I love my Harper's Ferry 1842. One of my very favorite firearms; however, I struggle a little at longer ranges. I attribute most missing to ME, though, and not to the smooth bore. One of these days I'll drill some holes into this antique and install a Leopold scope! :-) And if I do, I hope someone will have me arrested immediately!
I think the 1842 is the very best of all the smoothbore muskets, in terms of balance and accuracy, quality, the lock, etc. And be careful, just threatening to drill an original gun for a scope is illegal in Pennsylvania.
In my gun club here in Austria, we have some musket enthusiasts firing old 1809 muskets from the Napoleonic era (the Tyrolean uprising against Napoleon and his Bavarian allies), and they perform quite well up to 100m, scoring consistently in a headsized circle. Definitley nothing to underestimate.
@@AllTheGoodNamesGoneReally WW2 snipers would have a preferred bullet, sometimes even subsonic, same weight same powder preferably. Modern bullets are close to 100% similar to each other, back in old times and if your making the bullets and powder the accuracy would be different for different bullets.
I remember a reddit thread where I pointed out that muskets were reasonably effective out to 100 yards and got a ton of downvotes with everyone and their mother calling me an idiot. Even when I cited period documentation about infantry training requirements and various military treatises written about the effective range of muskets, nothing would convince people that muskets were useful at such ranges. I even had some people claim that muskets couldn’t even reach 100 yards, just absolute lunacy shielded in conviction. Yeah if you go by modern accuracy standards it’s pretty bad, but in linear warfare being able to reliably hit a person sized target is all the accuracy you need and for that it’s perfectly capable.
The smoothbore inaccuracy myth seems to have achieved a kind of religious frenzy, and if you question it, you are a heretic who must be purged. I don’t think in battle (especially ACW battle) soldiers did much aiming anyways, but to claim that the smoothbore musket simply cannot hit at 100 yards due to inherent limitations in the weapon system itself, is ridiculous. I don’t know where this myth came from.
For some reason, people believe that only the "newest" technology is the "best" way to do things, which is ironic, since they're talking about blackpowder rifles versus smoothbore. When people could only afford smoothbore guns and their survival was based on their skill to hunt for food or fend off predators, they tended to be more serious and skilled with the tools they brung, not rely on technology to bring home the bacon or save their skins. And they weren't drilled for hour after hour, day after day like professional soldiers. I think some people need to use some moistened corncobs instead of Charmin to see a whole new perspective on life instead of being a hemorrhoid online. :)
@@wittsullivan8130 I always love reminding those kinds of dead end tech that is now cutting edge due to changes in not just the technology itself, but also changes in ideals and sensibilities. Old isn't always bad. But there is this thing in the shooting community where they think they are special forces. It is one thing to learn how to shoot well, but it is something completely different to degenerate someone because they like something different or don't want to chase trends, which is what this sort love doing. Why would you stick a magazine in the side? Why would you go with a smooth bore. Why would you want a light, fast bullet. On and on and on.
Here's something i found to ponder about > " Southern arsenals had approximately 175,000 modern shoulder arms on hand at the beginning of the war. Of these, about 140,000 were smooth-bored, not including arms provided from private citizens. " Well those first battles of the civil war the confederates were kicking arse and also didn't Stonewall Jackson say the buck and ball was devastating against massed troops !
Let's not forget that the enemy soldiers were standing pretty close together. The round that missed wide might very well hit someone to the side or the rear so "pretty good" accuracy becomes absolutely dangerous downrange. This was enjoyable, not just because a hater got taught- and I'm pretty sure the lesson went in one ear, rattled around like an undersized ball and exited leaving only dents and scrapes, but because the fire drill, though paced because nobody was shooting back, was damn interesting. Subbed, the content was terrific and I got a book recommendation. Also, poking fun at someone who probably hunted with his smoothbore weapon and so was at least reasonably proficient seems like a truly bad idea.
yeah, a 15% hitrate would already be devastating to be on the receiving end of; there's a reason smoothbore firearms were often considerd effective out to and even beyond 200yards (though that is not going to be the most ideal range to be shooting from), and there's good reason every culture that was introduced to the smoothbore musket quickly adapted them into their arsenals; these weapons were deadly to a degree no muscle powered weapon could even hope to match, and while rifles brougt accuracy (and with it, the range) to a new level entirely, the idea that a musket is useless beyond 75yards is just ridiculous; weapon would have never even be able to supersede ancient technology like the bow and javelin on the battlefield if this were true.
@@captainnyet9855Bow, javelin, spear and sword all take a LOT of practice to be any good at it, and armor can negate its lethality. Firearms negates armor and anyone can be reasonably trained to fire one in a couple of minutes with minimal effectiveness or weeks/months to proficiency. Archers take years to become proficient.
First, as everyone on RU-vid knows, lead at that distance may penetrate a paper target, but it won't pierce the thick Civil War uniforms. In fact, more people died from heat rash than bullets during the War between the States. Lastly, the deadliest battle happened at Stone Mountain, Georgia because they have lots of stones there and people stopped using smooth-bore muskets and used slingshots like David did with Goliath. (Good video!)
Modern bullet are still made of lead and at 100 yard it gonna penetrate even if is a musket ball it still have enough power to kill a man at that range
@@papercartridges6705 If you're talking about a shephard's sling, those things are extremely deadly in the hands of a skilled person, and quite accurate even at a decent distance. I saw one being shot at about 30 yards or so, and the results were devastating and destructive on the target. He used a fist-sized round stone, and radar showed it to be moving at around 200mph. So it would be really interesting to see you test one out! Loved this video of the smoothbore musket, that was educational and fun!
I love the twist on the Korean War myth that Chinese soldiers had “bulletproof” coats that .30 carbine couldn’t pierce. Or that .30 carbine is somehow anemic.
I don't know about round balls but slugs out of a smooth bore shotgun group 2" at 75 yards and then start rapidly degrading. I would say effective range (50% hit probability) on a 16" target (approxinate width of an adult male torso) is roughly 200 yards.
