Discussion "Aim Low" - Why?

[Booner]

As it has already been mentioned, in the U.S. at least it's the military that is the biggest consumer of Black Powder and is used as the "starting charge" (my term) for large caliber artillery rounds. It's the first powder placed in the shell so that the primer ignites the black powder and that ignites the smokeless powder. The higher heat generated by the smokeless powder either burns off the fouling created by the black powder or greatly reduces it. When Goex was owned by Hodgen, something like 90% of their black powder went to the military.

In some black powder cartridges, when the shooter makes his rounds, he might place a very small amount of smokeless powder in the cartridge along with the black powder to reduce fouling. It's not advisable to make this type of a duplex load, but some do it. It's one reason that at some black powder cartridge competitions, a range officer might breakdown some random cartridges to see if it's a duplex load. If you don't know what you're doing, a duplex load like this can blow up a gun due to over pressure. It's not something that I'll try.

One other thing that I've seen written, the black powder that was made "back in the day" when it was the only powder available, had a higher moisture content than what is made today. The higher moisture content aided in keeping the fouling softer, allowing more shots before the barrel needed cleaning. It was also the better-quality powder, like what the English made, that had the higher moisture contents, so I suspect the better-quality powder produced less fowling too. Black powder was made by several companies, and it was offered in various grades of quality, not only in the size of granulation (4f, 3f, 2f, etc.) but in quality of burn rate and fouling characteristics. I still have a few pounds of the Hodgen-made Goex on hand, but I've since switched over to the powder made by Swiss. I find the Swiss powder gives me the same velocity at a lower charge weight (12% less charge weight) and much less fouling than the Goex. The Swiss costs more, but I use 12% less powder with each shot, so I get more rounds per pound of powder.

one last bit of trivia-
Due to its rather poor burn characteristic in converting a solid into a gas, black powder has a very minimal change in the standard deviation and extreme spread in velocities from shot to shot. This means that if you load one round with 60 grains of powder and another at 64 grains, you'll not see much difference in the point of impact on your target. If you made a 4-grain difference with almost any type of smokeless powder, you'd see a dramatic change in your bullet's point of impact on the target and could very possibly destroy your gun. In other words, black powder is much more forgiving in this regard.

 

[roundball1]

Over the years I've heard that CW infantry were instructed to "aim low." Is this for real or a myth? And why aim low? Does it have something to do with firearms or ammo in general or with the firearms or ammo in use at the particular time, the kickback of the firearm, or what? I have no idea, but no doubt someone here will know. Thanks! KT, Columbus Ohio

I have only an Italian repro Enfield that I enjoy shooting at a range. I shoot Lyman mold cast .575 Burton hollow-based conicals out to 100 yards. The windage is excellent. The rounds, however strike about 12 inches high, consistently at 50 yards and are still 6 inches high at 100 yards. I can see how, with the smoke, haze of battle, adrenaline and all that would have been going on how nervous soldiers would certainly have the tendency to shoot too high unless specifically reminded to aim low.

 

[yulzari]

I have only an Italian repro Enfield that I enjoy shooting at a range. I shoot Lyman mold cast .575 Burton hollow-based conicals out to 100 yards. The windage is excellent. The rounds, however strike about 12 inches high, consistently at 50 yards and are still 6 inches high at 100 yards. I can see how, with the smoke, haze of battle, adrenaline and all that would have been going on how nervous soldiers would certainly have the tendency to shoot too high unless specifically reminded to aim low.

This is usually due to using the full front sight in the V of the rear sight. The originals required only the tip of the front sight to appear at the bottom. This brings the muzzle lower and thus the shot falls lower. The system allowed for the the front sight picture to thus alter to adjust shots in between the marked ranges. Thus of the sight is set for 300 yards and the target is at 250 yards then a lower, or 'finer' sight can be chosen to drop the point of aim to compensate. It illustrates the arching trajectory of the rifle musket and the reason why professional armies spent so much time teaching their professional soldiers to accurately estimate ranges.

Use just the tip visible at the bottom of the 'V' with the sight set for 100 yards. One might note that the rifle musket is a military weapon not a target rifle and the 6" drop between 50 yards and 100 yards is quite adequate to hit the naughty person somewhere rather important whilst he is running at you with a pointy stick.

