Ammo Buck And Ball

MikeyB

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
Were smoothbores actually the better weapon when defending a position? Basically have 1000 mini shotguns instead of 1000 rifled shots to scythe away oncoming attackers? Or would you rather have the conventional rifles?

Did smoothboore regiments ONLY carry buck and ball ammunition? or did they have traditional "long range" conventional fire?

mike
 
Were smoothbores actually the better weapon when defending a position? Basically have 1000 mini shotguns instead of 1000 rifled shots to scythe away oncoming attackers? Or would you rather have the conventional rifles?
I think *IF* an enemy line actually closed to within less than 100 yards, buck and ball would definitely be a more effective close-in weapon than a rifle musket. HOWEVER, I always consider the morale factor in seeing comrades start dropping at 300 yards or more due to rifle fire. In general, any unit that takes about 10% or higher losses prior to closing the distance is likely to start to experience a loss of unit morale and cohesion. That Civil War regiments could regularly take 30% or higher casualties and still advance with some sort of remaining cohesion points to the remarkable grit and determination of both Union and Confederate units and their leaders, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
The Buck & Ball would have been more effective but I would rather go long range in order to keep them from getting close.
A good artillery piece would keep them even further away, but this is getting off subject. That said, some Union units thought so much of smoothbores and buck & ball that they kept them even when offered rifle muskets.
 
If I have a smoothbore, by definition am I using buck and ball ammo? Or, did they have the ability to use conventional one shot ammo as well? If so, did a typical cartridge box have a mix of both?

I can answer some of your questions.

Both solid shot and buck and ball were used by both sides early in the war (i.e. until 1863 generally) and in some locations (e.g. the western theater) later. I would guess that a mix of solid and buck and ball would have been carried because out beyond 100 yards or so the buck shot would have become ineffective. So, in order for men equipped with a smooth bore musket to effectively engage the enemy at ranges of 100 yards or greater they'd have to have single ball ammunition. I doubt they'd all just stand in line waiting for the enemy to get closer.

What was typically carried in the cartridge box I'll leave to somebody who is more knowledgeable.
 
If I have a smoothbore, by definition am I using buck and ball ammo? Or, did they have the ability to use conventional one shot ammo as well? If so, did a typical cartridge box have a mix of both?

Someone also mentioned recently that all-buckshot cartridges were sometimes used, making the musket essentially a shotgun.
 
This information I thought might be of use and is from a paper by Richard E. Kerr, Jr., 1976 entitled WALL OF FIRE -- THE RIFLE AND CIVIL WAR INFANTRY TACTICS.

"The United States War Department conducted a rifle/musket comparison in February, 1860. The results were published in Special Order No. 23, dated 1 February 1860. It was a detailed study of the accuracy, range andrate of fire of the .58 caliber rifle musket against several other weapons, including 1843 Model .69 caliber smoothbores. Figure 3 is a summary of those results for the .58 cal. rifle and the .69 cal. smoothbore fired at a 10 foot square panel. Figure 4 shows a similar test fired at a six foot square panel. The test involved ten men firing 5 shots per category: volley, file and skirmisher. Volley fire refers to firing in line, by fire commands. A file is also from line but without commands; the soldier has freedom to aim and fire at will. The skirmisher category is "open" with the firer determining how, where and when he fires."
204781-7fb4acdbb5f8c7ef9e13df7da1472fef.jpg
204782-b5580722a7d2835f517d9af8e045797a.jpg

(sorry for the same black bars for each weapon, but the rifle musket is the better performing "vertical bar" in the charts in all cases but one I think).

"The charts show that the rifle was effective out to five hundred yards, but the musket lost its effectiveness at less than 200 yards. Also, the data showed that accuracy increased with the freedom given the soldier. In all cases the poorest results were from volley fire and the best, except one event, from skirmish firing. There can be no doubt based on this trial that the rifle had much greater effective range. Hitting a target that is 10 feet by 10 feet only calls for limited marksmanship; it is more a reflection of the weapon's consistency than the firer's aim. This is a good representation of an area target that might be engaged in battle. In fact the rifle did hit between twenty and forty percent at five hundred yards, where the musket was totally ineffective. Even at one hundred yards the musket could produce eighty percent hits, but the rifle hit almost one hundred percent. When the target was reduced to 6'x 6', less than forty percent of the 10'x 10', the rifle still had the accuracy to hit at five hundred yards. The musket had dropped to less than six percent at three hundred yards. Such a target was about equal to two men standing aside one another. If a unit equipped with rifles chose not to use skirmish fire, but used musketry to fire into a massed unit, it moved the killing zone beyond five hundred yards. The rifle was superior to the musket in every way. The Minie ball gave it equal or better reload times, its range was double or triple that of a musket and it could be expected to hit what it was aimed at -- even at 500 yards."

Just my opinion, but while valid arguments can be made that sometimes commanders didn't give firing commands until considerably closer than the effective range of a rifle musket, or the terrain or environmental conditions might dictate a firefight at closer ranges where a smoothbore using ball or "buck and ball" could perform as effectively or even at greater effectiveness than a rifle musket, does not negate the fact that the rifle musket was a game-changer in our Civil War.

From a previous thread, but I thought it might be worth re-posting here. Here's the original post link:

 
Question asked: "Did smoothbore regiments ONLY carry buck and ball ammunition? or did they have traditional "long range" conventional fire?"

Prior to the Civil War, most smoothbore muskets fired a round ball which has a lot of drag that slows it down. I think I recall that the velocity of a round ball drops by 1/2 within 100 yards.

In my small collection, I have a bullet that is void of rings. I used to think that these smooth bullets were only made by the Confederates as it was obviously easier to mold.
These are Enfield bullets. They have a plug that helps expand the bullet to grab the rifling.
Enfield Bullet.JPG


My modified Question: Were these type bullets without rings used effectively in smoothbore muskets?
 
Colonel George Lamb Willard wrote a pamphlet wherein he advocated that the bulk of the infantry regiments be armed with smooth bore muskets firing buck and ball ammunition and that rifled muskets be issued only to units designated as skirmishers.
 
Before the U.S. Civil War, it was common practice for U.S. line infantry equipped with smooth bore muskets to receive half the allotted ammunition as single-ball cartridges, and half as buck and ball cartridges. Both types were made and issued in the Civil War.
The Minié/Burton ball-firing rifle musket is far and away a superior weapon.
The problem was that there was no real marksmanship training to speak of. Misjudging range meant missing.
As for the range of typical fire fights within 100 yards, more like 92 if I recall correctly, see Earl Hess:

Earl Hess, The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat
 
If I'm on the battle field, I want to be able to lay an effective fire down ASAP, not have to wait until 100 yards. I'll take a 61 Springfield please.

I doubt they would issue solid shot or buck and ball, I'd guess they'd go combination. Now can a raw recruit be trusted to fire the right cartridge at the right time is my question?
 
Remember that entire regiments were essentially armed with the same type of musket, so a commander really can't position his rifle-equipped units to provide long range support by fire, then maneuver his smoothbore-equipped regiments into contact quickly as shock troops. Tactics of the time didn't dictate those actions. By and large, a brigade is a brigade is a brigade, and is essentially used the same way regardless of armament. Artillery neutralizes counterbattery fire, softens the target, infantry advances to exploit and cavalry finishes the exploitation with pursuit. That's how it was supposed to work. That it didn't is because of the nexus of training, conditions, weapons technology, etc.
 
Back
Top