Muzzleldrs Whitworth Rifle How Many?

Thx for that Saphroneth I must admit I always associated shorter barrels with the cavalry I didn't think such a short barrelled rifle could achieve such accuracy at long ranges , I was aware the 1853 pattern was tested alongside the Whitworth and the 1853 achieved 1400 yard shots but I had no idea the shorter barrel version was used for sniping.
Don't confuse the 33" Short Rifle with the 24" or shorter barreled Carbines. The Short Rifles (with heavy barrel and 1 in 48 rifling) have a good repution fo accuracy. With the Muzzle Loaders Assocation of Great Britain we have National Rifle Championships for Enfield rifles out to 600 yards - most will be using Short rifles, although this may also be due to the rear sight position which is further from the eye of the Pattern 1853 Rifle Musket (with 39" barrel and 1 in 78 rifling) and for many gives a clearer sight picture. A club I am in also has an aggregate match for Enfields at 600 and 800 yards. Even at a known distance and shooting prone with sling for support I haven't kept all 15 match shots on the 800 yard 10' x 6' target (some have though) - however considering the target an artillery crew they'd have been having a hard time!

In the 19thC Rifle Volunteers regularly competed with the P.53 at target shooting competition at distances out to 600 yards. At longer ranges, 'small-bore' rifles such as Whitworth, Henry, Turner, Kerr, and later Metford and Rigby rifles were generally used.

On my web site: Long Range Shooting with the Military Muzzle Loading Rifle

David
 
You might be interested in knowing the 1857 British tests:
Range: 1800 Yards
Whitworth: 139.44 inches
Enfield: ---Not fired---
This was presumably the common "long" Enfield.
Obviously a grouping of 12 feet isn't much to write home about, but a company of sharpshooters all armed with the Whitworth (as the British were considering making it the service rifle) would have been able to do some serious mischief at beyond extreme smoothbore artillery range to a large group of people.
Don't confuse Figure of Merit with group size..... 139.44 inches is 11.62 feet. Figure of merit is the mean radial distance of shots from the centre of group.

Figure of Merit cannot be directly converted to groups size, however statistical analysis would suggest a group size of around 42 feet. Just because it could be measured, the oft quoted 'Whitworth can hit a target at 2000 yards' seems to be largely misunderstood. Notwithstanding that, it was significantly more effective than the Enfield.

For more information, and besides the link above, see the following video:


David
 
There's been several references to 'the Enfield' in the Crimea.... Battles of Alma, Balaclava, Inkerman... all took place in 1854. At this time the .577 Pattern 1853 Enfield hadn't been issued. The rifle in the hands of some was the .702 Pattern 1851 Rifle Musket. The Pattern 1853 Enfield didn't reach the Crimea until early in 1855.

David
 
Don't confuse Figure of Merit with group size..... 139.44 inches is 11.62 feet. Figure of merit is the mean radial distance of shots from the centre of group.
Fair point, yes. I was thinking of an individual shot deviating that far, but I didn't use the right language.



There's been several references to 'the Enfield' in the Crimea.... Battles of Alma, Balaclava, Inkerman... all took place in 1854. At this time the .577 Pattern 1853 Enfield hadn't been issued. The rifle in the hands of some was the .702 Pattern 1851 Rifle Musket. The Pattern 1853 Enfield didn't reach the Crimea until early in 1855.
Also a good point! It looks like that doesn't hugely affect the conclusion, except in so far as the Enfield might be a little more accurate but a little less deadly at the longest ranges (as it has a lighter bullet but the same muzzle velocity) but it's good to keep those differences straight.
Hythe also wasn't fully "bedded in" at the time, so the Crimea results can be reasonably considered as a minimum and not the acme.

This probably helps explain why the Whitworth was considered to not be worth the improvements, especially if they had battle results from the Indian Mutiny (which was an Enfield-and-Hythe situation for some regiments) to compare with.
 
I also dispute this oft quoted statement "...they recognized the sound of Whitworth rounds whizzing past..." I remember the esteemed David Minshall having said that when he was working in the target pits for the long range Whitworth matches that there was no discernible difference between the sound of Whitworth projectiles or any of the P-53 rounds that went overhead.
J.
 
Jobe, It was the soldiers who were ducking that said they recognized the sound of the Whitworth and that is why they were ducking. They also said that Sedgwick was standing, not mounted. Perhaps we should remember that Civil War "Sharpshooter" did not get "one shot one kill". A one in ten hit rate might work for county battery fire. The marksman in Charleston might have been shooting all day. The fact is the Whitworth is a very accurate rifle with primitive sights at best and often ammunition problems.
 
I also dispute this oft quoted statement "...they recognized the sound of Whitworth rounds whizzing past..." I remember the esteemed David Minshall having said that when he was working in the target pits for the long range Whitworth matches that there was no discernible difference between the sound of Whitworth projectiles or any of the P-53 rounds that went overhead.
J.
Maybe the idea was "if it hits, it's a Whitworth".
 