 

[thomas aagaard]

I most definitely agree the type of wood used in the charcoal process is the "difference". But are you saying that the gunpowder companies are making two batches? One for the military and another for civilian use? If so why? The only reason that makes any sense is cost maybe?

GOEX make their powder for military use...(and civilian demolition) and then sell some on the side for civilian hobby use.

In Europe Swiss do make powder for civilian use and do give the best results. But still not up to the historical numbers with the Enfield.

(and just so we are clear, Iam just referencing what Gibbons wrote in his book on the topic and have covered on his youtube channel... he got a 1 hour long video about it...)

 

[Booner]

GOEX make their powder for military use...(and civilian demolition) and then sell some on the side for civilian hobby use.

In Europe Swiss do make powder for civilian use and do give the best results. But still not up to the historical numbers with the Enfield.

(and just so we are clear, Iam just referencing what Gibbons wrote in his book on the topic and have covered on his youtube channel... he got a 1 hour long video about it...)

The first time I was able to purchase some Swiss powder, I thought someone had made a mistake and put smokless powder in the container, it looked that good. No dust or fines in the powder, and all the kernels were approximately the same size. Good Stuff. My 45/70 with a 500-grain bullet was 68 grains of Goex, but using Swiss, I got the same velocity by using only 60 grains of powder.

One other reason why the soldiers were told to aim low.
In the books the army produced in how to load and shoot by the 10, 15, or 20 count (whatever), I have never seen in a manual how the soldier was supposed to aim their muskets. The only reference I've seen was something like. "point the musket at the target and pull the trigger with a steady deliberate pull." It might be in a manual somewhere, but I have never seen it. If someone can point out the CW era military manual that describes this, I'd appreciate it.

 

[DixieRifles]

It's that whole parabolic vs. flat trajectory thing.

Well, a rifle trajectory is not flat.
Also, if they are firing round ball or Buck 'n Ball, this spherical have much more drag.
Dixie Gunworks catalog had good ballistics data. I forget what distance the Speed of the round ball is reduced to 1/2 its Muzzle velocity. I think it was a little beyond 100 yds.

 

[Old Soldier]

The first time I was able to purchase some Swiss powder, I thought someone had made a mistake and put smokless powder in the container, it looked that good. No dust or fines in the powder, and all the kernels were approximately the same size. Good Stuff. My 45/70 with a 500-grain bullet was 68 grains of Goex, but using Swiss, I got the same velocity by using only 60 grains of powder.

One other reason why the soldiers were told to aim low.
In the books the army produced in how to load and shoot by the 10, 15, or 20 count (whatever), I have never seen in a manual how the soldier was supposed to aim their muskets. The only reference I've seen was something like. "point the musket at the target and pull the trigger with a steady deliberate pull." It might be in a manual somewhere, but I have never seen it. If someone can point out the CW era military manual that describes this, I'd appreciate it.

There is a long thread about this somewhere. The state regular army at the time was small and the volunteers and militias not too well trained in field work. The sudden inrush of volunteers didn't help either. Most of the training was done on the same principles as smoothbore musket - very Napoleonic.

The emphasis was on the drills but, unlike most European armies armed with rifles, there was little emphasis on marksmanship. The Brits with their P53s were trained on individual marksmanship up to 600 yards and on company shoots beyond that. The sights on the P53 were calibrated in 100 yard divisions from 100 up to 1200 yds . In comparison, the Springfield M1861 had a leaf sight set for 100, 300 and 500 Yards. Any individual marksmanship was based on skills already possessed and the Springfield was rarely used for sniping/sharpshooting .

From my skill-at-arms training days, many new riflemen tended to aim high - a head shot (!!?) - at close visible targets (300m down) instead of the centre of mass (body shot) so this could be a natural 'aiming point' for newbies. It does take time to get them to change that point of aim particularly on close quarter shooting.

 

[thomas aagaard]

I have never seen in a manual how the soldier was supposed to aim their muskets. The only reference I've seen was something like. "point the musket at the target and pull the trigger with a steady deliberate pull." It might be in a manual somewhere, but I have never seen it. If someone can point out the CW era military manual that describes this, I'd appreciate it.

Plenty of European military book on it ;-)
The danish 1863 drill do have a few commend on it, but mostly point to the regulations on marksmanship training.
But it do make on important point about volley firing. Hitting the target is more important then everyone firing at the exact same time...