@@gk5891 What are you talking about " hitting a 16 inch target at 200 yards with a smooth bore " you would be lucky to hit a barn door at that range 🤣🤣. But 2" at 75 yards with shotgun slugs now that sounds like a good deer hunting gun !
@@daviddavey1727 British experiments in parks used as firing ranges, under ideal conditions, suggested the Brown Bess could be reasonably accurate. Battlefield conditions were something else. The 18th century French general de Saxe maintained he had seen a full battalion volley in battle that only killed four men outright on the opposing side. The Russian Suvorov is quoted as saying something along the lines that the bullet was a fool but the bayonet was a wise fellow, and perhaps he was commenting on the lack of accuracy of smoothbores, at least in battlefield conditions. To be fair, the accuracy of rifles in battlefield conditions would also drop off considerably.
I have a .577 Enfield which is reasonably accurate in my range experience, I've never fired it in a combat situation, which is an entirely different reality. During the Civil War, the quality of the ammunition and caps, weather conditions, enemy fire and the training and experience of the soldier were determining factors in how effective a weapon could be.
At 100 yards I'd expect pretty good results. Rifling helps to stablize the more traditional "bullet" for flight, but it would have add little if any benefit to a musket ball in flight. As you said 300 yards, should be about the maximum effective point target range. Snipers were barely getting into the 500 yard range if memory serves during the civil war. I'm a Marine Expert qualified riflemen. That doen't make me an expert on all things firearms related, but I've spent a fair amount of time around shooting. I'm always looking to increase my knowledge, and I really appreciate your shooting exercise. Thank you Paper Cartridges.
I'm not an expert in this topic, but my gut tells me in the high stress situation of combat, mechanical accuracy was likely not always the limiting factor in the effectiveness of small arms fire.
Wasn't the high stress exactly.. these are conscripts drafted against their will who have fired with a 2 week training before they marched out. More emphasis was put on reloading and viewing instead of how to Line up the sights. Fear does mess it up quite a bit. But a toddler that's scared and a toddler that isn't scared both aren't going to be very proficient with how to aim
The lesser accuracy of the smoothbore is going to be exaggerated by the soldier in line combat. That's why the French didn't bother adopting rifles in the Napoleonic wars some other armies, their light skirmishers used smoothbores and were still effective because they were properly aiming before shooting. Line infantry didn't aim so much as just level their muskets and fire. If i remember right one thing constantly reinforced was to get the men to stop pointing their muskets at a high angle which they would instinctively do for some reason during volleys but to keep them flat and level.
@@ElZilchoYo right up until after WW2 all armies really struggled to get soldiers to actually want to hit the enemy. So how accurate the guns were was frequently irrelivent. I would imagine the persistence of line infantry in this period aiming too high was simply because most of them were normal decent people and didn't want to kill anyone. Its only with modern psychologically guided training methods and professional volenteer armies post WW2 that soldiers can be relied upon to aim at their opponents in combat
On my last trip to Gettysburg some 20 years ago, I recall the rangers telling us there was one rifle found with 27 unfired loads in its barrel! Someone got a little excited during the battle.@@presidenteden6498
My grandfather dispelled this at a gun range her in Ohio several years ago. He has passed on since that time. He shot ten rounds and used a rest. He hit a five foot target that was 30 inches wide, nine times. They were spread 3ft and a few inches more, top to bottom. We were not sure about the missing one. We believed it hit wide right. He said what you did, it’s not perfect but I sure as hell would not want to be on the other end.
@@hardcase-69 What does a rest have to do with getting shot at? The rest keeps things consistent for testing purposes. A rifle or smooth bore without a rest in the hands of someone being shot at would both suffer in accuracy.
Those are the same kind of people who (wrongly) believe that confidence and certainty is the only measure of intelligence. While this is excusable behavior among hormone-ridden teens it's rather disturbing that a rather large number of people seem to have peaked at this low cognitive level.
As someone who hasn't properly looked into it and always just believed the general "wisdom", this was fascinating. I found the evidence pretty undeniable here. So I'm sure some hardened opinions will be looking to argue why the results are invalid, but you've at least changed my mind. It definitely wasn't a waste of time to run this test, I'm sure there's a lot more like myself who now have a more reasonable opinion of the smoothbore musket.
It seems like a lot of commenters here are engaging in a logical fallacy called “moving the goalposts’. The initial argument was that you can’t hit a man sized target at 100 yards using a smooth bore musket, but that has now evolved into “Well, no one is shooting back; or, that is a better musket than most civil war soldiers would have had access to” 🙄
The MLAGB in the UK used to have a competition where you had 5 minutes to shoot as many shots as you could at a man sized target at 100 yds. The Brown Bess always performed pretty well.
@@sandman9924 Right, which means that there is a slight delay between squeezing the trigger and the ignition of the charge. There is also a rather disconcerting flash that occurs when the powder in the pan ignites, but just before the weapon fires. One has to be used to that slight delay and the flash when firing the weapon.
@@alexbowman7582 Flash in the pan. It is a phrase used to denote the circumstance in which the charge in the pan goes off but does not ignite the main charge.
Years ago, I was teaching a 'basic marksmanship' class. One dear old lady who brought her husbands Police Positive was concerned about group size at 5 yards. [She was putting every round in the black, I had no concerns about her grouping!] I held the target-paper up to my chest and asked her "What would the bad-guy think of your grouping?" I miss her.
