We like to discuss the effects of musketry against our suits of armor, but has anyone done a good study of the effects of a musket against a steel buckler, a targe, and other sheilds of the period compared to long bow or crossboy? Im awful tired of having the dispute end in "ill hind behind my shield while you struggle to get your matchlock to function".

In a word "puncture wound".
:D
One of the things that makes gunshot wounds so bad is when the round penetrates other materials before penetrating the person. The result is foreign matter contaminating the wound. Death from infection occurs even when the wound is otherwise survivable.
And since the types of rounds we are usually talking about were ruled "inhumane" by the laws of war drafted many years later, you are talking about rounds that mushroom upon impact, and do a lot of damage.

It's going to bust through your shield, and you along with it.

If it didn't, armies would have re-equipped units with shields as the status-quo.

M.

In a recent study of early firearms, a British blacksmith was asked to make a 14th century handgonne. It was test fired and found to throw a .75 calibre ball at 800 feet per second with a 25 grain charge. It did not go through a "proofed" breastplate, but they also did not try a heavier powder load, as they were afraid to burst the seam. The reason early firearms persisted is simple: it took a week or two to train a gunner, and a lifetime to train a good bowman. Add to that the sturdy nature of the handgonne as opposed to the wooden bow, and crossbow. Plus tactics for use didn't change until after the American Civil War. Line up alot of men to fire at the same time, throwing a great deal of lead down range. If anyone can dodge a 3/4 inch lead ball moving at 800+ feet per second or pull up a proofed shield to hide behind, I want to see it! If anyone subscribes to the military channel on cable TV this study was done in conjuction with the BBC, so will most likely be rerun again sometime soon.

I am glad someone brought up this question I have been thinking of posting a similiar question myself. Here is what I have thought about. If you had Highlanders with targes facing muskets at 100 to 200 yards,the standard tactic of the day was to fire a volley across those distances and then advance and fire again. The reason they fired in volleys was because the musket was very inaccurate. So would it increase the Highlanders survivability if when the first volley was fired they protected their vital organs with the targe. This along with the heavy clothing they wore might slow the musket ball enough so it would not penetrate the body at that distance(100 to 200 yards or so). Then they could use their famous highland charge before the next re-load (of course they could probably run smack into a second volley from the next rank but I am just speculating here).
I base this speculation on the fact that I have seen cases were modern 9mm ball ammo is fired into a windshield or other safety type glass and the first round penetrates but just drops to the ground on the inside losing its terminal velocity when hitting the glass. I would like to hear what others think on this and if anyone has ever fired muskets at targes at 100 or more yards to see if it did slow the terminal velocity down enough to minimize damage then also adding in the heavy clothing factor also.
I was actually thinking of sending this question to mythbusters to see if they would do the experiment, under the guise of finding out what it would take to bullet proof a targe.
I am not sure of the distances for the musket volley maybe someone can verify that, if the distances were longer for the first volley of course that would help my theory.

I would like to hear what others think about this.

I am not going to get too involved but there is one little factor I need to help out on. In the 16th to 19th lines of soldiers do not fire at 200-100 volley shots as a main tactic. In the 16th they get quite close. around 80-50 yards. IN the 17th things have not changed much. By the late 18th early 19th you are shooting at 80 yards it seems.

I'd think the shield or target would stop glancing or deflected shots but not direct hits under 80 yards.
Something to keep in mind is that most of the armies who ditched helmets as firearms became a main power on the field they noticed that a number of deaths and injuries would be prevented with a helmet from the stray and deflected bullets readopting them and improving them to today. Body armour has been readopted as well. WHo knows, in the future perhaps we'll get full suits or something.

RPM

Thank you gentleman for your replies. I do not have any knowledge about ranges muskets were fired from in battle. However since we are talking about Highlanders I think their hey day would be the 17th and 18th century, pretty much ending in 1745 at the battle of Cullodden. So I would still like to see how much a musket ball is slowed down by a targe and heavy clothing at 80 yards. Would it still penetrate the body or not? Or would it only 50% or 60% etc, etc of the time. Or would it penetrate 100% of the time. And I am really only talking about protecting the chest area when I say vital organs similiar to what a modern police officer is protecting with his kevlar vest. A musket ball crashing thru a targe and slamming into your head would probably do some damage either way and or kill you and of course a leg shot would take you out and you could still die from it.
Part of my curiosity about this is also if there are times were the musket ball doesn't penetrate the vital organs wouldn't that increase their confidence of surviving by taking their targe into battle?

Also I spent 4 years in the US Marine Corps and my understanding of why the helmut came back in use in the modern era was to protect soldiers from primarily shrapnel from exploding artillery rounds and grenades. Many many more soldiers are killed by this then ricocheting bullets although the helmut is good for that also.

In 1998 at an encampment, we shot Steve Moffat's target with a .57 caliber matchlock from a distance of 20 or 25 yards. The target was wood and iron, roughly 2 feet diameter. I don't remember clearly how thick it was, but I think it was about 3/4 inch total, and actual wood, not plywood. The target was leaned against a tree. The shot hit several inches from the edge, and was deflected to the rim. Part of the lead ball had clearly melted on impact, but produced a huge divot near the edge and ended up trapped in the rolled edge of the shield, which was partly blown out. (Steve continued to carry that target at renaissance faires and reenactments for awhile, so some you in California may have seen it.)

We were all of the opinion that the target would have saved a life, but the impact and the deflection of the shield would have been painful, and possibly bruising.

Also, the thought of actually planning to use a 2 foot target to protect yourself from flying lead didn't give any of us that warm fuzzy feeling.

Well I don't have any hard data but after firing many, many muzzleloaders, I would say your highlanders wouldnt stand a chance OP.

At 50 yards mass aimed or unaimed fire volley fire probably produced similar results but in smaller engagements or if range was greater some minimal aiming skill would have been useful I think.

As well in the 16th century the traditions of archery accuracy and crossbow accuracy would have influenced a certain desire for archebuse/musket accuracy (individual warrior competency as opposed to the soldier as cannon fodder mentality ? ). Later on 17th /18th speed in reloading became the priority and individual skill less a concern, at least with certain armies !