The British drill book, do have a entire chapter on marksmanship training.
So if a battalion/garrison is without a proper Hythe trained marksmanship instructor, then the unit still have a basic program to use.

And just as importantly, Their basic drill for firing orders, do include a explicit step where you set the sights on the correct range.
So British soldiers did this daily so it became second nature.
Americans didn't when doing their standard drill.
---

Capt Henry Heth, 10th Infantry, compiled a book om marksmanship training that was published in 1858. But as he is perfectly honest about its is chiefly a translation of the french instructions. And he dit not claim any credit for the ideas in the book.

A System of Target Practice

books.google.dk

So the material in English did exist and the war department had approved it for use.

But the federal war department did not do printing thousands of them and issuing them to every single battalion in the army. And they did not allot any cartridges for wide marksmanship training, or even money/recourses for making targets or anything. And did not update their drill book to include the important elements.

And the same can be said about the CSA.

 

[6thMichCav]

I'll add a practical note on ergonomics and shooting under stress. I've shot tens of thousands of rounds at Skeet and Trap, most of which is not using sights. However, a common error is for the shooter to lift their head/cheek off the stock a moment before the shot—an error some refer to as "peeking." If the shooter tries to align their sight picture of the front sight with the (now) higher elevation of their head, the angle of the gun barrel naturally rises—and they shoot high as a result.

My best shooting mentor always yelled, "keep your head down—hard!—on the stock!"

 

[Rhea Cole]

The expanding gas of a black powder charge is subsonic, resulting a fraction of modern muzzle velocities.

At 9.8 meters /second / second. Where a round hits the target vertically is defined by that formula.

Because of its low velocity, a conical soft lead rifle bullet has to travel a high parabolic curve to reach a target at 300 yards, e.g. That meant that soldiers at 200 yards were not struck. By the same token, during Breckinridge's Charge Jan 2, 1863 soldiers in following lines that had closed the border interval suffered significant loss due to overs.

Doctrine recognized the arching trajectory of rifled muskets. Advancing lines were supposed to follow at a distance that allowed overs to fall harmlessly between the lines.

There is a telling example of why soldiers were instructed to aim low. After Perryville the 150th Ohio drilled & drilled. A white paper target was attached to a large tree trunk. Companies fired at the target from 100 yards. (+/-) eight out of ten of the rounds fired impacted (+/-) 12" above the target.

12" high at 100 yards is something a shooter can learn to adjust to. Thomas Marshall Jones was 7'6" when he enlisted. On average, however, Civil War soldiers were 5'8" tall.

At 300 yards a 5'8" target is (+/-) the size of the lower case letters you are looking at. Put your forward sight on a letter 'i' & you have some idea of what we are actually talking about. Civil War soldiers targeted lines of men four ranks deep, e.g. The goal was to create, to use a modern term, a beaten zone not pick off individuals in a line.

With all that establishing a baseline, why the oft repeated admonition to fire low? The arcing trajectory of black powder rifle fire was one factor. The other is human physiology. Under stress people tense up. From a kinetics standpoint, that means that people naturally fire high. Anybody who has shot on a range knows how wildly a tensed up person shoots. For that reason alone, aiming low is highly practical.

During the age of smoothbore black powder warfare muskets were pointed & leveled, no more. Sergeants carried pikes that they used to tap musket barrels up or down. At the (+/-) 50 yards at which they opened fire, given the random trajectory of musket balls, leveling the muskets was about all that could have been done.

 

[yulzari]

The expanding gas of a black powder charge is subsonic, resulting a fraction of modern muzzle velocities.

At 9.8 meters /second / second. Where a round hits the target vertically is defined by that formula.

Because of its low velocity, a conical soft lead rifle bullet has to travel a high parabolic curve to reach a target at 300 yards, e.g. That meant that soldiers at 200 yards were not struck. By the same token, during Breckinridge's Charge Jan 2, 1863 soldiers in following lines that had closed the border interval suffered significant loss due to overs.

Doctrine recognized the arching trajectory of rifled muskets. Advancing lines were supposed to follow at a distance that allowed overs to fall harmlessly between the lines.

There is a telling example of why soldiers were instructed to aim low. After Perryville the 150th Ohio drilled & drilled. A white paper target was attached to a large tree trunk. Companies fired at the target from 100 yards. (+/-) eight out of ten of the rounds fired impacted (+/-) 12" above the target.

