[William P]

ok,
we all mostly know how firearms developed, first wehad the handgonne and harquebus, (hook gun) which became the arquebus, and then the longer and more powerful musket,by the tme of the precussion capped weapons, almost all weapons on a battlefield were rifles and many proclaim, that the rifle replaced the musket etc.

even though we see rifled firearms as early as the dawn of the 16th C

to add to the confusion,ive heard it stated (on the wide expances of the internet that the musket wasnt used until 1520's

and are there some rreasonabley reliable dates for example on the invention of the musket (not the arquebus)

as well as any other firearm developments, likehow early do we see rifled firearms on the battlefield? one of the german armouries the landzehaus (forget the fiull spelling) mentios that detatchments of whel lock riflemen supplemented pikemen amnd musketeers

this may seem open ended but there is a point to this.

[Tod Glenn]

Until the minie ball, rifles had limited utility as battlefield weapons. Anyone who's used patched roundball rifles know how slow they are to reload, and how quickly they foul, making reloading virtually impossible. Rifles were specialists weapons until the mid 1800s. Musket units were supplemented by rifleman as skimishers. Riflemen needed supporting units to keep from becoming fodder for cavalry or any other fast moving units that could exploit the rifles extremely slow rate of fire and limited utility.

Once the minie ball came into use, the rifle (rifled musket) enjoyed the same rate of fire as it's smoothbore equivalent, but with a much better range.

[Michael Curl]

Well, Muskets and Arquebus's are different guns. I heard that the Turks invented the Musket, and I"m thinking mid 16th century, but I"m not sure.

[Lin Robinson]

[Timo Nieminen]

[Daniel Staberg]

Bert Hall's description of the musket and it's evolution is a wee bit misleading. While later developments of the musket certainly were both lighter and shorter than a full sized musket of the late 16th or early 17th Centuries there is not much resemblance at all to the arquebus since the evolved musket is both longer and often retained the use of the heavy caliber of typical of the "full" musket.

For example the Swedes used muskets bored to fire 10 shot to the pound (around 20mm) from the days of Gustavus well into the Napoleonic wars. Hardly any diffrence from the original Spanish musket which was bored to fire 8 to the pound. (Around 21.5mm) The British Land pattern musket aka Brown Bess similarly retained a heavy caliber (.75, firing .71 shot)
Both significantly heavier than the arquebus & caliver which were typicaly bored to fire 20 or more shot to the pound. (15,9mm and smaller shot) If anything it was the arquebus which became more like the musket as it changed into the caliver by becoming longer and using a heavier shot.

[Daniel Staberg]

Rifles appeared on the battlefield in the 16th century but only in very limited numbers as they were expensive weapons which reqired special skills to use effectively. Their common use was local defence by burghers defending their city or hunters & forresters defending their local area. It was among these groups that the skills to use rifles properly could be found. The burghers in some cities retained their old traiditons of organised training in marskmanship but had changed from crossbows to firearms. They had both the time and money to invest in rifles and their use. For the hunters, forresters and peasants allowed to hunt the rifle was tool which provided food, an income or kept their livestock safe. Hence they developed the marksmanship which allowed for an effective use of the rifle.

In open battle these groups were almost useless as they were easily overrun by cavalry in caught unsupported and could not match the rate of fire or weight of shot of musketers & arquebusiers. They came into their own in the "small war" against raiders, outposts and scouts. Or in the defence of a fortified position.

Another thing to keep in mind is that these early rifles were not necissarily more efficent that smoothbores. The Graz Armoury carried out a large scale test of selected fire arms in their collection in 1988.
The rifled wall gun (doppelhaken) tested had a mechanical accuracy of 52,5% while the unrifled wall gun had an accuracy of 51,5%. By comparison the well made matchlock arquebus had an accuracy of 60,9% while the rifled wheellock arquebus spread it shots so erraticly that testing was halted due to it being a danger to staff and equipment.

The early 18th Century military jaeger rifle clearly showed what could be done with proper rifling as it had an accuracy of 83%, to be compared with the 32,7% of a particularly wretched sample of flintlock musket.
The most surpsing thing was the high accurary of the well made pistols , one flintlock pistol scored an accuracy of 99%, while the modern Glock automatic scored 99,5%

[William P]

that is extremely surprising regarding the wheellock rifles horrendous accuracy.

im not totally surprised at the 18th C smoothbores accuracy i remember hearing that the windage was deliberately increased over time from its invention to then in order to make reloading faster and less in need of cleaning (it wouldnt foul up and affect reloading as quickly. )as well as bng a possible safeguard against putting too much powder down the barrel (which would be hard with a brown bess considering the practice of using paper catridges.)

my imagination of 16th C wheellock rifle use would be o have a roving band that moves around the pike block and ducks back into the lines when enemies come close. and naturally being riflemen, to shoot at sargents or light artillery crews like ribaults which i remember a ilustration sowing pike squares with a ribault between them.

