Intention Wound vs. Kill Shots...Data?

[leftyhunter]

Im not trying to "prove a hypothesis" I am trying to figure out if the nature of the war changed dramatically as time went on. I dont see how the material you pasted on the NYPD has any bearing on this. I tried opening the link in two different browsers and could not do so in either. I thought maybe I was missing something, that there was more to the article. The police and the ACW? I tell you what. The reason there is probably no data on police woundings is that if you shot at them, they are in all likelihood going to kill you. If they shot at you and missed, did they escape or get captured? Who were these people the police shot at? Were they armed? There is no comparison between weaponry although I would imagine there were some pretty good marksmen in the ACW....many men fed their families with their rifle and were taught to shoot from an early age. I dont see this bares on the OP. .....I guess that aim is not accurate between humans - regardless of circumstance.

Just google the source it will pop up.
Leftyhunter

 

[Dave Wilma]

The question is during the ACW did soldiers with shoulder arms shoot to wound or to kill?

Until you have tried to draw a bead, under pressure, at distance on a human form, often moving, you cannot appreciate the difficulty of inflicting a non-fatal wound instead of a fatal one. It's hard just to hit the target let alone aim a little low for something less than a kill.

My summary of marksmanship and ballistics is summarized by: If you get shot, you might die and you might not.

 

[FZ11]

It's a real real simple answer:It's kill or be killed.....what would you do?

 

[Specster]

There was allegedly some fairly accurate marksmanship during the acw. I don't know how many times I've seen the post about the father of slain sons picking off Yankees from 1000 yards on a moving boat. Skirmishes. Snipers. Men surrendering. Men fleeing. It could have happened.

 

[leftyhunter]

There was allegedly some fairly accurate marksmanship during the acw. I don't know how many times I've seen the post about the father of slain sons picking off Yankees from 1000 yards on a moving boat. Skirmishes. Snipers. Men surrendering. Men fleeing. It could have happened.

Or not. Try firing a an authentic replica rifle such has a Whitworth or Ballard assuming some one makes them and hit a man size target at 1000 yards even if one is stationary using replica optics of the CW era. Try even modern paint ball against other moving players. Try a basic combat course with your partner yelling in your ear. Just saying as others have hitting a moving target is not all that easy.
Leftyhunter

 

[Legion Para]

 

[Legion Para]

 

[leftyhunter]

Interesting but their are a few problems with the above scenario. Snipers are not going to use bench rests. Withworths where issued 1 per company because they where very expensive. Therefore not a whole lot of Whitworths to go around. I will still stick with the average soldier is lucky to even hit a target. You can youtube videos of US Naval SEALs having great difficulty hitting Somali pirates moving slowly on a boat and of course their optics and Barret rifles are far better then what CW snipers had.
Leftyhunter

 

[7thWisconsin]

The front sight on a musket is not very fine. It's a big chunk of metal. At any distance, it covers the target pretty completely. Try firing at 100 yards with a house key taped to the muzzle as a blade. .58 or .52 is a very big caliber, so almost any wound has the potential to be lethal.

 

[Legion Para]

Confederate Sharpshooters Rifles


http://civilwartalk.com/threads/confederate-sharpshooters-rifles.94018/

 

[samuel orris]

I think they just wanted to hit their opponent in any place - they would actually have to be very lucky just to score any kind of a hit owing to the smoke, confusion and usual distances involved. The amount of lead expended on average to inflict one single casualty was enormous. It was not often that an opponent could be seen clearly, and that was usually at close range, when one side or the other was typically about to give way. Close quarters combat was extremely rare and often came as a surprise, for instance a unit emerging from the woods to find the enemy in near proximity.

However, there are examples of soldiers intentionally trying to kill unarmed and/or disabled opponents who were in plain sight. I have just started compiling a list of such atrocities committed during the battle of Gettysburg. In one case, some wounded Federals were lying or sitting next to a boulder within the enemy lines near the Devil's Den when a Confederate soldier stood off a short distance and began shooting them one by one. Here's another example (as reported in Pictorial History of the Thirteenth Vermont Volunteers by R. O. Sturtevant) from a soldier named Edward Freeman: "After the battle my comrade shot a rebel right in the head because he would not give up his gun."

Fort Pillow?