@@savagedabs8536 and that's why police notoriously are known for the worst aim imaginable Train for 15 yards if you want to handle everything at 15 and below. Train for 3 yards if you want to miss your shots when an attacker is at 6 yards
As a long-time F&I and Rev War reenactor shooting 1st and 2nd Model Brown Bess muskets - and a 22 year Army Veteran and Army officer - I concur with your points. I haven't done a lot of target shooting with my Brown Bess muskets but two things come into play - learning how to fire your particular weapon and how round the ball is and how tight it fits in the barrel. I know many reenacts who hunt with their Brown Bess muskets and regularly take deer at 75-100+ yards. I know people who regularly target shoot with their muskets and they're fairly good, regularly putting rounds on target. The crap shoot comes into how good the shooter is, the quality of the powder (and hang-time), and how round the ball is. Even in 18th and early 19th c. naval battles gun captains would look for the most perfectly round canon ball for their first broadside. The canon balls would often be chipped and checked as part of routine maintenance to ensure they were smooth and round. The same is true of round lead balls. Taking the sprues and other odd lead bits off the musket ball to get it as round as possible makes a major difference in how it travels down and exits the barrel, impacting its overall flight path. So tell those jackasses to get a real job and do real research before they spout their stupidity and prove how wrong they are! 🙂
It’s a lead ball moving very fast onto a target. Obviously it won’t be moa accurate but with a long barrel and decent technique you’re gonna nail it I love the way you’re lining up the shot and just going for it, when I was in the navy I did exactly the same with a modern rifle, sometimes you just gotta trust yourself
My experience! It wasn't the bore, but switching from round ball to Minié ball that made a striking difference, bringing groups to 3 inches with a flintlock!
Thanks. I was trying to figure out what ammo they were using. A round ball is going to lose accuracy over distance. The Minie ball was a major upgrade and pretty much made line tactics obsolete.
@@kissmy_butt1302 The main thing is the minie ball expands when fired to grab the rifling so the rifle doesn't quickly become super hard to load from the fouling, this is why rifles were rarely used in combat prior to it existing. I'd imagine they are more accurate though
@@renedupont6116 "A spin does nothing to a spherical ball." Then explain to me a curve ball. Spin with a random orientation to the direction of travel causes random and continuous curving of the sphere's path. Rifles existed in the Revolutionary War era WITH SPHERICAL AMMO. They existed FOR A REASON. They had greater accuracy and range FOR A REASON, because the uniform spin imposed around the axis of pointing prevents it from spinning any other way. Prior to the invention of the conical "minie ball" projectile, you had to ram the ball through the rifling to muzzle load a rifle. This made the rate of fire slow and arduous. If there were not a compensating performance advantage, rifles would not have existed, even for hunting.
@@digitalnomad9985 Curve balls are a matter of friction or of the degree of non-sphericity. As for the Rev. Era Rifles: if you have one with its ammo, try it out. Maybe you're rght, mabe not.
50 year old Norwegian here. I learn alot from your very well made videos. Most surprising lesson came in this video; canned Lutefisk exist! Given the fact that I had no knowledge of the existence of such a product, and therefore cannot say anything about it's quality, I suspect bringing such a product to the table in Norway would have resulted in the gathering of the first lynchmob since the last great war. Or pretty much the same outcome as for the guy with the can in the video.😅
@@readhistory2023 Story goes like this; When the vikings crossed the seas, they brought stockfish as food. Eventually, the spray from the sea mixed with the ashes from their fireplace (yes, they had those in the boat), creating lye, in turn dissolving the stockfish in the bottom to the consistency wich we know as lutefisk. And, at some point, someone was hungry enough to try to eat it, and didn't die. That's the most positive thing to say about lutefisk. Since then, all of the norwegian generations have been haunted by this dish for some reason. Luckily it is almost always served along with a decent amount of the holy Bacon, and if you're lucky mustard. Correctly treated and cooked, lutefisk tastes almost nothing, with a texture that makes it easy to swallow. Which makes it even more incomprehensible why we still have to eat it... I use it as an excuse to eat a lot of Bacon!
Man, from a relic hunter and enthusiast here in Sharpsburg Maryland, I can tell you with certainty this is the most entertaining thing I’ve seen on RU-vid in weeks. I’ve found dropped round balls and minie balls. Seems to me they’d be ready for re-use. Is that the case? Could you imagine firing 160plus year old bullets from the Maryland campaign?!?!? Subscribed. Excellent content.
I grew up in Kennesaw GA, and have found numerous minie balls as well. Honestly, I've cleaned a few of them up because I've had so many of the damn things laying around lol. They look genuinely in good enough shape to be fired to be honest with you.
@@vielumiereg9794 Yeah man I’ve forgotten one or two of them were left in my pocket when they were thrown in the washer/dryer. They come out shiny almost like new.
Grandfather used a wood gasifier truck (got into a fight with a local township in the 60's about it) and a smoothbore similar to that one, I forget the model. He said anything closer than 150 yards was basically cheating and used his for deer hunting till I was a teen. So..... if it was good enough to keep food on the table in the 20's, I'm sure it can work a man size target over at 100 no problem. Excellent rebuttal my man!
Shooting at 100yrds offhand and hitting consistently tells me all I need to know. I bought into the short range myth myself because it's what you hear. But hearing a thing compared to seeing and experiencing it, are 2 completely different things. You clearly showed that yes indeed, 100yrd shots are not that difficult and fairly quickly achieved with a smoothbore.
Old retired LEO here, I have a lot of police B-27 and FBI Q targets. I shoot with the N-SSA and have a .69 1842, (made 1848) . At 100 yards 5 for 5 on the target in the 8 ring or better.
@@tompiper9276 The B-27 and FBI Q target are both human silhouette targets that approximate the upper torso of a man. The B-27 has elongated bullseye type rings around the center of mass whereas the Q target has none. N-SSA stands for the North-South Skirmish Association and they are a competitive shooting organization that use civil war weapons (period and reproductions of small arms/mortars/cannons) in their competitions. Located in Winchester, Virginia. During their big annual competition upwards of 1000 attend.
