Buck&ball question

[thomas aagaard]

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

Different Danish military hand books pretty consistently mention tests where it took between 30-35 seconds pr. shot... But this is when the soldier need to fire 10 round or more at a target at about 160m. (don't remember target size but 2m x 2m or something is likely) So time is spend aiming.
Basically it is clear that that army expected about two shot pr. minute under combat conditions where the soldiers aimed.
Obviously in a real situation where the enemy gets closer, less and less time is needed for the aiming.

 

[Specster]

Different Danish military hand books pretty consistently mention tests where it took between 30-35 seconds pr. shot... But this is when the soldier need to fire 10 round or more at a target at about 160m. (don't remember target size but 2m x 2m or something is likely) So time is spend aiming.
Basically it is clear that that army expected about two shot pr. minute under combat conditions where the soldiers aimed.
Obviously in a real situation where the enemy gets closer, less and less time is needed for the aiming.

Less time is needed for aiming but panic may be so great that the soldier is frozen. There are many accounts of rifles being stuffed with 5 plus rounds - I dont kn0w if that is due to panic or fear....also, many people maintain that the period Springfields and Enfields were easy to load after 10 plus shots but other accounts have soldiers ramming the ramrod down the barrel with bolders after 10 shots. I have seen many stories going both ways.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Poor training is the core problem with the many weapons that was loaded more then one time.
(something Meade is pretty clear about in his order for the army to make sure every infantry man fire 10 shots successfully)

With properly maintained weapons and the correct cartridges for the weapons and you got few issues with loading after many shots.
Again, to use a danish military book one mention a text where 2-300 shots (can't remember the correct number) was fired from one musket with no clearing. The last shot was as easy to load as the first.
And in the last topic where this was debated someone else mentioned a british test where a thousand rounds was fired from one Enfield with no cleaning.

But poor cartridges, 58cal cartridges for Enfields, weapons that are not properly clean from the start, wrong 54cal for Lorenz's... Weapons that was rebored for 58cal... but done poorly... Old and very used weapons from europe... used by inexperienced troops... All of it will cause issues that can explain at least some of the issues we can read about.

 

[BillO]

Poor training is the core problem with the many weapons that was loaded more then one time.
(something Meade is pretty clear about in his order for the army to make sure every infantry man fire 10 shots successfully)

With properly maintained weapons and the correct cartridges for the weapons and you got few issues with loading after many shots.
Again, to use a danish military book one mention a text where 2-300 shots (can't remember the correct number) was fired from one musket with no clearing. The last shot was as easy to load as the first.
And in the last topic where this was debated someone else mentioned a british test where a thousand rounds was fired from one Enfield with no cleaning.

But poor cartridges, 58cal cartridges for Enfields, weapons that are not properly clean from the start, wrong 54cal for Lorenz's... Weapons that was rebored for 58cal... but done poorly... Old and very used weapons from europe... used by inexperienced troops... All of it will cause issues that can explain at least some of the issues we can read about.

Don't forget indifferent powder. Poor powder makes for poor performance.

 

[Patrick H]

I don't know the usual training methods of the day. However, I can say that if I were left to my own judgement, 50 yards is about the absolute limit of a shot I would would take without a rifled bore--and only then if I was hoping for a quick reload. If I were going to fight an enemy with buck, I think I would forego the ball altogether. I would prefer to go with one or the other. I will freely admit that my opinion is based on my experience with modern arms. I have never fired buck or ball through a muzzle loading smoothbore. I have fired ball through rifled bores, but that's not what we are discussing here.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Looking at my casualty compilation at Gettysburg, I find 28 cases of wounds attributed to buckshot and/or round musket ball. Amazingly, there were no fatalities, and that included face/head wounds.

Among the 252 recorded cases of "minie ball" wounds, 26 (or 10.3 percent) were fatal. In 20 fatal cases where the location of the wound was specified, 12 were head wounds, 7 were chest wounds, and 1 was in the hip. (I could expand this sample size by including "conoidal ball" wounds.)

 

[Tin cup]

I have shot a few rounds of BUCKSHOT, 12 .31 cal balls in a cartridge with 100 grains of BP. They hit LOW, and kicked HARD! I remember the "spread" was nothing to crow about either.

Kevin Dally

 

[FZ11]

Looking at my casualty compilation at Gettysburg, I find 28 cases of wounds attributed to buckshot and/or round musket ball. Amazingly, there were no fatalities, and that included face/head wounds.

Among the 252 recorded cases of "minie ball" wounds, 26 (or 10.3 percent) were fatal. In 20 fatal cases where the location of the wound was specified, 12 were head wounds, 7 were chest wounds, and 1 was in the hip. (I could expand this sample size by including "conoidal ball" wounds.)

Sounds right to me. I would think Buckshot doesn't have the mass to penetrate,fatally,at more than about 30 yards.

 

[tbuckley]

Is it possible that the main advantage of Buck & Ball was that the extra projectiles gave the shooter a little more confidence? More a psychological advantage than technological advantage?