[Tod Glenn]

“…the riflemen were mostly spitted to the trees with bayonets (their weapons being so slow to load)…these people deserve pity rather than fear.” -Hessian colonel after the Battle of Long Island, August 1776

Lin, our experiences are a bit different. I shoot patched roundball exclusively in my rifled flinters, using Goex ff, with ffff in the pan. After more than a few rounds I find I often have to hammer the balls in with a mallet - a problem that was noted by historical sources as well. The contemporary historical records are replete with descriptions of fouling, and scores of inventions sought to ameliorate this problem.Washington never put riflemen in a position that the couldn't retreat from easily.

With my Bess I can fire the regulation three rounds per minute. I've never been able to come close with a rifle. I can only imagine that your rifles have a lot more windage in the bores (Note that I am shooting mainly Pedersolis, but I have a couple of TC I use for hunting). Also, the quality of powder you are using is vastly superior to that available to revolutionary soldier. Caking wasn't introduced until around 1800 and the quality of saltpeter was all over the map. (Note that I am shooting mainly Pedersolis, but I have a couple of TC I use for hunting).

Keep in mind that the British actually produced on of the best military rifled flintlock rifles ever produced, superior in every way to anything built in America. Unfortunately the Ferguson was too advanced for it's time and and it's inventor didn't survive to promote it. It was costly and difficult to produce. But it could be loaded from the prone, had a high rate of fire and was operable in adverse weather.

There were only two regiments of rifles raised by the colonial army in the war of independence: Thompson's battalion and Mile's Pennsylvania regiment. They primarily provided scouts and skimishers. in major battles, they did not do so well where the enemy could close range, which is why Miles rifle took 50% casualties after being caught by regular British infantry at long island.

As far as the shooting of officers being 'unsporting', the real issue was that most European armies considered officers essential to keep battles from becoming uncontrolled brawls. It had less to do with a notion of fair play and more to do with maintaining orderly conduct in battle.

While the rifle gets a disproportionate credit for winning the war of American independence, the reality is that the important battles won by the colonials were fought using traditional Europeans weapons and tactics, and with the support of French troops and naval forces. Further, there was tepid support for the war in England, and the British never deployed cavalry en masse on the American continent, fortunately for the colonial forces.

By the time of the Napoleonic was 20 years later, the rifle was still regulated to limited application. All the armies deployed them, but in very limited numbers compared to their smooth bore bretheren. Skirmishers were always at hazard from cavalry units, and even rifle units that deploedy as homogenous regiments (rare) would often dispense with patch in favor of rate of fire at the expense of range. Finally, many rifles lacked provision for a bayonet which could lead to a sticky situation in the event a unit was forced to form square.

YMMV

[Timo Nieminen]

[Daniel Staberg]

10 to the pound ( 12 to the pound rolling) was the standard caliber of the musket introduced by the Dutch in the late 16th Century and was a fairly widely used caliber due to the extensive Dutch arms trade. The Swedes used older style weapons bored 8 to the pound/10 to the pound "rolling" alongside these new muskets not to mention the various German calibers captured as battlefield loot or when enemy arms depots were overrun.

Wallenstein standardised his factories on making muskets bored "12 to the pound" but the document does not mention if this was "rolling" or not nor which piund was to be used.

Peter Engerissers website has interesting data regarding muskets made in Germany
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/Luntenmuskete1600.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/Luntenmuskete1620.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/Luntenmuskete1630.html
http://www.engerisser.de/Bewaffnung/Kaliber.html

In his book "Von Kronach nach Nördlingen" he provides further data on German calibers, apparently a common south German caliber was 13 to the pound firing 15 or 16 "rolling", in 1631 the Franconian circle standardised on 14 to the pound firing 16 "rolling for it's troops. Since these muskets were made using the heavy Nürnberg pound that's a shot weight of a bit more than 31g.

Hall's shot weights for both the Spanish musket and the mid-17th Century muskets seem erronous. The Spanish musket was bored to fire 8 to the pound, the heaviest shot that gives is 63g and that's with muskets bored to the Nürnberg pound. But the actual shot fired was made 10 to the pound "rolling" which gives us a shot weight of roughly 42 to 51g depending on the pound used. Spanish made muskets fired a 42.5 g shot according to Dr Pierre Piquet and Swedish muskets of the same caliber also fired 42,5g shot.
Even the lightest musket shot in common use durig the TYW was still a lot heavier than the 15-20g claimed by Hall as 18 to the pound is still a 28g shot.

The only nation I know of which used a "arquebus" caliber musket were the French who in the later half of the 17th Century adopted 20 to the pound (i.e firing 24 to the pound) as the standard caliber, indeed some muskets were bored 22 to the pound. This is equal to the caliber of the calivers used in the early 17th Century.