Smoothbore muskets are such a massively uderrated weapon that you'll constantly see people on the internet comparing the weapon unfavorably to bow & arrow; it's a bit ridiculous. I think videogme mentality plays a large role here; people hear "a rifle is ten times more accurate than a smoothbore" and assume that means muskets will lose to rifles every time when really, the shooter is going to be by far the more deciding factor. (case in point, most people are not good enough shots for the rifling to actually make a significant difference; and only with extensive training in long range shooting can the rifle's accuracy be put to use)
@@captainnyet9855 "Videogame mentality". A.k.a. parroting whatever other parrots repeat endlessly. Simple, fast answers must be true... Memes are a universal truth... I've heard many thousands claim this therefore it must be a fact.
@@captainnyet9855At 100 yards or maybe even 200 yards, training/rate of fire will matter the most, absolutely But at increasing distances the smoothbore muskets will start to become ineffective a lot faster than the rifles So it really depends on the conditions/circumstances of the fight If you’re talking about 400-500 yards, some of the rifles could still be effective at such a range, and none of the smoothbores would be terribly effective, so at that point I’d rather have (decently) trained soldiers with rifles, over highly trained/skilled soldiers with smoothbores But for shorter ranges you’ll pretty much always pick the better trained/skilled soldiers That’s my take, at least The rifles gave you the ability to be effective at a longer range, but that only actually mattered some of the time
@@captainnyet9855many people still believe bow and arrows are superior than muskets and that they only get replaced because bows are harder to train (ignoring every other parts of the world with long archery traditions that quickly dropped their bows once they got a hand on firearms)
Thanks for some of the most informative videos out there. I'll confess that I was one of those that thought 50 yards was the most effective range of a smoothbore musket until I watched 11 Bang Bang and Duelist 1954 shoot out to 100 yards and hit the target. Now your video reinforces you can hit out to 100 yards and past it. Be safe on deployment.
Mad respect for empirical, hands on experimentation, pro-action and hard data collecting. Firearms are not my groove, but this is excellent content and an inspiration to get off one's arse and do something with intent and meaning, whatever that is.
Also even with that accuracy you would still have 20-50 people in line firing at the same time, creating a shotgun effect down range. So that 100 yard accuracy is perfectly fine lol.
I wanted to just say that I've scanned through the comments and was unable to find a response from Todd. Can anyone else find a rebuttal from Todd in case I missed it? Thanks
As someone who can’t own guns in his country and is fascinated with the Civil War, I am so glad to have come across your channel. Thank you and please keep up the amazing content ❤
Hmmmm? Cub Med, nice place to never visit. FYI Black Powder arms are Knott "guns?" in This Country! and can be Shipped to your door like a Toaster! God Bless! I Pray you found your Way.
@@sheepsfoot2Remember there are more politicians in the USA fighting against gun rights than for. We might end up in the same boat if we dont watch whats happening and speaking on it, and voting accordingly.
@@sheepsfoot2 I say this as a fellow American; There are 190+ countries on this planet and majority of those restrict guns in some or all capacity. We are one of the few with right to gun ownership enumerated in our laws. We really need to stop acting like we are the center of the universe and everyone elses way of life bends to ours because it really makes Americans look bad, besides when you think about it we are quite privileged to be born here and experience these types of guns laws since the vast majority of the people in this world cant or wont.
Well, the rifled musket certainly has advantages in both accuracy and range, that is just plain fact. However, the 1842 smooth bore is also very effective within its effective range. Troops fighting in ranks, such as the Civil War were essentially targeting the entire front rank, not individuals. They were essentially shooting at a wall of enemy troops, and the smooth bore was very lethal at this. Fairly well known story that when the NJ troops opened fire on the Confederates during Pickett's Charge, it was noted that that portion of the Southern line disintegrated. What more proof do we need than that.
Considering the military tactics of the time, you are shooting at a target 5' high x 50' wide. It is not about hitting a particular opponent it is about hitting any of them. For sniper work a rifle has a clear advantage but not for massed troops.
Great video debunking the theory that the smoothbore is somehow “terrible” by mid-19th century standards. Remember everyone: rifles may have been more or prevalent, but in the American Civil War when you’re fighting with regiments that have hardly any concept of ballistics or marksmanship instruction (at least early in the war) it doesn’t exactly matter on if you have a rifled musket, or a smoothbore. Most soldiers contrary to popular belief did not actually have good musket training until their first engagements. Great video though, glad the smoothbores are getting some love on the channel.
Definitely Brett's thesis on why these rifled-muskets were so woefully and terribly employed. And Rob over at BML can attest as much as Brett to the importance of the School of Musketry at Hythe. Which the US nor CS Armies had time or the ability to create and "train the trainers" to return to their regiments and teach all these time consuming lessons to.
I would point out that the battle of Gettysburg, when most troops north and south had rifles, and the battle of Waterloo when most troops had muskets had similar numbers of troops, and the fighting took place at similar ranges, and the casualties were about the same percentage , the two battles having about the same number of men involved
One technique that improves smoothbore accuracy no end is a thick felt shotgun type wad both sides of a fairly loose fitting ball rammed down hard on top of a fairly heavy charge. Recoil is pretty heavy but accuracy is surprising.
By the US Civil War, smoothbores were definitely on the way out, and even muzzle-loading rifles were obsolescent - the future belonged to the breechloader.
I have witnessed on multiple occasions an 1812 era smoothbore flintlock CONSISTENTLY shoot a 4" group at 100 yards from a bench. AND a .69 caliber lead ball doesn't leave just a flesh wound no matter how it hits you. Another factor that doesn't really apply anymore is that the guns that these soldiers were shooting were often the same gun that they grew up with and used their whole lives. Personal, repeated experience and familiarity with their personal gun's nuances made it possible for these men to fine tune and make shots that we really can't replicate today using their level of technology. Rifles are better - no argument there, but if rifling was such a leap in technology, why didn't EVERYONE make the upgrade ASAP? After all, the Civil War was several generations after the Revolution. Answer: The guns they already had were "good enough."
