Carbines vs Rifled Muskets

[wtexas]

First, excuse what may seem like a silly question but I don't have a great deal of expertise in armament and ordinence.

In reading Earl Hess's book Civil War Cavalry, the author states a few times that dismounted cavalry was no match for infantry in a stand-up fight because 1) the cavalry was generally not trained as well as infantry for fighting on foot and 2) the carbine was no match for a rifled musket.

Taking point #2, how was the rifled musket superior? Was the effective range that much greater? What am I not aware of please?

Thanks!

 

[Rhea Cole]

First, excuse what may seem like a silly question but I don't have a great deal of expertise in armament and ordinence.

I reading Earl Hess's book Civil War Cavalry, the author states a few times that dismounted cavalry was no match for infantry in a stand-up fight because 1) the cavalry was generally not trained as well as infantry for fighting on foot and 2) the carbine was no match for a rifled musket.

Taking point #2, how was the rifled musket superior? Was the effective range that much greater? What am I not aware of please?

Thanks!

All will be revealed in Claude Fuller's The Rifled Musket. In 1860 the Ordinance Bureau conducted tests of long arms & carbines. 6' X 6' targets were fired at by serving soldiers.

The test included .69 cal smoothies, breech loading carbines & everything in between. The test results showing the effective range for carbines is surprisingly short.

Link:

The Rifled Musket : Fuller, Claud E. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

archive.org

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

First, excuse what may seem like a silly question but I don't have a great deal of expertise in armament and ordinence.

In reading Earl Hess's book Civil War Cavalry, the author states a few times that dismounted cavalry was no match for infantry in a stand-up fight because 1) the cavalry was generally not trained as well as infantry for fighting on foot and 2) the carbine was no match for a rifled musket.

Taking point #2, how was the rifled musket superior? Was the effective range that much greater? What am I not aware of please?

Thanks!

Not a silly question at all.

The simple answer is that a carbine is good for killing a rabbit at 15 yards,
while a rifled musket could bring down a deer at over 100 yards.

 

[wtexas]

So for a .58 caliber rifled musket, fired at 100 yards (by one man) was deadly. At 300 yards, still effective but the tight grouping is no longer there. at 500 yards, still pretty accurate on a 6' x 6' target (86%) but likely not so effective because the grouping is so scattered.

A Burnside Carbine at 100 yards, six shots fired and in a fairly tight group, all struck but the rifle malfunctioned during testing. At 300 yards, just 4 of 20 shots hit the target and they were scattered wildly. At 500 yards, 20 shots, 1 hit.

With something called Jackson's Improvement, the accuracy increased though the groupins were still scattered.

So the next question is, how close were most firefights in the Civil War? It appears to be less than 150 yards.

 

[Rhea Cole]

So for a .58 caliber rifled musket, fired at 100 yards (by one man) was deadly. At 300 yards, still effective but the tight grouping is no longer there. at 500 yards, still pretty accurate on a 6' x 6' target (86%) but likely not so effective because the grouping is so scattered.

However, I am missing the numbers for carbines.

Look up carbines in the link to The Rifled Musket.

 

[wtexas]

Burnside Breechloading Carbine at 100 yards with 10 shots deliberately aimed. All 10 hit the 6' x 6' target but no grouping.

Rifled Musket (.58 caliber) at 100 yards with 50 shots. all 50 hit the 6' x 6' target in a very tight grouping.

 

[JOHN42768]

Each weapon was designed for certain applications. A Carbine was much easier to handle on horseback and a Cavalry person would be moving faster and attacking closing ground as opposed to a standstill firefight. Cavalry with long guns were only mounted to get them to the fight and then would battle on foot.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Burnside Breechloading Carbine at 100 yards with 10 shots deliberately aimed. All 10 hit the 6' x 6' target but no grouping.
View attachment 558752

Rifled Musket (.58 caliber) at 100 yards with 50 shots. all 50 hit the 6' x 6' target in a very tight grouping.
View attachment 558753

A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[Mississippian1861]

Cavalry were handicapped by the fact that 1/4 of the men would have to watch the horses while fighting dismounted. They were trained to fight dismounted, but as skirmishers, not in a full battle line.

During the first half of the war the Federal cavalry lagged behind the Confederates in numbers and deployment, the US government was initially reluctant to spend the money to train and equip large numbers of cavalry regiments and what regiments were raised were often deployed piecemeal as scouts, escorts, and guards. What CS cavalry lacked in equipment, they made up for in being able to mass their cavalry and being aggressive.

