All the replies certainly contribute to your question, so I will try to offer some additional information. The field batteries trained extensively unless they were on the campaign trail or in winter camp with inclement weather. They were well supplied, and this too contributed to how often they could train and learn about their respective munitions, operations of their guns, and artillery marksmanship. Eventually, this contributed to the overall success of the Union Army's light artillery in the field. One light battery worth illustrating as a somewhat representative sample of volunteer batteries is Battery B, 1st New York Light Artillery, commanded by Captain Rufus D. Pettit. I think they are representative of those batteries that had an experienced artillery officer from the beginning (as not all did). I gather from his letters and other sources that Pettit led his men (and those from other units) in basic training for about 8 weeks in the fall of 1861 at Elmira, New York, where many New York troops were mustered into the U.S. Army. Once they arrived in Washington, D.C., they received artillery training at Camp Barry, a field outside the city designated for that purpose. However, at first the Battery did not have all their own guns yet (a four-gun battery of 10 lb. Parrot rifled guns). I have no definitive proof, but it seems likely that multiple batteries shared the same guns for much of the initial artillery training. But by late November (I need to check Pettit’s letters) I believe they did have their guns. Pettit, a Mexican War veteran who had served in the field artillery, would have played a major role in the artillery training. A good resource and an excellent read is Hard Tack and Coffee: A Soldier’s Life in the Civil War by John Billings, a veteran of a volunteer Massachusetts battery. The pace and nature of their training would have also been subject to when they had enough horses and the long list of equipment for a full battery. Based on one of my great-grandfather’s letters (who served with the Battery), they knew all their assignments and the intricate order of details for operating their guns by late November. His description mirrors the language in the training manual as he describes the duties of each numbered position. But moving, transporting, and maneuvering in the field with horses, was yet another dimension of the training. I suspect much of this did not come until late winter of 1862. My grandfather notes in every letter during this time the amount of “drilling” they do every day. It also appears that there was considerable drilling when weather permitted during winter camps and before the next campaign each subsequent year of the War. With attrition, the veteran batteries were often faced with training new recruits or orienting transfers. Last, I will just emphasize that the artilleryman’s work as a soldier was significantly different than the infantryman’s. The artilleryman’s work required a coordinated effort with all others and their assignments to successfully transport, maneuver, and operate a gun in the field. Billings notes that watching a well-trained battery during drill was a spectator sport that sometimes drew crowds of infantry during late winter camps. How I would love to have seen myself! Good luck with your research.