581" bored barrel.

Interesting info on the progressive depth rifling. I am a bit confused about the physics of it, though. How would the progressive depth rifling improve accuracy?
 
When WW I began it seems that the European Armies had to learn all over again about the importance of trenches to conserve lives, this time from the machine gun. Look at all the above ground maneuvering at the First Marne before they went to earth,
If you want to win you need to maneuver and attack. This is how the Prussian won against France in just a few month in 1870. Yes it was expensive, but they won. And the total losses was much smaller than had the war dragged on for years.

The civil war was expensive because none of the sides had the skills to bring it to a quick end... and naturally the fact that area fought over is much much greater and the terrain not as open. making it very hard to win a decisive victory in a battle. (and with a peacetime army of 16.000 men that are usually operating at the company level there is no way they could have had them)

In 1914 the problem was not machine guns since they where rather rare, but the much larger armies. In 1870, you could still bring down a corp on the flank of the enemy... was much harder in 1914.
And the simple fact was that in 1870 it was still possible to surround and remove an army from the map... could no longer be done as often in 1914... and even if you managed to do so, there where many more enemy armies.

Or said in another way, the problem in 1914 was not tactically but at the operational level. Controlling and maneuvering the huge forces was not possible. so bringing a quick end to a battle was not possible with a few exceptions.

This and simple exhaustion lead to the stalemate on the west front. Too many men with no room to maneuver and too large armies to do it properly in a battle winning way... and when both sides first dug in, it became a siege...
And that became a tactical problem... and quickly a technical one.

On the east front it was possible to maneuver... and it was done.
 
Interesting info on the progressive depth rifling. I am a bit confused about the physics of it, though. How would the progressive depth rifling improve accuracy?
Muskets in the WBTS were Progressively Depth rifled for a reason. The Groove diameter at the Breech end was about .014" deep, going to .005" deep down at the muzzle. A heavy Minnie ball would expand into the deep groove when the powder went off. Then it has a good "bite" on the rifling as it moved down the bore. As it moves down the bore, it gets squeezed down in the groove area and stops any "gas cutting" that destroys accuracy.
The Bore diameter is the same all the way through the barrel.

On the replicas, the groove diameter is the same all the way through. (just as the bore) The groove diameter is about 5 thousandths deep. A heavy minnie may travel some distance before the skirt expands into the rifling. A lot of gas cutting is going on around the bullet before it expands, and the gasses blowing by the bullet are playing havoc with the shape and diameter. (acting like a blow torch) That is gas cutting.
That is why the bullet needs to be real close to your bore size of your repro, so that skirt expansion can take place before gas cutting deforms the outside.

Kevin Dally
 
If you want to win you need to maneuver and attack. This is how the Prussian won against France in just a few month in 1870. Yes it was expensive, but they won. And the total losses was much smaller than had the war dragged on for years.

The civil war was expensive because none of the sides had the skills to bring it to a quick end... and naturally the fact that area fought over is much much greater and the terrain not as open. making it very hard to win a decisive victory in a battle. (and with a peacetime army of 16.000 men that are usually operating at the company level there is no way they could have had them)

I do not think one can blame the high casualty count of the Civil War on a lack of skill. I definitely agree that a majority of soldiers, and officers, were new to combat. But I do not know what skills could have ended the war more quickly. And except for a few notable examples (such as Fredericksburg), most campaigns and battles--from 1861 to 1865--involved some element of maneuver and attack.

The key point is the massive size and scope of the war. Hypothetically speaking, even if McDowell's army had thoroughly trounced Beauregard at Bull Run in July 1861, would that have made all eleven Confederate states capitulate instantly? The Union army suffered a pretty devastating tactical defeat there, but hardly showed signs of giving up the war. Furthermore, rather decisive Union victories in the west within the first two years literally split the Confederacy in half, yet the war did not end at that either.

Victory (for either the Union or the Confederacy) required the overall crushing of the opponent's will to continue the contest. That was not something that could be achieved by a single, decisive battle--unless it had occurred so early in the conflict that it somehow derailed the political momentum stirring in the South. But even that may have been impossible, since secession and dedication to the Confederacy within the Deep South had been well-established months before open warfare commenced. (And, considering that much of the Upper South took up arms against the Union purely in response to Lincoln's call for troops, it is hard to imagine any scenario in which a single Union battlefield victory after Lincoln's election would have completely shut down secession and the Confederacy.)
 
Muskets in the WBTS were Progressively Depth rifled for a reason. The Groove diameter at the Breech end was about .014" deep, going to .005" deep down at the muzzle. A heavy Minnie ball would expand into the deep groove when the powder went off. Then it has a good "bite" on the rifling as it moved down the bore. As it moves down the bore, it gets squeezed down in the groove area and stops any "gas cutting" that destroys accuracy.
The Bore diameter is the same all the way through the barrel.

On the replicas, the groove diameter is the same all the way through. (just as the bore) The groove diameter is about 5 thousandths deep. A heavy minnie may travel some distance before the skirt expands into the rifling. A lot of gas cutting is going on around the bullet before it expands, and the gasses blowing by the bullet are playing havoc with the shape and diameter. (acting like a blow torch) That is gas cutting.
That is why the bullet needs to be real close to your bore size of your repro, so that skirt expansion can take place before gas cutting deforms the outside.

Kevin Dally

Interesting. If I understand your post correctly, and the physics behind this technique, upon ignition, some gases push past the bullet before the skirt can fully expand. With single-depth rifling, this gas may force itself past the bullet on one side and deform the lead before it expands. With progressive-depth rifling, deeper grooves at the breech allow some gas to escape without deforming the bullet before it fully expands. Then, as the bullet travels down the bore, the rifling becomes shallower, creating a greater seal between projectile and bore. Is that correct?
 