Late war Federal Cavalry with Spencer Carbines could and did take on fairly significant formations of CS infantry. True, the Spencer Carbines lacked the range of the rifle musket, but they could counter this with good use of horse artillery, usually 3-inch ordnance rifles, which allowed the dismounted federals to close the gap and use their rapid fire to their advantage. Also the Federals learned to mass their cavalry better.

Mid to Late war western CS cavalry were mostly armed with rifles and functioned more as Mounted Riflemen rather than true cavalry. If deployed correctly they could be a threat to an infantry force, as shown at Thompson Station and Brice's Crossroads.

 

[RedRover]

First, excuse what may seem like a silly question but I don't have a great deal of expertise in armament and ordinence.

In reading Earl Hess's book Civil War Cavalry, the author states a few times that dismounted cavalry was no match for infantry in a stand-up fight because 1) the cavalry was generally not trained as well as infantry for fighting on foot and 2) the carbine was no match for a rifled musket.

Taking point #2, how was the rifled musket superior? Was the effective range that much greater? What am I not aware of please?

Thanks!

All of the cavalry in the war were trained to dismount to fight. principally in skirmish lines, like the skirmish lines of the infantry (under cover where necessary, several feet between men, at minimum, reliance on accurate fire with carbines).


The rifle-musket of the infantry fitted a bayonet. The infantry was trained to, where necessary, form in solid lines of battle (two ranks) to attack in line of battle, or even attack in columns several ranks deep.... more than a match for any opposing skirmish line, whether composed of infantry or cavalry (without bayonets, etc.).

The Cavalry fought on foot generally during the war. But akin infantry skirmishers in extended order, without bayonets they could not deliver or receive the "shock" of infantry battle. Fully reliant on foot on the accuracy of their carbine fire.

Regarding Forrest's CSA Cavalry in the west...

Regarding the Union Cavalry in Virginia, Maj. Lewis Carpenter...

The cavalry skirmishing on foot, as "riflemen" were frequently found a match for opposing infantry similarly, or even more loosely formed (the intervals between skirmishers could vary) in the field, or in defending breastworks with their fire.

Alonzo Gray, in his examination of Civil War cavalry tactics, observed of their dismounted fighting of the cavalry...

Cavalry Tactics as Illustrated by the War of the Rebellion

www.google.com

And when necessary could form, mount up, and deliver its own "shock" in the mounted charge where it could do so with advantage...

 

[Rhea Cole]

So for a .58 caliber rifled musket, fired at 100 yards (by one man) was deadly. At 300 yards, still effective but the tight grouping is no longer there. at 500 yards, still pretty accurate on a 6' x 6' target (86%) but likely not so effective because the grouping is so scattered.

A Burnside Carbine at 100 yards, six shots fired and in a fairly tight group, all struck but the rifle malfunctioned during testing. At 300 yards, just 4 of 20 shots hit the target and they were scattered wildly. At 500 yards, 20 shots, 1 hit.

With something called Jackson's Improvement, the accuracy increased though the groupins were still scattered.

So the next question is, how close were most firefights in the Civil War? It appears to be less than 150 yards.

A constant of infantry modern combat is that firefights occur at (+/-) 300 yards. Historically, that hasn't changed much.

Long bow effective range 300 yards.

Sling shot 200 yards

Medieval crossbow 200-250 yards

Smoothbore musket (+/-) 100 yards

Mongolian compound bow 350 yards (+)

Turkish recurved bow range 984 Yards maximum. Extremely accurate at 50 (+) yards.

 

[wtexas]

Gray's work is very good. Thanks for posting.

 

[bayonet]

Well I have to say Buford and his Cavalry armed with Carbines delayed AP Hill and his muskets long enough on the first day of Gettysburg. You can load a Carbine faster and put more lead down range (helps if your behind something like a stone wall) than a musket. BUT of course at longer distances the Musket Rifle rules!

 

[Conquerordie]

Id hate to be in the sights of a calvaryman who knew how to use his carbine at any given range. And thats the rub, as it's been said many a time in this forum and others, that the men in the armies were not all marksman, in fact most were probably not even ok shots. The rifle musket had better range probably due to its larger caliber and powder charge. It also had a longer sighting radius than a carbine barrel which would make it easier to sight and hit objects as in the experiment on the 6'x6' target. But either weapon would have been deadly in the hands of a competent shooter. That skill, doesn't seem to be commonplace with either army.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Id hate to be in the sights of a calvaryman who knew how to use his carbine at any given range. And thats the rub, as it's been said many a time in this forum and others, that the men in the armies were not all marksman, in fact most were probably not even ok shots. The rifle musket had better range probably due to its larger caliber and powder charge. It also had a longer sighting radius than a carbine barrel which would make it easier to sight and hit objects as in the experiment on the 6'x6' target. But either weapon would have been deadly in the hands of a competent shooter. That skill, doesn't seem to be commonplace with either army.