 

[Reb]

Here is a little insight from a law enforcement background. I was trained to shoot center mass. Not shoot to kill, not shoot to wound. It was shoot to stop an unlawful deadly action. Part of the training dealt with giving court testimony. When asked, you always state I shot center mass. If a suspect was shot in the head, an attorney might ask why. You still maintain you were shooting center mass. (Maybe the guy ducked). Another point is dealing with marksmanship medals. If there is a shooting,your training records are subject to subpoena. If the suspect got shot in the head, an attorney could bring your marksmanship awards into question. The question might be asked.... "If you were aiming center mass, why did you hit him in the head, your record indicates you received a distinguished expert award on several qualification events". The stock answer is.... once again.... "I was aiming center mass". To avoid this, many agencies have done away with giving out marksman awards. When you qualify, it is recorded simply as pass/fail. That way, an opposing attorney can't try that approach.
But I digress, IMHO I believe most soldiers were just trying to hit their target either by aiming, or even just shooting in the general direction of an enemy. In the heat of battle, I don't believe many soldiers would have been trying to shoot to wound. With a round like a mini ball, getting hit in the arm or leg could end up being fatal anyway.

 

[leftyhunter]

Here is a little insight from a law enforcement background. I was trained to shoot center mass. Not shoot to kill, not shoot to wound. It was shoot to stop an unlawful deadly action. Part of the training dealt with giving court testimony. When asked, you always state I shot center mass. If a suspect was shot in the head, an attorney might ask why. You still maintain you were shooting center mass. (Maybe the guy ducked). Another point is dealing with marksmanship medals. If there is a shooting,your training records are subject to subpoena. If the suspect got shot in the head, an attorney could bring your marksmanship awards into question. The question might be asked.... "If you were aiming center mass, why did you hit him in the head, your record indicates you received a distinguished expert award on several qualification events". The stock answer is.... once again.... "I was aiming center mass". To avoid this, many agencies have done away with giving out marksman awards. When you qualify, it is recorded simply as pass/fail. That way, an opposing attorney can't try that approach.
But I digress, IMHO I believe most soldiers were just trying to hit their target either by aiming, or even just shooting in the general direction of an enemy. In the heat of battle, I don't believe many soldiers would have been trying to shoot to wound. With a round like a mini ball, getting hit in the arm or leg could end up being fatal anyway.

Good post . I would add that many agencies in order to deal with body armor have drills such has two rounds to the chest and one to the head.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Fort Pillow?

True plus COIN War such has the massacre of unarmed Union soldiers at Centralia, Mo. In COIN war in the CW prisoners where not always taken.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

While sniping is an interesting subject the OP is not about sniping but about the average CW soldier. We could have a thread in the firearm forum something like"how accurate where CW snipers?"
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

A more accurate test would be to use rest materials that a sniper of the CW era would actually have such has bed rolls, wooden fences, saddles and any material or supports common to that era.
Leftyhunter

 

[Legion Para]

A more accurate test would be to use rest materials that a sniper of the CW era would actually have such has bed rolls, wooden fences, saddles and any material or supports common to that era.
Leftyhunter

I have test fired an original Whitworth and Berdan Sharps under the conditions you describe.

 

[leftyhunter]

What where the results? Very few of us would get that opportunity. It sounds very interesting.
Leftyhunter

 

[FZ11]

Here is a little insight from a law enforcement background. I was trained to shoot center mass. Not shoot to kill, not shoot to wound. It was shoot to stop an unlawful deadly action. Part of the training dealt with giving court testimony. When asked, you always state I shot center mass. If a suspect was shot in the head, an attorney might ask why. You still maintain you were shooting center mass. (Maybe the guy ducked). Another point is dealing with marksmanship medals. If there is a shooting,your training records are subject to subpoena. If the suspect got shot in the head, an attorney could bring your marksmanship awards into question. The question might be asked.... "If you were aiming center mass, why did you hit him in the head, your record indicates you received a distinguished expert award on several qualification events". The stock answer is.... once again.... "I was aiming center mass". To avoid this, many agencies have done away with giving out marksman awards. When you qualify, it is recorded simply as pass/fail. That way, an opposing attorney can't try that approach.
But I digress, IMHO I believe most soldiers were just trying to hit their target either by aiming, or even just shooting in the general direction of an enemy. In the heat of battle, I don't believe many soldiers would have been trying to shoot to wound. With a round like a mini ball, getting hit in the arm or leg could end up being fatal anyway.

Right. The soldiers are just aiming center mass and hoping to get a hit. To venture that the CW soldier was shooting to wound ascribes much more accuracy to the shooter and weapon package than they possessed. They were lucky to get a hit....anywhere on the Target.

 

[gunny]

At Chickamauga, the CS forces kept records of how many shots were fired per man. I'm not sure if all the divisions did this, but Cheatham's did. If they all did, their might be some data there to determine shots fired vs. hits. Kill or wound shouldn't be an issue really. If just a quarter of the shots fired created a casualty that would be huge. I would venture to say that even 1 shot in thirty would be an excellent ratio in CW combat.