12" high at 100 yards is something a shooter can learn to adjust to. Thomas Marshall Jones was 7'6" when he enlisted. On average, however, Civil War soldiers were 5'8" tall.

At 300 yards a 5'8" target is (+/-) the size of the lower case letters you are looking at. Put your forward sight on a letter 'i' & you have some idea of what we are actually talking about. Civil War soldiers targeted lines of men four ranks deep, e.g. The goal was to create, to use a modern term, a beaten zone not pick off individuals in a line.

With all that establishing a baseline, why the oft repeated admonition to fire low? The arcing trajectory of black powder rifle fire was one factor. The other is human physiology. Under stress people tense up. From a kinetics standpoint, that means that people naturally fire high. Anybody who has shot on a range knows how wildly a tensed up person shoots. For that reason alone, aiming low is highly practical.

During the age of smoothbore black powder warfare muskets were pointed & leveled, no more. Sergeants carried pikes that they used to tap musket barrels up or down. At the (+/-) 50 yards at which they opened fire, given the random trajectory of musket balls, leveling the muskets was about all that could have been done.

However the British army in the American Rebellion put in much effort on practicing their soldiers in firing at a mark with their muskets and the post Naploeonic War ones came with rear sights and one must note that military engineering regarded 'musket range' as 300 yards; not at a point target but to hit a unit target. The point at which the ball ceases to be merely around the general area of the target but becomes totally random. What the forum period American soldiers lacked was training and practice and their officers the same. Taking advantage of the rifle musket requires both training in the use of the arm at all ranges but also training in estimation of ranges and the constant practice of the same. Contrary to the myth of Americans being all crack shots from rural hunting, most were novices with firearms and the rifle musket was very different from a hunting rifle or shotgun and needed specific training and practice. Had either side managed to invest in that early on it would have been an invaluable force multiplier. Looking at period modern professional armies like the French and British shows the investment they made to teach their officers and men how to get to grips with the new weapon. It was not as if the American militaries were ignorant of this and they had access to the training manuals of both and much was published upon how it was carried out for professional soldiers, conscripts and volunteers and actual use in the Crimean War, Algeria and India.

One might note that the training schemes of Vincennes and Hythe taught the skills with no live firing or expense of ammunition until the latter stages which were to prove and confirm that the soldiers had learned the lessons of the use of sights and range estimation. There was no excuse for this not to be disseminated to the junior officers at least and then passed on the their men. There were simple devices for range estimation to help enough to allow officers to direct the fire of their men out to a few hundred yards at least against a unit size target. At the actual ranges typically actually engaged in major battles they may as well have had simple smooth bore muskets for the common soldiers.

The reason for the cry to 'aim low' was as a crude fix for shooting the prevelant habit of aiming too high for various reasons and even shots below the enemy produced dangerous ricochets off dry ground. The cry of 'aim low' was heard for more than 200 years before the American Difference of Opinion so it was far from unique.

 

[thomas aagaard]

During the age of smoothbore black powder warfare muskets were pointed & leveled, no more. Sergeants carried pikes that they used to tap musket barrels up or down. At the (+/-) 50 yards at which they opened fire, given the random trajectory of musket balls, leveling the muskets was about all that could have been done.

Post 1815 that is simply not correct. Pikes where gone, the muskets had proper front and rear sights and the soldiers where trained in using them out to much longer distances.

In the Danish army it was done out to 250 Alen (171 yards) under the 1855 regulation and out to 300 Alen (205 yards) with the updated 1860 regulations. (And I don't think the danish army was better at this than other European powers)

at 300 Alen (205 yards) the Danish army expected a smoothbore ex french M1822 percussion musket to be able to put half the shots in a circle that was about 6 feet in diameter. That is sufficient to effectively engage a closeordered formation.

And the moment men where deployed as skirmishers it was expected that they actually knew how to aim their muskets... and use cover and anything that allowed them to support their firearm.

--
oh, and the claim that the halfpikes where used to hit the muskets make no sense at all, considering that the sergeants was positioned behind the lines... where their job where to help keep the men in line.

And they in many cases where issued muskets during actual war... especially when talking the British in north America and in light infantry companies.

 

[Old Soldier]

The squaddie view.

Aiming was never a matter of ballistics, formulae or numbers - other than the numbers on the backsight and the order which told you which one to use. You leaned into the aim, never pulled the trigger or moved your hands or cheek from the stock and, in training, you never fired a shot until you got it right.
Light infantry were expected to receive their orders from the corporal in their smaller tactical units. Riflemen were expected to judge distance and set sights on their own.

