most powerfull military percussion musket?

agent00 · January 12, 2006, 05:33 AM

Hi, its me again, with a new historical question: What was the most powerfull percussion military musket? Was there a model more powerfull when energy/wounding power is concerned ore where all percussion muskets equal in power?

thanks.

Hafoc · January 12, 2006, 06:34 PM

They weren't all equal in power, but since I read up on this a couple decades ago now I can't remember the details.

Do you mean percussion muskets or percussion RIFLE muskets? Because we didn't go straight from smoothbore flintlock muskets to percussion-lock, rifled ones. The first percussion muskets were more or less the old flintlocks retrofitted for percussion. I seem to remember that during the Civil War's early days, some of these were still in use, and that they were 69 caliber, firing either a round ball or "buck and ball--" a particularly nasty short range loading, in which the paper cartridge holding powder and projectile had one full-sized ball and several buckshot.

Anyway, if my memory is correct and they were .69 caliber, that was a tradition going back to the Revolution. The French used .69s, and gave us a lot of their muskets, so that sort of became the standard here for a while. The British musket, the famous Brown Bess, was a .75, and would therefore have been more powerful.

During the US Civil War, the two main rifled muskets used were the Springfield and the Enfield. The Springfield was a .58 caliber, firing a hollow-based slug universally but incorrectly known as a "minnie," after a certain French Army Captain Minie' , who invented a similar slug some years earlier. The Enfield was the British-manufactured equivalent. The South bought lots of them, and the North did too, partly because they needed them and partly to keep them away from the Rebs. The Enfield was a .577 caliber. In practice the difference in caliber wasn't great enough to prompt anybody to produce .58 and .577 ammunition both, although supposedly the Enfield was a bit harder to load (with the standard .58 minnie) when fouled, due to its slightly smaller bore.

There were numerous other muskets produced, usually copies of the Springfield or Enfield designs, by Colt and Remington and just about everyone else and his cousin, but they all used the same ammuniton and would have been equal in power.

The "Zouave Rifle" you can still buy as a replica is a copy of a Remington design that was produced, purchased, but apparently never used in combat. The Zouave is also a .58, but it was a rifle, not a rifled musket. That meant that its barrel was thicker and stronger, able to handle more gunpowder than the rifled muskets could. So it would have been more powerful, if it had been used.

During the opening days of the Civil War, guns were in such short supply that purchasing agents north and south were over in Europe snapping up whatever junk guns might happen to be sitting around. Some of them were earlier British rifled muskets, of a larger caliber (I think .75). The British tried these but found them too powerful for the soldiers to shoot well, so they studied the problem and ended up switching to .577. There were also some French, Dutch, and Prussian rifled muskets which if I remember correctly were up to .80 caliber. A lot of these guns had been converted from smoothbore and so kept their original larger caliber. They would have been powerful enough, but of course the fact that they were sitting around unused, ready for anybody desperate enough to buy them, speaks for itself.

agent00 · January 13, 2006, 04:10 AM

thx for your detailed answer. And am interested in the smooth bore and rifled models.

Weird Guy · January 13, 2006, 07:58 PM

Technically the biggest precussion cap fired musket were the cannons, but I assume you mean arms that humans can lift with their own arms, correct?

Little, fast moving bullets are good for accuracy.

Large, slow bullets do a lot of damage when they hit.

As far as I know the only musket I know that you can buy right now that is a powerful one is a Kodiak Express hunter's double barreled rifled musket from Cabelas. They come up to .72 caliber.

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/te...141&id=0006563

Hafoc · January 13, 2006, 09:31 PM

Found a book on my shelves that had a bit of information-- I wasn't quite correct.

The British smoothbore muskets, before 1850 or so, were .702 caliber. Their first rifled musket, the Model 1851, kept that same bore size so it could fire the round ball from the smoothbore Model 1842 in a pinch.

At 70 caliber, this would have been one powerful musket-- the rifled musket more powerful than the smoothbore, because the rifled version would fire a heavier, round-nosed cylindrical bullet, while smoothbores had to use round balls that weighed less.

But powerful as it was, it wasn't accurate. So they replaced it with the .58 pretty quickly.