During the revolutionary era there was a distinct difference between a rifle and a musket, by the civil war the rifled musket had been invented and everyone WAS upgrading to that asap... and you can do a lot from a bench on a calm range. Not so much on a battlefield while being shot at, that goes for both rifle and musket
@@hardcase-69 I believe corwinchristensen260 was discussing the 'potential' accuracy of the smooth bore musket. Of course anyone's aim can suffer in the heat of battle, even with modern arms. With my Hawken and it's 34" Green Mountain barrel and 32" brass scope, 1" groups and less at 100 yards are the norm. My Les Baer 1911 is capable of just under 1" groups at 50 yards. Again this is their potential accuracy. Now would I be able to pull that off in the middle of a battle? Hardly, but the potential is there. 8 )
@@Glasher1 Shot my 50cal Hawken many times too at that distance and sometimes longer. It was consistently in the black with a flyer every now and then. I wasn't a good shot, but good enough to know I'd never willingly stand in for a target.
Gettysburg has about the same numbers engaged and casualties as Waterloo (about 50k dead and wounded). However, Gettysburg took place over 3 days, while Waterloo was a single day. One would expect, if the rifle musket was employed appropriately, that the casualties would be significantly greater than a largely smoothbore battle occurring c. 50 years before.
I think what I'd be most interested to see.. Is how any kind of musket would perform against modern body armor... -- Taofledermaus did a video using steel balls out of a 12 gauge and they tore through modern Kevlar vests like a sweater.. Said to myself, "If one were ever in a position where they had to defend themselves from attackers or unknown agents wearing modern body armor, steel round ball would be the way to go."
Thanks for the video. Not long ago, I heard that an old marksmanship manual was found in British archives. Reportedly it stated that a British soldier was expected to hit a man-sized target at 150 yards at least 50% of the time, and the same target at 100 yards at least 75% of the time. I've been considering buying a 1st model "Long Land" Brown Bess Musket in which to use both ball and shot (not at the same time). Now, I'm closer to doing that.
If you are planning to buy a reproduction musket do not buy one made in India. While they are commonly used by reenactors the brown bess made by Petersoli is much better. The one from India are fundamentally wall hangers that can be converted while the Petersoli is designed to be fired.
If Todd had not been a pompous pocket expert with a poor attitude then no one would have picked on him a little or a lot! Good video, better myth bursting.
Most impressive for a hand held test; I expected you to mount the rifle on a stand. You can quantify the weapon's accuracy as CEP (Circular Error Probable) that is 50% of the shots fall within a circle of radius CEP.
You are using guano powder ,right ? No pyro Dex? If black powder you well proved the point ❤! Being from Tennessee and Mississippi, I am an odd man out , a Union Supporter. My two favorite Generals are George Thomas and Gen. Grant himself. Also consider Lincoln the best president in history. That being said , if you can spare the time to respond I would love to know the division or regiment your beautiful blue kepi represents. Is it an actual Pennsylvania? If you can't respond I understand, all have time limitations but I would love to find a copy of that hat and wear it Proudly to my next family reunion in Mississippi, the insignia is so fascinating! Loved the video ❤, love Penn Valley , have some very great friends in Pittsburgh too.
So many, "Experts", so few have ever been to a range, let alone fired a rifle. Mom's Basement makes an ideal place for Internet Warriors to espouse their knowledge.
Beautiful range there, Brett. Much like our own here in UK - I love the grass and trees around it - exactly like ours! I might try and find a Model 1842 musket here in UK - not easy - but as it's classed as a shotgun, a lot easier to get authorised. Those big round balls are surely going to leave a serious dent in that Yankee's ego.
I am just right now cleaning/restoring a Springfield 1842 smooth bore from 1850 that looks to be in good enough shape to shoot. The only problem I see with it is the lack of a rear sight. I have a couple of BEIC smoothbore .75 cal percussion muskets that have a rear sight and that makes a huge difference in hitting something at distance. I thoroughly enjoyed "The Destroying Angel" and "Like Fire and Powder" and am currently reading "The English Cartridge". I recently finished reading "Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom" which I think you would enjoy, if you haven't read it yet. Small arms are not the main focus but the "Enfield Rifle" is talked about some in the book in a way that is worth considering in the 1850's-60's but seems to be forgotten about in the West. "Imperial Twilight" by the same author is also worth a read.
What about the infamous “Buck and Ball” load? It would be interesting to see the effect at 100 yards. There must be a crossover point where BNB becomes less effective due to lower mass of the projectiles. Common sense would say that would be around 100 yards. Not to mention the spread would be enormous. Then again the advantage of hitting the guy your shooting at for sure has a nice ring to it, and I would think it would be hard to not put a hole in a man sized target from 100 yards with BNB.
I've found it to be pretty disappointing at 100 yards. After I shot these 8 rounds my friend Nick (who owns the musket) shot at it some more with buck and ball, and only a couple buckshot hit. It seems to fall really fast, at 100 yards you need to aim about a foot above a soldier's head to get the buckshot out there. But at 50 yards it's wicked.
Basically it's a 200 plus grn ball depending on shooter and weapon, or what was avalible with THREE .38 cal balls, or a truck followed with angree bees! hitting a target. So a 45 acp and 3x9 mills down range at once!
Thank you for the video. Glad you used a .65 ball from your .69 model 1842. Too many modern shooters try to use too large a ball when shooting. You are a good shot hitting 7 out 8. I cringe when people say smoothbores were woefully inaccurate past 50 yards. Keep up the good work.
looks like ole Todd got to you. Advice: never ride an asses wave and never, never feed the trolls. I think most people believe you. Accuracy Might depend on the shooter though. Don't know. Todd did crack me up though even if he was rude. You should mail him a can of lutefisk or fire it out of a smooth bore cannon at 100 yards. You don't have to hit him, just break the can open in his vincinity. That would fix him.. Had some when I was a kid in Mn. Nasty!.
Shooting offhand adds a measure of inaccuracy. I qualified in 1967 as a marine recruit with a M14. The offhand distance was 200 yards and it was darn hard to hit that target with a modern rifle. Sitting or prone positions are much more accurate. I’m guessing you might hit some targets at 200 yards shooting from a prone position with that smooth bore. I’d like to see a video of that.