The spontoon (half-pike). It was for last ditch, close self defence against cavalry, especially for those escorting the colours and center company sergeants who had no musket to fix a bayonet to. The British Army did away with the sergeant's pike in 1830

 

[Rhea Cole]

However the British army in the American Rebellion put in much effort on practicing their soldiers in firing at a mark with their muskets and the post Naploeonic War ones came with rear sights and one must note that military engineering regarded 'musket range' as 300 yards; not at a point target but to hit a unit target. The point at which the ball ceases to be merely around the general area of the target but becomes totally random. What the forum period American soldiers lacked was training and practice and their officers the same. Taking advantage of the rifle musket requires both training in the use of the arm at all ranges but also training in estimation of ranges and the constant practice of the same. Contrary to the myth of Americans being all crack shots from rural hunting, most were novices with firearms and the rifle musket was very different from a hunting rifle or shotgun and needed specific training and practice. Had either side managed to invest in that early on it would have been an invaluable force multiplier. Looking at period modern professional armies like the French and British shows the investment they made to teach their officers and men how to get to grips with the new weapon. It was not as if the American militaries were ignorant of this and they had access to the training manuals of both and much was published upon how it was carried out for professional soldiers, conscripts and volunteers and actual use in the Crimean War, Algeria and India.

One might note that the training schemes of Vincennes and Hythe taught the skills with no live firing or expense of ammunition until the latter stages which were to prove and confirm that the soldiers had learned the lessons of the use of sights and range estimation. There was no excuse for this not to be disseminated to the junior officers at least and then passed on the their men. There were simple devices for range estimation to help enough to allow officers to direct the fire of their men out to a few hundred yards at least against a unit size target. At the actual ranges typically actually engaged in major battles they may as well have had simple smooth bore muskets for the common soldiers.

The reason for the cry to 'aim low' was as a crude fix for shooting the prevelant habit of aiming too high for various reasons and even shots below the enemy produced dangerous ricochets off dry ground. The cry of 'aim low' was heard for more than 200 years before the American Difference of Opinion so it was far from unique.

I am, in fact, aware of a great deal on this subject.

In 1860 the Ordinance Bureau conducted firing tests of the long arms available at that time. Actual U.S. soldiers fired at 6X6' paper targets. The results were meticulously recorded in a report that is reproduced in Fuller's 'The Rifled Musket.'

The results shown here indicate that at 200 yards only 18 out of 50 shots fired by a .69 cal. smoothbore musket could hit somewhere on a 6'X6' target.

Compare that with a .56 cal rifled musket at 100 yards…

… or at 300 & 500 yards in a stiff breeze from the right.

There is, indeed a line scratched on the breech of some smoothbore muskets. A few balls fired from a .69 cal. musket did carry (+/-) 300 yards. It was not, however, the reason fortifications were constructed with that range as a design criteria.

It is notable that the minimum qualification for an Englishman was to strike a man sized target at 200 yards consistently. 300 yards was the edge of the strike zone for a longbow.

So, let us dispense with citations of target practice with smoothbore muskets. As US Grant, a man who knew a great deal on the subject said, you could eat lunch in perfect safety while a smoothbore was fired at you from 100 yards.

In my haversack I have examples of the types of bullets found on Stones River Battlefield. There are five five gallon buckets of them stored et the v.c., so giving me a few to show visitors is no great sacrifice. Amongst them is a .69 cal ball.

The tree line in this image taken from the Chicago Board of Trade Battery's position on December 31, 1862 is (+/-) 80 yards away. In front of the trees is a 5' tall split rail fence.

60% of Bragg's infantry was armed with smoothbore muskets. Massed behind that fence line with fixed bayonets [if they had one] they were, in effect, reenacting one of Alexander the Great"s phalanx charges. Leading the charge, General Raines was struck & killed a few steps in front of the fence.

To the left of this image is the Round Forrest. It was the pivot point on which Rosecrans' left flank was hinged. A Florida regiment armed with smoothbores charged Illinois regiments armed with rifles. 82% of the Floridians fell, no MIA's. They never fired a shot from effective range, if ever.

Six months later, on June 23, 1863 Wilder's Brigade carried canvas feed bags full of metal cased cartridges into battle.