**4V50 Gary** · January 14, 2006, 12:32 AM

I'm not so sure it was the lack of accuracy of the rifled musket that cause the British to adopt the smaller .58 (.577) caliber minie. I read somewhere that the weight of the cartridge had a lot to do with the decision to adopt it as the weight of a box full of .699 minies was substantially heavier than the .577. Recall that the original (Baker) rifle was musket bore and the newer ones were the smaller .62 caliber. I may have read this in Blackmore, but it's been a while.

agent00 · January 14, 2006, 03:00 AM

Thx again for informativ answers.

@Weird Guy You're right.

Weird Guy · January 14, 2006, 04:52 AM

You are welcome.

I assume you are looking seriously at getting the Kodiak Express then?

agent00 · January 14, 2006, 08:16 AM

Yes, I am saving money at the moment, and I will buy the Kodiak Express in a few months.

Polydorus · January 14, 2006, 08:42 AM

Hafoc said: "I seem to remember that during the Civil War's early days, some of these were still in use, and that they were 69 caliber, firing either a round ball or "buck and ball--" a particularly nasty short range loading, in which the paper cartridge holding powder and projectile had one full-sized ball and several buckshot."
Have you ever seen any data on the accuracy of buck and ball? It seems like the buckshot would tend to veer off. They wouldn't enhance the accuracy of the main projectile either.

Weird Guy · January 15, 2006, 12:11 AM

That is the point. Buckshot is supposed to wing off to the side. This is for the civil war and for firing into crowds of enemy soldiers and hitting as many as possible.

Polydorus · January 15, 2006, 08:34 AM

I subscribe to a mailing list which discusses the history of warfare. One individual maintains that a smooth bore firing buck and ball, one .68 ball and three buckshot, would get all four balls on target at 100 yards (size not defined but taken to be the advancing enemy. . . say a four foot square). I agree that this load would be very effective from zero to 30 yards or so. But it seems like a lot of the buckshot would either have hit the ground or gone over the heads of the advancing enemy at 100 yards. I was looking for some idea at what range buck and ball loses it's advantage.

Smokin_Gun · January 15, 2006, 10:25 AM

Well, think about a 12 or 10ga Goose Gun they travel a good distance with just #2 shot in um. Buckshot used in a 12ga Hunting Deer at 60-70 yards correct?
My .50cal Tennessee Rifle eith a 2 ball Deerload has a 6-8" spread at 100 yards with 60gr of FFg BP. Just for some comparisons. I'll have to try Buck and Ball at 100 yards with my 1863 Remington .58 and 60gr jus for the heck of it.

Polydorus · January 15, 2006, 10:54 AM

If I had a smooth bore muzzle loader I would try a little target shooting myself!

Unfortunately I can't find any data on what kind of groups buck and ball produce at various ranges. Since the four balls are put in a small cloth or paper sack they are not really comparable to modern shotgun loads of buckshot in a plastic cup. I think the buck would also diminish the accuracy of the main ball. Surely the load would have to be reduced for the extra weight of shot so point of impact would also shift. Lots of questions but no answers.

Steve499 · January 15, 2006, 09:12 PM

It's not buck and ball but the last time I was shooting my 1861 Springfield rifled musket, just for grins I shot one 5 shot group at 40 yards where I placed a .451 round ball into the base of the minie ball befori I loaded. I left everything else the same, 67 grains of FFg. The group was as good or better than those particular minies normally give me but were a cuople of inches lower on the target. The ball apparently stayed tucked in the base and the minie balls were stabilized o.k.

Steve

Polydorus · January 16, 2006, 10:58 AM

The pictures I've seen (x-rays of actual loaded Civil War guns) showed the buckshot ahead of the main ball. How was the recoil on your load with the extra ball?

Steve499 · January 16, 2006, 12:46 PM

The laws of physics mandate the recoil had to be greater but I really couldn't tell much if any difference. It was a cold day and I was wearing a heavy coat so that may be why that was. I may try it again with some hollow based minie wadcutters which are more accurate than the traditional minies out of my rifle just to see if it affects the accuracy on them.

Steve

January 12, 2006, 05:33 AM	#1
agent00 Member Join Date: March 6, 2005 Posts: 95	most powerfull military percussion musket? Hi, its me again, with a new historical question: What was the most powerfull percussion military musket? Was there a model more powerfull when energy/wounding power is concerned ore where all percussion muskets equal in power? thanks.