You are correct from my experience of Brown Besses and the like. About a 6" group at 50m isn't unusual and about 18" at 100m. And with the bullet drift is just as likely to head towards the point of aim as away from it. I have a smoothbore matchlock that easily shoots 3" groups at 50m with a big charge.
I am wondering if there were problems with the quality of the powder provided by the federal government at that time which may have limited the range of both the smooth bore and the rifled musket.
Interestingly enough the US Army purchased all its powder from private manufacturers during the Civil War. Mostly Hazard and Du Pont. For the most part it was pretty good powder, much better than the Reb stuff. The Confederates had no major powder mills in the south at the time of secession so they had to build government powder mills.
The typical limits on range and accuracy with a smooth bore are, just as with with a rifleman, the shooter. Any muzzle loader can have problems in consistency because of things like the accuracy of powder measured between shots. Another problem can be consistent ramming. If the ball is not compressing the powder load equally at each shot the muzzle velocity can vary some due to inconsistent powder ignition rates. That is true even using a muzzle loading rifle, where windage can be considerably easier to control than elevation. Military riflemen and hunters were trained or learned to be very consistent in loading the rifle (or musket) for consistent results.
You must be a pretty decent shot 💪 I was a LE range instructor for many years and I’ve had people who couldn’t hit a man size target for 7 out of 8 from bench rest with an iron sight AR lol Seriously though this was neat to see because I’ve always heard that smooth bore myth and didn’t know the truth either way. I would be interested to see this repeated from bench rest to see even more what the musket is capable of under ideal conditions
You know, i really hate how rude people are in the digital arena, covered by their bullshit pseudonym blankets. How dare he use such langauge and take up an attitude like that in such a discussion. No respect shown. '... run along and write another book' man needs a rocket up the mule-hole where the sun never cometh. Imbecile. Please dont let such jokers undermine your faith in the rest of us. I find your videos well thought out, thoughtfully delivered and fascinating. As an after thought i was genuinely surprised at the results of this test, that smoothbores could be that accurate at 100 yards makes the casualty returns of the Napoeonic era seem very low. However, i wonder if that was still to do with the reluctance of most common soldiers to taking anothers life, (apparently supported by evidence in letters and other testamony, though i suspect it was more of a thing in previous centuries. The idea appears to be that firing blindly amongst so many others gave individual soldiers the comfort of uncertainty, a little like the one blank round in a firing squad) many firing high in the hope of not committing a mortal sin. These were, afterall, much more religious times. Presumably when it came to close quarters all that went out the window.
One more possible explanation for why it's more of a U.S. myth, might be the terrain. A lot of fighting on U.S. soil has been in very wild terrain, even heavily wooded. That means lots of cover, harder to spot people, less of a target, etc. But the ammo inconsistency is also another possible factor. I've always heard that 100 yards was close to maximum range for smoothbore muskets, and that the low accuracy was the reason they were often used in volley fire rather than individual firing in wartime. This experiment honestly just affirms the understanding that, while incredibly inaccurate according to modern standards, it is still a useable weapon at longer ranges- though tactics to take into account the low accuracy are advised.
Cool demo! When I worked for NC historic sites, I had to certify with a repro model 1816 Harper's Ferry musket. At 25 - 30 yards it had surprisingly decent accuracy, considering it had no sights.
I dunno. A half inch hole sprouting in the body of your opponent makes his day substantially worse. As for the cesspit that is the comments section of any RU-vidr that deigns to offer an opinion on a subject (Heck, Brandon F continues to get pushback on stating the fact that slavery is bad.), everyone is an expert(tm) and youze guys don't know what you are talking about. (end sarcasm) Thanks for the object lesson in the accuracy of that particular boomstick.
Given the linear tactics of the period and the frequent use of massed fires, the smoothbore was still effective within its limitations. Troops in linear formation did not need to be snipers. Less acurate than a rifled musket: YES. Totally useless or ineffective: HARDLY!!!
Thanks for the video demonstration. On the topic of hitting standing man-sized targets at 100 yards, something I'd be interested to learn more about is soldiers lying down while fighting. It seems that many civil war accounts are full of this behavior while other blackpowder warfare is not? Does the rifle musket have anything to do with it, is it just a uniquely American approach, or have I been misled about the frequency of troops seeking cover in earlier wars?
A lot of it has to do with reloading, I am sure. Pouring powder down the muzzle doesn't work so well when you are prone. And then, prior to the US Civil War it was expected that you might have to close in and fight with bayonetts, or that the enemy would close with you. And if you are flat on your belly when the enemy charges things probably won't go so well for you. But, by the time of the US Civil War you had better quality black powder. You had many breechloading and cartridge firearms starting to show up. And you had the Minie Ball. This is a bullet with a hollow base that can be dropped down the bore of a rifle fairly easily. Then when the powder is ignited the pressure expands the bullet out so it grips the groves of the rifle. (I think there was a built in plug that actually expanded the bullet in most cases, the effect is the same.) You saw how easy it was to get the ball down the muzzle of this musket in the video? That's because the ball is a tiny bit undersized. But had that been a rifle instead of a musket he would have had to have hammered the bullet down as the bullet has to bite into the rifling when loaded. That meant muzzle loading rifles were significantly slower to load than a musket, thus most militaries relied mostly on muskets often with some rifles around for the sharpshooters. And that's what the Minie Ball changed, loads as fast as a musket and as accurate as a rifle... since the projectile is a bit more aerodynamic than a round ball, even more accurate. Also, the percussion cap replaced the flintlock ignition system. That gave you a shorter lock time, the time between pulling the trigger and the gun going bang, which increased accuracy a bit too. So, pretty early on in the Civil War it became obvious that you really should seek some cover whenever possible, hide behind a wall dig a trench, something. And, by WW1 with smokeless powder bolt action rifles firing streamlined jacketed bullets... You were asking for it if any part of you could be seen by the enemy.