It's also interesting to consider the issue of the sights.......
.....if they're 400 yards away from someone with a Springfield, you just have to sort of guesstimate how much over the 300 yard setting to aim, but with an Enfield you line up and there's no guesswork.
British musketry instruction called for the use of a half-sight on aim, i.e. the tip of the foresight half way between the shoulders of the rearsight and the base of the ‘V’. In this way they could further refine elevation between distances on the sight settings by taking a ‘fine’ or ‘full’ sight.

94BB27D7-1930-488E-A75A-A088CE56E6D5.jpeg


Quite often I see shooters in forums bemoaning that Enfields shoot high... it frequently turns out they’re on the 100yd sight setting, taking a full sight and shooting at 50yds.

David
 
British musketry instruction called for the use of a half-sight on aim, i.e. the tip of the foresight half way between the shoulders of the rearsight and the base of the ‘V’. In this way they could further refine elevation between distances on the sight settings by taking a ‘fine’ or ‘full’ sight.
Does that apply to the ladder sight as well, or just the leaf sights?
 
The bullet that killed Gen. Reynolds is on display at a museum in Atlanta, GA.
Do you have anymore information on the museum ? Contemporary accounts say the bullet exited below his eye . If that is true I don't see how the bullet could have been recovered .
 
Do you have anymore information on the museum ? Contemporary accounts say the bullet exited below his eye . If that is true I don't see how the bullet could have been recovered .
It wouldn't be impossible to find. Bullet on the ground still wet with blood, and for someone who saw the hit there wouldn't be that big an area to search.
 
Saphroneth - The British didn't use Leaf Sights, all P-53, P-56, P-58 muskets and rifles used the ladder sight.

zburkett - The writings of the Veterans after the war are rife with "Memories" that are either faulty, or just plain exaggerated what happened to make it more exciting to the reader of later years.
J.
 
Last edited:
One thing I have long been curious about; is their any forensic evidence that anyone was killed/wounded with a Whitworth rifle? I’m not disputing that that such occurred, but wonder if there any recovered bullets or other medical evidence?

I’m not widely read on the subject, but reports appear to be what sharpshooters claim, or who those on the receiving end think are shooting at them. Is their much evidence lead proof, or mostly reliant on observation?

My primary interest lies more with the design/development of the Whitworth rifle and other small-bore rifles of the time, rather than in depth study of the Civil War, which is small albeit important part of the Whitworth story. There’s likely much I have to learn re. the Whitworth in the Civil War.

David
 
Last edited:
Was the CSA capable of making the ammo needed for the rifle?, The hexagonal patient must have been extremely difficult to make.
I don’t know about the CSA capabilities, but the Whitworth does not need to be fired with the hexagonal mechanically fitting bullet. Soft lead cylindrical bullets will expand to fit the hexagonal bore on firing. Whitworth in his own loading instructions said “The cylindrical form of projectile is the best for general use.”

David
 
....This probably helps explain why the Whitworth was considered to not be worth the improvements, especially if they had battle results from the Indian Mutiny (which was an Enfield-and-Hythe situation for some regiments) to compare with.

Accuracy of the Whitworth in comparison with the Enfield seems to have grabbed much of the press headlines in the 19thC, without necessarily considering wider issues as to the suitability for military use of the rifle.

Trials were undertaken in 1857/58 and continued with Government reports being published in 1861, 1863 and 1867. Both the Pattern 1862 and 1863 Whitworth rifles were manufactured (being set up at RSAF Enfield) and were trialled – the latter extensively through troop trials in 1865 & 66. Small bore ‘Enfields’ had given good results in trials so there was also some thought that there may be solutions other than Whitworth’s. All too late really with the transition to breech-loading looming.

David

ps. I think I’m about caught up on the early posts on this interesting thread now, having missed the start!! :smile:
 
Last edited:
All too late really with the transition to breech-loading looming.
Speaking of which, the transition to breech-loading was the source of a(nother) major transformation in best practices. When one has a muzzle loading weapon and a 60 round pouch then it may take one half an hour to expend the ammunition carried

Under these circumstances one is actually somewhat slower than the old smoothbore musket, and as such the best way to inflict harm upon the enemy and avoid harm to oneself is to start causing damage at as great a range and with as great an accuracy as possible; your shot rate per minute is low but you have plentiful ammunition, and so your best use of it is to (1) ensure that you have as long to inflict harm as possible and (2) that each shot counts for a lot. This means independent long range fire.

With the breech loading equivalent (let's say the Snider or the Martini-Henry) then with a 70 round pouch one may expend the whole of the carried ammunition in seven minutes. Under these circumstances it's much easier for a unit to accidentally run out of ammunition, and so the best practices is to reserve at least some of the ammunition for a short burst at decisive range - in short, the volley has come back in in a big way. One can now get in five volleys during the short charge over the last hundred yards, while the smoke production from volleys is much greater, and so the emphasis switches from independent long range fire to controlled and directed volley fire.


All else being equal, the breechloader will obviously win, but when all else isn't equal this sort of thing matters quite a bit. In a fight between a thousand troops with Spencers and a thousand troops with Whitworths and the attendant range estimation training, I'd usually bet on the Whitworth lads.
 
Back
Top