Anyway, I am not claiming that the rifle musket is the sole reason for any of these things. I just don't believe that the impact of it can be so easily discounted either. The war was not a lab experiment where you can control for each factor to isolate the effect of everything. Sometimes, what the soldiers believed and the impact it had on morale impacted the tactics in a way that was more important than what the statistics indicate.

You make a great point in that the psychological effect of a weapon can change tactics and a war. Listening to whistling Minie balls fly nearby, fired from great distances, could--and without a doubt did on occasion--influence a unit's actions, even if casualties were light.

But, how can we find evidence of this? Are there good, documented examples of Civil War tactics changing because of this psychological or morale effect? You brought up the trenches at Petersburg; yet fortifications, earthen defenses, and trenches have been part of warfare for centuries. West Point trained officers spent much of their school work studying these past conflicts and military engineering. Furthermore, Civil War armies--including Lee's and Grant's--fought on open fields right up to, during, and right after Petersburg. The fighting at Petersburg may be better explained through the strategic objectives of the army commanders, rather than a tactical stalemate due to technological developments.
 
Interesting. If I understand your post correctly, and the physics behind this technique, upon ignition, some gases push past the bullet before the skirt can fully expand. With single-depth rifling, this gas may force itself past the bullet on one side and deform the lead before it expands. With progressive-depth rifling, deeper grooves at the breech allow some gas to escape without deforming the bullet before it fully expands. Then, as the bullet travels down the bore, the rifling becomes shallower, creating a greater seal between projectile and bore. Is that correct?
That pretty much states how I understand it, or was explained to me years ago by a Skirmisher. I just know this, my .581" bore ArmiSport Enfield would not shoot a .575" 500 grain Lee Precision minnie worth a hoot...But it shot a .580" 480 grain Rapine Old-style minnie with great accuracy.

Kevin Dally
 
If you want to win you need to maneuver and attack. This is how the Prussian won against France in just a few month in 1870. Yes it was expensive, but they won. And the total losses was much smaller than had the war dragged on for years.

The civil war was expensive because none of the sides had the skills to bring it to a quick end... and naturally the fact that area fought over is much much greater and the terrain not as open. making it very hard to win a decisive victory in a battle. (and with a peacetime army of 16.000 men that are usually operating at the company level there is no way they could have had them)

In 1914 the problem was not machine guns since they where rather rare, but the much larger armies. In 1870, you could still bring down a corp on the flank of the enemy... was much harder in 1914.
And the simple fact was that in 1870 it was still possible to surround and remove an army from the map... could no longer be done as often in 1914... and even if you managed to do so, there where many more enemy armies.

Or said in another way, the problem in 1914 was not tactically but at the operational level. Controlling and maneuvering the huge forces was not possible. so bringing a quick end to a battle was not possible with a few exceptions.

This and simple exhaustion lead to the stalemate on the west front. Too many men with no room to maneuver and too large armies to do it properly in a battle winning way... and when both sides first dug in, it became a siege...
And that became a tactical problem... and quickly a technical one.

On the east front it was possible to maneuver... and it was done.
Thanks. I have wondered about why the war on the Western front remained a static trench warfare while on the Eastern front the Germans steadily advanced well into Russia. Any other factor involved with that?
 
Interesting. If I understand your post correctly, and the physics behind this technique, upon ignition, some gases push past the bullet before the skirt can fully expand. With single-depth rifling, this gas may force itself past the bullet on one side and deform the lead before it expands. With progressive-depth rifling, deeper grooves at the breech allow some gas to escape without deforming the bullet before it fully expands. Then, as the bullet travels down the bore, the rifling becomes shallower, creating a greater seal between projectile and bore. Is that correct?
I do not entirely understand this phenomenon but not only does my original Enfield shoot more accurately than my repro Springfield but it is far easier to load. The pressure required to seat the minie ball is considerable with the repro, especially after a few shots. With the Enfield the seating is smooth and it does not get more difficult as I shoot it. Anything to do with progressive depth rifling?
 
I do not entirely understand this phenomenon but not only does my original Enfield shoot more accurately than my repro Springfield but it is far easier to load. The pressure required to seat the minie ball is considerable with the repro, especially after a few shots. With the Enfield the seating is smooth and it does not get more difficult as I shoot it. Anything to do with progressive depth rifling?

I wonder if progressive rifling reduces fouling by allowing more carbon to escape through deeper grooves during the initial firing. Or, perhaps the deeper grooves store more of the carbon fouling, reducing the amount that comes in contact with the projectile while loading. Perhaps then, during firing, the gas propels much of the previous fouling out of those deep grooves, past the projectile before the skirt fully expands. Essentially, it could be a more efficient venting system for carbon.

If I understand the development of rifling correctly, its original intent was to provide channels for the carbon to deposit. The accuracy improvement was accidental. Thus, progressive rifling may have offered the best of both features.
 
Tin Cup,
You're RIGHT!
It's been 30 years since I did any skirmishing and I don't remember anything about progressive depth rifling as far as it pertains to the original muskets. I know about the Parker-Hales but they were out way out of our price range, as were the Whitworth repro's.
I wonder how they made the progressive depth rifling on the original Springfield's and Enfields? By varying the cutter on their rifling machines, or a tapered mandrel, or did they lap the barrels after rifling them? (I've done that-no fun). Anyway, the progressive depth had to have increased the effectiveness of the weapon, it would have added a huge cost to their manufacturing.

Again, Thanks for the info.
rgds,
Booner
 
Back
Top