Very nice. As General Layette commented, " no soldier was hit at 200 metres by a musket that WAS AIMED AT HIM" Meaning at 200 meters you likely hit the soldier next to your aim. The whole point of the smooth bore musket was the high rate of fire, so devastating in volley fire. Rifles were a precision weapon which took time to load.
Yes! That was the trade-off in the muzzle-loading era; rate of fire versus accuracy. This is why Gen. George Washington preferred the vast majority of his troops to have smoothbores, so they could sling more lead the enemy's way over the course of a battle. He also allowed for a few designated riflemen to "seek targets of opportunity," usually officers.
Hope you also have some insight on revolvers and other BP pistols. I myself use to think that smoothbore flintlock pistols were virtually useless but as of recently i'm not so sure.
USELESS? Stonners are Sawed OFF SHOT GUNS! called Pistols! the skill is the reliability of ignition, not the smooth of a bore. But I too would Love him to cover period pistols!
Ever since the death of the Great American Shopping Mall, the only place these loud-mouth mall ninjas can hang out is Faceboob and YooToob. Many of them still live in their mom's basement. Nothing ever changes.
Allow me to compliment the outstanding form of your musketry, sir. The way you handle that rod is supreme, as is your aim. Well done! And that smirk and smile. A man who knows he knows what he's doing. Good to see it!
Their guns were extremely accurate to the user they grew up shooting the same gun. It could be shooting curve balls at 100 yards but they knew where the curve would break.
Back in the 1980s I knew an ex Vietnam Vet, who had a great collection of firearms from all eras, his smoothbore muskets were are joy to behold. We regularly went shooting on a range and he always hit the target at 100 yards with said smoothbore of which he had several. He was also a talented gunsmith and made the most amazing one-off fire arms.
Yeah modern standards of "accuracy" have spoiled expectations. The spread is similar to buckshot, which is good enough to do the job, if it connects. Every one gets hung up on the difference between good enough, compared to modern attempts at perfection....
paper cartridges can you turn a musket into a combination of a double barrel side by side one and a muzzle of a single barrel blunderbuss like in the movie free birds and also can you turn a two eyed person into a one-eyed person too?
You know, you should refer to this guy that I have seen on RU-vid that is REALLY knowledgeable about this kind of stuff. I mean, the guy makes his own Black powder using research from the old books and then tests it with a period firearm and chronograph to show that it is delivering the same energy as the original. Heck, he even wrote a book about it. He also researched and wrote a whole book on the (oh, what's the word; something like para-something) change in going from shooting at 100 yards to 800 yards. This guy is so hardcore that he even had a machine made so that he can swage his bullets and not cast them just like the originals. I really wish that I could remember his name; you'd really like him. He even has an original portrait of the old English guy who was somehow important to old firearms. Civility will return when Dueling returns.
The Destroying Angel by Brett Gibbons (covering the paradigm shift of warfare from an entire army using rifles) The English Cartridge by Brett Gibbons (The development of the Prichett bullet) Like Fire and Powder by Brett Gibbons (making black powder) Handbook for the School of Musketry by Brett Gibbons The Universal Rifleman by Brett Gibbons (I only have No. 1 Vol. IV) The man does his research and experiments to back up the research and doesn't just repeat everyone else.@@Firevyth
I thought Karl at InRange did a video on this, but I was mistaken he used a rifle musket not a smoothbore, but he was getting 200 yard hits. I know a few guys who have used Brown Bess's and Charleville's for deer hunting, and if they use a proper thickness patch and good powder load to get a good tight seal, they have taken deer at 110-130 yards. I was lucky to hit the target at 75 yards when I tried it, but they know their muskets and are much more experienced shooting BP than I am. I just dabble, they hunt with their muskets year round. Deer, feral hogs, Mule Deer, Moose, Antelope, and Chet has taken 2 bears with his. And they tell me the range is usually between 70-120 yards.
@@juslitor I've gone hunting with them a few times and I've seen them take deer beyond 100 yards 3 times. And they never take more than 1 shot to get their deer. I know they weigh their loads and use T/C speedload containers with Swiss Powder. I was lucky I got my deer at 80 yards with my .50 frontier rifle. They had to help me track it almost a half mile. I got a good hit, but not good enough at the angle I hit it.
In respect of the comment you are answering, even if that were true, it ignores one thing. The weapon wasn't being used at 50 yards by a single sharpshooter to kill a single person (although a French sharpshooter managed to target and kill Nelson at this range in 1805 and that was between two moving ships). In reality the weapon was being used by scores of soldiers to lay down a sea of lead in the direction of a wall of enemy soldiers. I feel that the assumption that great accuracy was required is fundamentally the wrong starting assumption.
It’s honestly amazing how the Civil War saw the use of everything from and including smoothbore muskets to Gatling guns, and all of them had at least some viable use.
i had no problem gitting a gong at 50 meters the first (and only) time i shot a model 1842 replica from chiappa. since i'm a terrible shot, i don't see how a good shooter can miss with this thing. people seems to forget that the major cause of inaccuracy of muskets is the flintlock wich is not an easy thing to use. but the 1842 uses a percussion cap, basically it's a shotgun, and i know people that can shot round balls with 12 gauges with deadly accuracy at 100 meters...