The soldiers in the Ordinance Bureau tests were competent marksmen. It doesn't matter how skilled the marksmen may be, if he is firing a weapon with a circular error six feet in diameter or falls to earth a hundred yards from the target skill is irrelevant.

 

[Dan Kohli]

Besides the range and accuracy issues of the carbines, I think when fighting on foot the sword doesn't have the same shock value as the musket with bayonet fixed.

 

[Old Soldier]

Cavalry were armed with the carbine, the effective range is no more than 200 yards. Why? Short barrel and low powered rounds with lighter bullet. Not expected to be used dismounted except for defence. The pistol was often an alternative with the same short-range performance. The cavalry's principle weapon was the sword.

Dragoons / Mounted infantry were armed with the infantry musket with an effective range of 600 yards Why? Long barrel to develop power and higher powered rounds with heavier bullet. The horse was only a means of transport, the troops fought in formation after dismounting.

Ammunition: ............... bullet ...........Powder
Colt Navy pistol .............140 gr...............20 gr
Spencer carbine:.............350 gr...............45 gr...............gr = grain = 65mg = 0.0023oz
Rifle M1861............... ....480 gr...............60 gr

Grouping - At the longer ranges, these rounds still kill, especially those from musket - whether they hit the intended target or not. Most designated targets beyond 200 yards were at formations, not individuals. For instance, if a volley was fired at a line in front, it may miss by being too high, yet it could still kill a soldier in the line behind that one.

Accuracy - Depended a lot on individual training. However, a cavalry carbine was designed to be fired ONE-HANDED from horseback at short range (<100 yards), as well as reloading, hence the short barrel. It was capable of being fired fully suported dismounted, but the maximum range would still be 200 yards on an individual or 400 yards (at best) on a formation The cavalry's principle weapon at this time was the sword.
The infantry musket was capable of accurate shooting up to 600 yards with individuals capable of shooting accurately to 1000 yards. However, the Springfield M1861 and M1863 were only sighted to 100, with 300 and 500 yards on a flip-up sight. The Enfield P53 was sighted to 900 or 1,000 yards on a fully adjustable ladder sight starting at 100 yards. Neither was adustable for the individual (zeroed) - it depended on your issued rifle.

The M1861 & 63's sighting is an indication of the ranges expected.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Besides the range and accuracy issues of the carbines, I think when fighting on foot the sword doesn't have the same shock value as the musket with bayonet fixed.

You make a good point. Wilder's mounted infantry emphatically rejected a number of cavalry tactics. At first, they replaced sabers with axes. That proved unwieldy, but it did make a statement.

Nobody who hasn't carried a sword or saber can conceive of how clumsy it is. For good reason, cavalry armed with Spencers left their sabers in camp.

On June 25, 1863, the first day of the Tullahoma Campaign, Wilder's 2,000 man Brigade made the first large scale use of Spencer repeaters at the same time Lt Col Mitney's "Saber Brigade" routed Wheeler's cavalry in a four regiment saber charge.

At about the same time, in the War of the Triple Alliance, Argentinian lancers armed with Spencer carbines were brigaded with ferocious Arauncian pampas warriors who could out run the horses & whose preferred weapon was a club.

The 1860's were a period of massive changes that often resembled the advance of a glacier.

 

[bayonet]

Besides the range and accuracy issues of the carbines, I think when fighting on foot the sword doesn't have the same shock value as the musket with bayonet fixed.

In the ACW the bayonet was good for cooking a slab of meat over a fire, holding a candle to read at night, or for stacking arms. Very few casualties were caused by the bayonet in the ACW. Now the Rev War that's a different story.

 

[RetiredCanuck]

One other factor. Due to the nature of their role in the war, cavalry units could be deployed in small numbers.
Regiments typically were deployed in larger numbers. Typically not far from the the rest of the units in their brigade.
So the cavalry may have to fight at a numerical disadvantage, especially if as pointed out above 1/4 of the troop was held back as horse holders.