For the first time, the Spencer Repeating Rifle received its baptism of fire at Hoover's Gap. Sheltered in a swale, Bates veterans shocked by the inexplicable rate of fire went to ground. Waving their rifle butts above their heads, they were allowed to enter the "Lightening Brigade's line. At that point the age of muzzle loading muskets came to an end.

Note: As happened at Fishing Creek & Shiloh it is likely the few surviving Floridians beat their accursed smoothbores against a tree trunk, leaving the wrapped around for advancing Yankees to wonder at. They had more motivation than most, perhaps.

On the eve of the battle, as part of a scheme to standardize the ammunition by battalion, the Floridians had received a wagon load of ,69 cal. muskets. Many of which had the hammer attached by a loop of twine. Men in the rear ranks were issued with sticks do as to appear armed. Strangely enough, there were worse things than going into battle with your musket's hammer in your pocket.

Out of print, 'The Rifled Musket' should be in everybody's bookshelf. It is available at trivial cost online.

 

[Stryker65]

Still holds valid.
It's easy to aim too high in the heat of the moment.
If you aim low but hit high, then you'll likely strike him in the chest.
If you aim low and hit a guy in the pelvis, he's not going anywhere at best /bleeding out (at worst, for him)
[Afterthought - this will come in particularly useful during the next Zombie Apocalypse]​

The next Zombie Apocalypse? You survived the first one???

 

[Rhea Cole]

I can't help but think that when using a cheap target bow and arrows from, say, Walmart or the local hardware store, if you don't aim low you'll probably miss the target and fly over the backstop altogether. It's that whole parabolic vs. flat trajectory thing.

The minimum qualification for a bowman in the English army was hitting a man sized target at 200 yards consistently.

To this day,'Notes on Arrow Wounds' by Dr Nolan Howland Bill is considered the standard for treating arrow wounds. In his experience that included Civil War service, he found arrow wounds to be more dangerous than those inflicted by musket balls.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Why is today's Blackpowder any more dirty and ineffective then the 19th century Black powder? It's made with the same ingredients isn't it?

Same.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Well, a rifle trajectory is not flat.
Also, if they are firing round ball or Buck 'n Ball, this spherical have much more drag.
Dixie Gunworks catalog had good ballistics data. I forget what distance the Speed of the round ball is reduced to 1/2 its Muzzle velocity. I think it was a little beyond 100 yds.

In the Ordinance Bureau tests in Fuller the buck shot that reached 200 yards could not penetrate the paper. The balls mostly hit near the ground.

 

[FedericoFCavada]

I might add that as black powder gave way to black powder cartridges, and then to smokeless powder, and the ranges and distances of effective small arms fire increased, and trajectories got progressively "flatter" as velocities increased (still called "musketry" in some manuals well into the 20th century...) the admonitions to aim low persisted.

In the Russian army, for instance, the rifle was to have the rear sight range scale adjusted according to the commands of the NCOs and by extension, the officers. In cases where the range was not known, or where no command had actually been given, the rear sight was to be set at 300 arshin or 400 arshin ["paces" vs. "Schritt" in Austro-Hungarian practice...], and the soldier was instructed to aim low--at the belt buckle or *ahem* upper thigh to get a disabling hit at any realistic range.

In the French army, during marksmanship instruction, a distinction was drawn between an outright miss of the black portions of the target and a miss that hit low outside the scoring rings. Apparently the rationale was that a miss that hit low produced a ricochet or kicked up dirt, gravel, rock fragments, etc. and that it could still inflict damage and/or produce suppression of the foe and hence, was a "better" miss than just sailing overhead into the ether...

 

[Saphroneth]

The answer is, to my understanding, a lack of effective training.

If someone has effective training then they're focused on setting and aligning their sights on the target. This especially applies to long ranged fire.

If someone doesn't have effective training then they're focused on pointing-and-shooting, at shorter range, but there's also an instinctive reluctance to shoot at another living being - this is a kind of reluctance that appears in e.g. Vietnam. So long as the training isn't sufficient and sufficiently realistic to train out this reluctance, you have a problem.

In addition, part of the Hythe musketry method was training people to press the trigger, not pull it. Pulling the trigger leads to a tendency to pull the weapon high - there's less of an impact with a percussion lock than with a flintlock, as there's less time for it to happen, but it can still occur - and this gets into the training issue again.