This is a fantastic video. I think what a lot of people find confusing is that warfare during this period is very different from modern warfare in terms of the orders of battle and formation, as well as training. Many soldiers fought in ranks and their musketry training was generally very, very limited. However, if you line up a rank of troops on one side of a field and another rank on the other side of a field and point a musket vaguely in the right direction there's a good chance that - individually - you'll hit something and with simultaneous fire, the effect could be devastating. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the word 'accuracy' and in my view 'accuracy' is contextual. Is a smoothbore musket 'accurate' by modern standards and the standards required by a Police or military sniper? Absolutely not. Is a smoothbore musket accurate by the standards of the mid 19th Century and earlier, with two sides engaging in mass ranks? Yes. Evidently. Or they would not have persisted for as long as they did. Soldiers with rifles were generally specialist troops that acted as skirmishers to pick off individuals or to create confusion and thus 'accuracy' was a different concept within that context and required a higher standard. In modern terms, I suppose there's the modern notion of 'firepower'. There seems to be an with the general public that all military weapons need to be laser accurate. But very, very few rounds in battle ever actually hit anything. The goal of most military operations is to prevent the enemy from completing their objectives. You can either do that by killing or wounding them with accurate fire and/or surpressing them by putting rounds downrange. It is much easier to put a lot of rounds downrange and the side effect of that is that you're more likely to hit something. So your rifle being able to hit within 2 minutes of angle at 300 Yards is only really relevant in very specific circumstances.
Great observations! I like to think I am a fair/decent rifle shot, but even in army training with simunitions, which is very far removed from actual combat, I realized I was not even using the optic on my M4. Maybe a better trained more disciplined soldier would, but I realized I was just looking over the top of the barrel mostly. But the M4 is definitely capable of better accuracy (even with UTM simunitions) than I was using it. As a weapon system, it is inherently capable of fairly good shooting. And that was the point of this video. The criticism from the YT comment was that the smoothbore musket itself was inherently a “crap shoot” at 100 yards, no matter how calm or well trained the soldier shooting it. The gun itself just couldn’t do it, was the claim. So this video was just a test of the gun, in a definitely non battlefield context. The gun is certainly capable. Whether soldiers with them actually aimed in battle, probably not.
@@papercartridges6705 I've never shot in my life, let alone in a military context so your experience and knowledge is far more valid than mine - but I think the experience you describe with the M4 is very interesting in supporting the idea that getting rounds downrange is more important in modern situations. I think the widespread adoption of firearms in Europe (and by extension, North America) co-incides with the point that the capabilities of firearms exceed the skill of the average soldier. That's only a hunch but as you rightly imply, a soldier under the stress of combat isn't going to be using a weapons system to its full potential without a huge amount of specialist training.
@@papercartridges6705 It is funny you mention aiming over the barrel. I was reading a book (heard the same thing in a later interview with someone else) that when NATO forces were teaching a certain group of people in a certain country we used to fight in, the trainers could not get most to understand the concept of iron sights or even optics. Basically they ended teaching the soldier to aim down the barrel, using the front sight as a reference. Not quite as precise as the west would want out of a rifleman, but it worked in the stress of combat and they could hit their targets somewhat effectively within the ranges they were taught.
@@papercartridges6705isnt simunitions training close quarters? Such as room clearing? Im not a vet, but I was quite an enthusiastic hobbyist shooter who got some guidance from a buddy who is a retired military small arms instructor and he told that with room clearing using m4s that had the ACOG optics it ended up with the rifleman using point shooting techniques (aiming along or down or over the barrel, often using an index finger to "point" the weapon at a target) because the 4x optic at indoor ranges was just useless for various reasons. One can find an interesting WW2 training film here on youtube about using the M1911a1 pistol in combat, they taught point shooting out to i think 25 yards, at least 15 from what I recollect, and the footage shows fast and combat accurate hits, granted on a "static range" I digress, the topic of point shooting vs using sights in close range defense is a long ongoing debate.
This reminds me of the arguments about the Longbow and how effective it really was against armour etc etc. I bet these doubters wouldn't volunteer to be a target at 100yds to prove their point.💀
Seven and a half minutes later, he finally shoots the thing. How many days did it take you to shoot this video just because you got super butthurt by some idiots comment? Next time, just make a five minute video of you actually shooting the thing and getting some results.
At 150 yards, I am not liking someone shooting anything more than a spitball at me. Even if you missed center mass, a hit to the leg or the arm is a very bad day.
Smoothbores are very common until late 1862 even in Union Army … the 69th NYSV, Fighting 69th, even had Smoothbores “Buck and Ball” ammo at Gettysburg….. says so on their Payrolls (I have them) and at the Gettysburg National Park. My notes say they were issues Rifles in Early 1864. What you get is great long range with Rifles….. and that “Wizzzz” or buzzzz as the pass over.
Well it really depends on who is pulling the trigger on how aacuate a firearm might be. Put in good Southern hands, any weapon with dry powder should hit their mark. But in the hans of one of those blue bellies there's no telling where that round ball might land.😅
SOOoooo... you are going to "check out smooth-bore musket accuracy on the range"... Sooo .... why on earth stand up in the wind on two rocking feet and waggle the heavy musket at the target to analyze. . . Accuracy ?? At least lie down! go prone! This make no sense when you could easily have plopped it down on a bench and sandbags taking dead center with NO WIND! Only then could you properly opine upon inherent accuracy... or the lack thereof. But a well made and expostulated video, none the less. cheers!
There's a method to my madness... in past videos, I shot from the bench, and the comments section was filled with people saying "of course it's accurate from the bench, but that's not how Civil War soldiers shot, so this isn't a good test of anything." So I decided to shoot this standing, and if I could still hit 100 yard target a few times while rocking in the wind, holding up a ridiculously heavy musket, then I'd make my point even more emphatically than if I had benched it. I think from now on I need to shoot standing and bench, to keep both factions happy!
Why didn't you line up with a hundred men on your left and right whilst simultaneously being shot at with live artillery rounds and having mounted calvary charge your ranks? Until these changes are made, I consider your results invalid.
This RU-vid expert views this as almost completely pointless. He is not firing in a line with soldiers to his left, right and if in the front ranks, behind. His foot positioning is not shown so it’s hard to tell if he has the proper stance as would have been drilled to the point of making the movement second nature. And most importantly, he is not in battlefield conditions where he would be receiving fire, possibly witnessing fellow riflemen being shot, wounded and killed.
as an expert on youtube experts, my expertise is that the self-proclaimed expert who made this video is indeed an expert with an expertise as an expert.