January 14, 2006, 12:32 AM	#6
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 21,831	I'm not so sure it was the lack of accuracy of the rifled musket that cause the British to adopt the smaller .58 (.577) caliber minie. I read somewhere that the weight of the cartridge had a lot to do with the decision to adopt it as the weight of a box full of .699 minies was substantially heavier than the .577. Recall that the original (Baker) rifle was musket bore and the newer ones were the smaller .62 caliber. I may have read this in Blackmore, but it's been a while. __________________ Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. *Molon Labe!*

January 15, 2006, 10:25 AM	#13
Smokin_Gun Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 2005 Location: Mojave Desert, CA Posts: 1,195	Well, think about a 12 or 10ga Goose Gun they travel a good distance with just #2 shot in um. Buckshot used in a 12ga Hunting Deer at 60-70 yards correct? My .50cal Tennessee Rifle eith a 2 ball Deerload has a 6-8" spread at 100 yards with 60gr of FFg BP. Just for some comparisons. I'll have to try Buck and Ball at 100 yards with my 1863 Remington .58 and 60gr jus for the heck of it. __________________ "I Smoke Black Powder" "Favor an 1858 Remington" SGT. Smokin' Gun, Mosby's Rangers 43rd Virginia Cavalry C.S.A. SASS# 19634, ... Admin:http://blackpowdersmoke.com/oldcoots/index.php

January 12, 2006, 06:34 PM	#2
Hafoc Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2005 Posts: 552	They weren't all equal in power, but since I read up on this a couple decades ago now I can't remember the details. Do you mean percussion muskets or percussion RIFLE muskets? Because we didn't go straight from smoothbore flintlock muskets to percussion-lock, rifled ones. The first percussion muskets were more or less the old flintlocks retrofitted for percussion. I seem to remember that during the Civil War's early days, some of these were still in use, and that they were 69 caliber, firing either a round ball or "buck and ball--" a particularly nasty short range loading, in which the paper cartridge holding powder and projectile had one full-sized ball and several buckshot. Anyway, if my memory is correct and they were .69 caliber, that was a tradition going back to the Revolution. The French used .69s, and gave us a lot of their muskets, so that sort of became the standard here for a while. The British musket, the famous Brown Bess, was a .75, and would therefore have been more powerful. During the US Civil War, the two main rifled muskets used were the Springfield and the Enfield. The Springfield was a .58 caliber, firing a hollow-based slug universally but incorrectly known as a "minnie," after a certain French Army Captain Minie' , who invented a similar slug some years earlier. The Enfield was the British-manufactured equivalent. The South bought lots of them, and the North did too, partly because they needed them and partly to keep them away from the Rebs. The Enfield was a .577 caliber. In practice the difference in caliber wasn't great enough to prompt anybody to produce .58 and .577 ammunition both, although supposedly the Enfield was a bit harder to load (with the standard .58 minnie) when fouled, due to its slightly smaller bore. There were numerous other muskets produced, usually copies of the Springfield or Enfield designs, by Colt and Remington and just about everyone else and his cousin, but they all used the same ammuniton and would have been equal in power. The "Zouave Rifle" you can still buy as a replica is a copy of a Remington design that was produced, purchased, but apparently never used in combat. The Zouave is also a .58, but it was a rifle, not a rifled musket. That meant that its barrel was thicker and stronger, able to handle more gunpowder than the rifled muskets could. So it would have been more powerful, if it had been used. During the opening days of the Civil War, guns were in such short supply that purchasing agents north and south were over in Europe snapping up whatever junk guns might happen to be sitting around. Some of them were earlier British rifled muskets, of a larger caliber (I think .75). The British tried these but found them too powerful for the soldiers to shoot well, so they studied the problem and ended up switching to .577. There were also some French, Dutch, and Prussian rifled muskets which if I remember correctly were up to .80 caliber. A lot of these guns had been converted from smoothbore and so kept their original larger caliber. They would have been powerful enough, but of course the fact that they were sitting around unused, ready for anybody desperate enough to buy them, speaks for itself.

January 13, 2006, 04:10 AM	#3
agent00 Member Join Date: March 6, 2005 Posts: 95	thx for your detailed answer. And am interested in the smooth bore and rifled models.