I have Krenn's "Von Alten Handfeuerwaffen" next to men and none of the weapons he tested were 17th Century muskets, the only muskets in the test were 3 early 18th Century flintlock muskets firing shot of 30 to 34g. The rest of the weapons tested were heavy wall guns (doppelhaken), pistols, matchlock and wheellock arquebus and wheellock & flintlock rifles. It could be that Hall mistranslated the "gewehr" commonly used by Krenn into "musket".

[Lin Robinson]

[Timo Nieminen]

[William P]

it may be due to the nature of the rifle but test firings with the baker rifle by these guys suggest otherwise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eqz7XLkyx8Y they shoot 13 shots in 5 minutes, roughly 2.5 per minute (and to confirm for myself watching it, when one minutes passing is announced the prson is just about ramming down the ball of his third shot shoots that then makes 2 more shots before the 2 minute mark. meaning 5 shots in 2 minutes) (he starts unloaded), which isnt too bad considering the standard rate of fire for the musket was 3 rounds. and the difficulty in pushing down the ramrod doesnt seem to increase to the level you state, BUT for the last three shots he does indeed seem to ned to use more effort to get the ball rammed,


they mention in the comments on their video on baker rifle accuracy using different styles of patching balls, that apparently they take about 40-50 shots before they require a clean.
i imagne that its probably the fouling problemseffecting reloading and the issues with mass produced rifling on the scale the brown bess was made.
as wellas the rifles inherent risk from cavalry due to their formation (its harder to dash and form square when your strung out in a skirmish line.

while the furguson may have been possibly the best blackpowder rifle of its day though in regardsto its adoption, one other problem was apparently that the screw breach's position made the stock more prone to breaking. snce the walls were thinner i think,

but i think ezekial bakers famous rifle of the same name shouldnt be ignored either, it was shorter than the american penn rifles but that didnt stop tom plunketts legendary longshot.
what makes it great is the fact the bakers maker added one feature which very much alleviated one of the problems addressed of other rifles he gae it not just a bayonet, but a sword bayonet that was apparently deliberately long so that it was the same length as a bayonetted brown bess so that riflemen forming square alongside redcoats woudlnt compromise the formation,
and the fact that every riflemen now had a short sword for close quarters (or a sort of black powder spewing glaive) is an excellent idea considering they were so non numerous.

[Jack W. Englund]

Just some thoughts on the "Baker Rifle" ( I own 2 & shoot reg with 2 other men ( 1 a "master gun builder) )

1. READ "De Witt Bailley Ph.D's books ( start with British Military Flintlock Rifles1740 - 1840 ) ( not only includes the "Baker," the Ferguson. +++++)

2. Baker was a top end Gun maker & a acknowledged marksman & understood the "complexities" of what would " work" on the "battlefield" ( speed of loading, fowling, accuracy. etc.) In order to do so, He had to make "compromises"
1. Speed of loading & Fowling - He opted to use a slow twist ( 1:120 ) + a different "land / grove ) + the stock was designed for battle not "sport"
2. The above worked, but did effect the accuracy (but it not only fulfilled the requirements,.it turned out surprisingly effective in the hands of the well trained men of the Brits.

As I said above I Shoot "Baker's" Both mine use a "faster twist (1:66) for accuracy sake.

As to thee speed & fowling -
Speed = Practice
Fowling = I cheat ( my patches are "lubed with "moose milk" which cleans as I shoot. ( example, in a shoot of 100 shots, I do "run" ( after 25) a wet patch/ then dry. ( note, in "timed comps, like "fort shoots" ( usually 50 or less rnd.s) I skip

BTW, the "gun builder has made a couple of very accurate repo.s of the "original" We have shot them ( using, Or trying to, the "original" powder loads,patching ( including leather) = "interesting"

A side note on the "sword bayonet" - most often not used by the "riflemen" except as a "tool"

[Daniel Staberg]

[William P]

[Daniel Staberg]

[William P]

[GG Osborne]

Actually, the Ferguson rifle was not a particularly original or useful weapon...contrary to myth. Ferguson improved upon a virtually identical French arm invented some 30 years earlier. His unique contribution was to cut the threads in the breech screw so that a full turn of the trigger guard cum breech mechanism lowered the screw so that the weapon could be loaded. The earlier French version required several turns of the handle. (see Blackmore for a more detailed description) What made the Ferguson impractical was the screw itself. The screw pattern had to be very corse and this made for a fairly loose seal. As the corrasive powder gases ate away at the screw, more and more gas escaped, right into the face of the rifleman. Hard to aim closely when you know your face is going to be subjected to a spray of hot gas!

Now I know folks who have shot modern reproductions of the Ferguson tend to disagree with this assessment since their weapons are made with a much higher quality steel, but it is incontrovertible that the originals were "leaky" and got worse over time.