January 13, 2006, 07:58 PM	#4
Weird Guy Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Posts: 82	Technically the biggest precussion cap fired musket were the cannons, but I assume you mean arms that humans can lift with their own arms, correct? Little, fast moving bullets are good for accuracy. Large, slow bullets do a lot of damage when they hit. As far as I know the only musket I know that you can buy right now that is a powerful one is a Kodiak Express hunter's double barreled rifled musket from Cabelas. They come up to .72 caliber. http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/te...141&id=0006563

January 13, 2006, 09:31 PM	#5
Hafoc Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2005 Posts: 552	Found a book on my shelves that had a bit of information-- I wasn't quite correct. The British smoothbore muskets, before 1850 or so, were .702 caliber. Their first rifled musket, the Model 1851, kept that same bore size so it could fire the round ball from the smoothbore Model 1842 in a pinch. At 70 caliber, this would have been one powerful musket-- the rifled musket more powerful than the smoothbore, because the rifled version would fire a heavier, round-nosed cylindrical bullet, while smoothbores had to use round balls that weighed less. But powerful as it was, it wasn't accurate. So they replaced it with the .58 pretty quickly.

January 14, 2006, 03:00 AM	#7
agent00 Member Join Date: March 6, 2005 Posts: 95	Thx again for informativ answers. @Weird Guy You're right.

January 14, 2006, 04:52 AM	#8
Weird Guy Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Posts: 82	You are welcome. I assume you are looking seriously at getting the Kodiak Express then?

January 14, 2006, 08:16 AM	#9
agent00 Member Join Date: March 6, 2005 Posts: 95	Yes, I am saving money at the moment, and I will buy the Kodiak Express in a few months.

January 14, 2006, 08:42 AM	#10
Polydorus Senior Member Join Date: October 5, 2005 Posts: 144	Hafoc said: "I seem to remember that during the Civil War's early days, some of these were still in use, and that they were 69 caliber, firing either a round ball or "buck and ball--" a particularly nasty short range loading, in which the paper cartridge holding powder and projectile had one full-sized ball and several buckshot." Have you ever seen any data on the accuracy of buck and ball? It seems like the buckshot would tend to veer off. They wouldn't enhance the accuracy of the main projectile either.

January 15, 2006, 12:11 AM	#11
Weird Guy Member Join Date: December 23, 2005 Posts: 82	That is the point. Buckshot is supposed to wing off to the side. This is for the civil war and for firing into crowds of enemy soldiers and hitting as many as possible.

January 15, 2006, 08:34 AM	#12
Polydorus Senior Member Join Date: October 5, 2005 Posts: 144	I subscribe to a mailing list which discusses the history of warfare. One individual maintains that a smooth bore firing buck and ball, one .68 ball and three buckshot, would get all four balls on target at 100 yards (size not defined but taken to be the advancing enemy. . . say a four foot square). I agree that this load would be very effective from zero to 30 yards or so. But it seems like a lot of the buckshot would either have hit the ground or gone over the heads of the advancing enemy at 100 yards. I was looking for some idea at what range buck and ball loses it's advantage.

January 15, 2006, 10:54 AM	#14
Polydorus Senior Member Join Date: October 5, 2005 Posts: 144	If I had a smooth bore muzzle loader I would try a little target shooting myself! Unfortunately I can't find any data on what kind of groups buck and ball produce at various ranges. Since the four balls are put in a small cloth or paper sack they are not really comparable to modern shotgun loads of buckshot in a plastic cup. I think the buck would also diminish the accuracy of the main ball. Surely the load would have to be reduced for the extra weight of shot so point of impact would also shift. Lots of questions but no answers.

January 15, 2006, 09:12 PM	#15
Steve499 Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Central Missouri Posts: 533	It's not buck and ball but the last time I was shooting my 1861 Springfield rifled musket, just for grins I shot one 5 shot group at 40 yards where I placed a .451 round ball into the base of the minie ball befori I loaded. I left everything else the same, 67 grains of FFg. The group was as good or better than those particular minies normally give me but were a cuople of inches lower on the target. The ball apparently stayed tucked in the base and the minie balls were stabilized o.k. Steve

January 16, 2006, 10:58 AM	#16
Polydorus Senior Member Join Date: October 5, 2005 Posts: 144	The pictures I've seen (x-rays of actual loaded Civil War guns) showed the buckshot ahead of the main ball. How was the recoil on your load with the extra ball?

January 16, 2006, 12:46 PM	#17
Steve499 Senior Member Join Date: December 14, 2004 Location: Central Missouri Posts: 533	The laws of physics mandate the recoil had to be greater but I really couldn't tell much if any difference. It was a cold day and I was wearing a heavy coat so that may be why that was. I may try it again with some hollow based minie wadcutters which are more accurate than the traditional minies out of my rifle just to see if it affects the accuracy on them. Steve